The Common Ills

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

BuzzFlash interviews Bob Herbert (NYT columnist) and a BuzzFlash news analysis

BuzzFlash has an interview with the New York Times' Bob Herbert. Here's an excerpt:

BuzzFlash: It was a war of the people. We felt as one nation, fighting a common enemy. Americans of all different backgrounds were thrown together in the military, although the armed forces were still segregated until Korea. Now we have a war in Iraq about which there's really no sense of community involvement. There's approval or disapproval ratings, but it's hardly on the radar of everyone's daily life here. It's almost like the U.S. is running a business overseas or something.
Bob Herbert: I think that's an extremely important point because it's the opposite to the idea of a sense of community. If you talk to ordinary citizens about this, to people who are doing well financially and who are pretty well educated, say, to kids on college campuses who are looking ahead to a career, they might have a feeling pro or con about the war. But if you ask them if they would ever consider joining the service and fighting in that war, the answer is invariably no. If you ask parents who are reasonably well off whether they would allow their children to go and fight in Iraq, the answer is absolutely no. That's one of the reasons the military is having trouble meeting its recruitment goals. Parents are saying, hey, my kid might go to Iraq and get killed in this thing. No, we’re not going to encourage the kid to sign up for the military.
A lot of the young people who are off fighting in Iraq, some doing two or three tours over there, are people who joined the service or maybe the reserves or the National Guard to get an education, to get a little bit of extra income -- that sort of thing. They did not join up with the idea that they would actually have to go off to the Middle East and fight in a war like this. So you lose the sense of community. You have a split between the people who are actually doing the hard work of fighting the war, and then the people back home for whom, as you point out, the war is just a peripheral issue at best.
BuzzFlash: One of the things that certainly gets our goat is the young Republicans on campuses who tend to be rather militant and radical, and will disrupt people who are anti-war, yet do not seem to be volunteering to serve in Iraq.
Bob Herbert: They're not volunteering to serve in Iraq, and neither did many of our public officials who promoted this war. They had an opportunity to fight for their country in Vietnam. They didn't do that either. And it sort of gets my goat. I'm a veteran. I got drafted during the big build-up to the war in Vietnam. Luckily, I did not get sent to Vietnam. I went to Korea. But I lost a lot of friends in that war. I saw the split, then, between the people who were drafted or enlisted and had to fight the war, and the people who were able to get deferments. I had friends on both sides of that divide.
War is something that is not just dangerous wherever you're fighting and dangerous for the troops involved. War is something that wounds the spirit of the country here at home, and creates splits that take an awful long time to heal. We saw that in Vietnam and I’m afraid we're going to see that again in Iraq.

BuzzFlash is offering Bob Herbert's book Promises Betrayed as a premium.

Also from BuzzFlash is this news analysis "Reality Hurts The Ratings, Scares Away Advertisers, And Upsets The White House." Here's an excerpt (and try to make a point to check BuzzFlash at least once a day):

Don't you think the press might have been sensitive to the hypocrisy of a president who teaches "absolute" moral values and denounces the allegedly low moral standards of television having his wife employ the same kind of humor? No, not this crowd of D.C. mainstream press insiders. They are so cynical and complacent with their fat paychecks that they just consider the whole presidency a performance. There aren't REALLY issues. There are just appearances to be "reviewed" and power plays to be reported on. Most of the people in that room, are, in essence (whatever their titles), political entertainment reporters working for largely entertainment companies, where their news divisions are just another form of entertainment.
And they know that they can never, ever personally question the credibility of America's Bulljiver-in-Chief, George W. Bush, because they would be out of a job within hours of THE call to their publisher from Karl Rove.
In light of this weekend's journalistic malfeasance by most of the mainstream media, we went out and rented the 1992 film "Bob Roberts" (done in faux documentary style), written by and starring Tim Robbins.
Just call it clairvoyant, prescient, brilliant.
If this incredibly insightful film did not warn America what was headed our way -- a politics ruled by cynical emotional and media manipulation -- through performance -- for the benefit of the wealthy -- then nothing did.
Tim Robbins, who BuzzFlash readers will remember was kept from attending an anniversary showing of "Bull Durham" at the Cooperstown Hall of Fame by the Busheviks because he and his wife, Susan Sarandon, opposed the Iraq War, plays the role of a Pennsylvania Senate candidate. His political statements exist almost solely of parodies of Bob Dylan's songs that belittle the poor, the weak and extol the virtues of wealth, selfishness and manipulative "Patriotic" symbols. The "Anti-Dylan" candidacy is meant to focus on how corrupting the '60s were to America's moral fiber. He literally "performs" his campaign of greed and blaming the victim rather than speaking to any specific issues.
Of course, Roberts is a corrupt hypocrite, but that's another story.
Sound familiar.
Robbins is Bush with a guitar, although Bob Roberts (the fictional candidate) surpasses Bush in that he was actually a success at business.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Posted at 05:03 pm by thecommonills
Permalink

Editorial: Justice Denied or Justice Delayed? Priscilla Owens wants on the federal bench

Willie Searcy.

Do you know that name? You should.

Searcy died in July 2001.

He didn't die of old age. He didn't die of "hard living" (however some moralists might want to define that).

Some might argue he died as a result of 'judicial neglect. '

Why does this matter?

The story starts in Texas (as so many seem to these days). Searcy's alive, it's 1993, he's traveling in a 1988 Ford truck. Traveling, not driving, he's only 14 years old.

Leaning forward as another car crossed the grassy median of I-35 and slammed into the Ford truck. Searcy's brother and step-father were, for the most part, unharmed. Willie Searcy wasn't so lucky. Why was that? As Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose noted, "The tension eliminator--the little mechanism that allows for slack in the shoulder belt-- didn't take up the slack
. . ." (Bushwhacked, p. 253)

So what happened? "The boy's chest hit the dashboard, tearing all the posterior ligaments that keep the skull in its proper place in relation to the spinal column" (ibid). What does that mean? It means a fourteen-year-old boy was left paralyzed and requiring a ventilator to breathe. It means a child was left needing "attendance twenty-four hours a day -- in order to stay alive" (ibid, p. 254).

And Willie's mother and step-father? Besides the tragedy of what's happened to their formerly active teenage son, they're also dealing with a financial nightmare of nonstop medical bills. Due to what was seen as a faulty seat belt, Willie's parents sued Ford. Ford tried to delay the trial early on. Willie's family got lucky at first, their judge was Donald Ross and he refused to delay the trial.

The trial moved quickly and the jury found Ford liable and awarded thirty million dollars in actual damages and ten million dollars in puntive damages. In a movie, there's your happy ending (or the closest to one you'll get). Willie Searcy's parents will be able to afford the care their child needs and vindication gives you the uplift.

But this wasn't a movie. Ford hires Baker Botts to defend them in their appeal. Proving that the house always wins, one of the judges hearing the appeal having earlier received $24,450 in contributions from Baker Botts.

By the way, this judge has a name, Priscilla Owens.

Sound familiar? Bully Boy's nominated her for the federal bench.

Again. Democrats were able to block her last go round. This time, who knows?

But you knew Willie's story didn't have a happy ending, so even if you've never heard of him before, you probably aren't surprised that Priscilla Owens has popped into the story, are you?

So when Owens, writing for the court, hands down the opinion (1996) you probably aren't surprised to learn that her symathies aren't with a paralyzed child. One who need costly medical care to live. Her concerns are elsewhere. And possibly since she had all the time in the world, she felt that Willie did as well?

Maybe her sympathies were with Ford because she likes a good truck?

Who knows?

What is known is that people (outside of Ford) have a hard time seeing this is as "justice."
Willie died waiting for justice. And what the court delivered (with Owens writing the opinion) didn't resemble a sound legal argument. It's hard to argue rule of law when you base your ruling on a law that no longer exists.

Is she inept? Is she just someone who trips the sunny side of the street to saddle up to big business while thumbing her nose at the people? Or maybe as a judge, she didn't feel part of her job was keeping up to speed with legislation? Maybe she had other things to do? Willie was just trying to stay alive.

Who knows what Priscilla Owens was trying to do? What we do know is that July 3, 2001, Willie died. His ventilator failed, the system failed. Priscilla Owens is part of that system.

In 1995, things looked much differently for Willie and his family. They'd won their case. A jury had awarded damages. Owens is part of a system that drug the case out and prevented monies from being awarded when they could have helped pay for the care that would have saved Willie's life.

Judges make difficult decisions. No question. And the law isn't always fair. A judge who does the legal thing may not be doing the right thing. When that happens, whether you agree with the decision or not, you can fall back on the fact that it reflected the laws in place. But that's not what happened with Owens's decision. As a judge, ruling on what was for all intents and purposes a life or death case (other judges involved grasped the life or death issues involved), Owens didn't fall back on the law. She fell back on an outmoded law that the Texas legislature had already rendered obsolete.

Maybe it's not her fault Willie's dead?

But wasn't it her job to know the law? And as a judge, wasn't it her job to ensure that justice moved at a reasonable rate?

Owens want to serve on the federal bench. Owens wants Americans to rally to her cause. Owens wants the Senate to confirm her.

That's a lot of wants.

I think Willie & his family just wanted a fair hearing in a reasonable amount of time. They didn't get their want.

We all know what Owens wants, but has she earned the right to sit on the federal bench?

--------------------------------
Yes, this is the entry long promised (two Fridays ago). Sorry for the delay. (I believe it was April 22nd but the archives for April stop at April 20th so I could be wrong.) I'd urged members to consult Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose's Bushwhacked (specifically refer to pages 2309-239). This entry is based on their reporting there.

I'd also recommend Lou Dubose's "Trial and Error: How Priscilla Owen 'poured out' Willie Searcey" from the April 25, 2003 Texas Monthly.

You can also check out the Reporter-News Online: Texas News for the July 16, 2002 article entitled "Death of Plaintiff Could Haunt Nominee."

And Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin's "The Progress Report" (which they wrote with Nico Pitney and Mipe Okunseinde) is worth reading as well.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Posted at 05:02 pm by thecommonills
Permalink

Democracy Now: Danfur Genocide, Daniel Ellsberg, Students occupy Univ. of Hawaii; Daily Howler, Matthew Rothschild, Ruth Conniff, Amitabh Pal

Democracy Now! (Marcia: "always worth watching"):

Headlines for May 3, 2005
- Two Dozen More Die In Iraq; 140 Dead Since Friday
- Gen. Myers: U.S. Military Is Overextended
- Military Recruiters Caught Urging Student to Lie
- Annan Urges U.S. & Russia To Reduce Nuclear Arsenal
- NJ Officials Post $1M Reward For Capture of Assata Shakur
- Farrakhan, Jackson Announced Millions More March
- Family of Slain UK Journalist Sues Israel
- Boston to Pay Family $5M For Pepper Spray Pellet Death

Bush Administration Allied With Sudan Despite Role in Darfur Genocide
The Los Angeles Times has revealed that the U.S. has quietly forged a close intelligence partnership with Sudan despite the government's role in the mass killings in Darfur. We speak with Ken Silverstein, the reporter who broke the story, Salih Booker, the director of Africa Action as well as Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ).

Pentagon Papers Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg Blasts U.S. Nuclear Proliferation Policies
It's been 60 years since the dawn of the nuclear age. Thirty years since the end of the Vietnam War. We speak with a man who helped end that war - Vietnam whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg.

Students Occupy Univ. of Hawaii Building to Protest Construction of Military Center
A group of students at the University of Hawaii have been occupying the administration building to protest the construction of a Navy Military Research Center on their campus. We speak with one of the students occupying the building.

Over at The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby is expanding on yesterday's theme regarding Democrats blowing TV time on the Sunday Chat & Chews. Tiffany e-mailed that she wished that had been highlighted yesterday so since Somberby's expanding on it today, we'll excerpt from that section which focuses on Nancy Pelosi's remarks on Social Security:

PELOSI: I'm setting up the--why there is a problem. Secondly, you can't take the money with no intention of paying it back. When President Reagan and Speaker O'Neill went to the table they established a robust trust fund that would keep us, this trust fund solvent and pay full benefits until the middle of the 21st century. Take whichever date you want. This proposal that the president put forth on Friday is an assault on the middle class, a guaranteed stream of income for them will now be reduced. The president says we're helping lower income people more. No, lower income people are, excuse me, are treated the same.
Let's say it straight--Democrats should be appalled, insulted, enraged, dismayed, to suffer this kind of representation. This chaotic conversation went on and on (text below)--but Pelosi was inept, unprepared.
In closing, let's make one important point about the way Dems might approach this.
This whole discussion starts with a forecast--the forecast of the SS trustees, who say that there will be a $3.7 trillion shortfall over 75 years. But Dems are under no obligation to accept this gloomy projection. Indeed, at the start of her session with Stephanopoulos, Pelosi rejected this gloomy forecast; she said she preferred the CBO forecast, under which the problem doesn’t begin until 2052. But as is typical of her work on this subject, Pelosi failed to make an obvious connection. If the CBO forecast is the one we use, the projected shortfall is only $2 trillion. But according to conventional accounts, the Pozen plan which Bush is pimping cuts benefits by $3 trillion during that time-span. In other words, Bush is massively slashing benefits to stem a shortfall which may not even exist. If Pelosi prefers the CBO forecast, Bush is cutting benefits by 50 percent more than is needed to achieve budget balance.
For ourselves, we'd very much like to see Big Dems discuss that CBO forecast. But uh-oh! This party just can't get its stories straight. On Meet the Press, Dodd gave a coherent reply to the basic question--but he insisted, completely falsely, that "every single actuary" agrees with the gloomy SS forecast. And even as he was making this claim, Pelosi was saying precisely the opposite over on ABC. But Pelosi, preferring the CBO forecast, failed to note that the CBO projects a substantially smaller shortfall. This is the gang that can't talk straight--even when straight-talk suits their purpose.

From The Progressive, Brent notes Matthew Rothschild's latest "This Just In" which deals with a woman who made signs for her front yard (political signs). From the article:

In the fall, the Secret Service gave her a call.
"They said they wanted to ask me some questions," she recalls. "I said sure. They said someone called them and said I had signs up in my yard that were threatening the President. I said I did have some signs in my yard, but I wasn't threatening the President. The worst I've ever said was that he's an Evildoer. And this Secret Service man specifically asked me about the sign about Mr. Cheney. He said, "That's from revelations." I said, "Yes, I have no desire to destroy anybody. I'm just quoting out of the Bible." His name, she said, was Agent Brian Atkins.
Then on January 11, she had some unexpected visitors.
"I was actually taking a nap, and there was a knock on my door, there was a West Virginia State Trooper and a Secret Service agent," she says, identifying them as Trooper R. J. Boggs and Agent James Lanham. "They asked to come in. And I let them. And they started interviewing me."

Also at The Progressive, Ruth Conniff wonders about the state of the Republican Party:

There's reason to hope that the Republicans are cracking up. Barbara Boxer thinks so. I talked to her a few days ago in Washington--on the day the Republican leadership rejected Harry Reid's compromise to end the Senate filibuster standoff. It was "a perfectly reasonable compromise," said Senator Boxer, the combative hero of the left who is also friends with Senator Reid, the deal-making, pro-life leader of the Senate Democrats. Now, Boxer said, people are beginning to see how extreme the Republicans really are.
Since then there's been a lot of speculation about what is really going on in Senate back rooms. Was the deal Reid offered craftily designed to fail, and thus make the Republicans look stubborn and unreasonable? Or were the Democrats giving away the store--offering to confirm rightwing judges they had previously rejected, and even promising not to filibuster a Bush Supreme Court nominee?

And (still at The Progressive), we'll note Amitabh Pal's latest entry at his blog:

Why isn't Bush being more strongly criticized for inviting Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to his ranch on Monday?
If ever there was an existing medieval theocracy that fits the definition, it's the Saudi monarchy. It is the most fundamentalist country in the world, period. The monarchy is unaccountable to its people. Women have an almost total absence of basic rights. Immigrant workers are grossly abused. A visit I made to the country in 2002 as part of a group of journalists confirmed some of this firsthand for me.
"Human rights violations are pervasive in Saudi Arabia," says Human Rights Watch in its 2005 annual survey. "Many basic rights are not protected under Saudi law, political parties are not allowed, and freedom of expression remains extremely limited." Recent reforms have not altered the basic nature of the monarchy, as Human Rights Watch points out in several new reports.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Posted at 05:00 pm by thecommonills
Permalink

New York Times this morning: Does Bully Boy listen to Gen. Richard B. Myers?

In this morning's New York Times, we'll note Thom Shanker's "Pentagon Says Iraq Effort Limits Ability to Fight Other Conflicts:"

The concentration of American troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the Pentagon's ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts, the military's highest ranking officer reported to Congress on Monday.
The officer, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed Congress in a classified report that major combat operations elsewhere in the world, should they be necessary, would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let's note that first paragraph one more time:

The concentration of American troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the Pentagon's ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts, the military's highest ranking officer reported to Congress on Monday.

Now flashback on last Thursday's press conference:

Q: Do you feel that the number of troops that you've kept there is limiting your options elsewhere in the world?
Just today you had the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency say that he was now concerned that the North Koreans, for example, could put a nuclear weapon on a missile that could reach Japan or beyond.
Do you feel, as you're confronting these problems, the number of troops you've left tied up in Iraq is limiting your options to go beyond the diplomatic solutions that you've described for North Korea, Iran?
BUSH: I appreciate that question.
The person I asked that to _ the person I asked that to, at least, is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, my top military adviser.
I said, Do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq? And the answer is no, he doesn't feel we're limited. He feels like we've got plenty of capacity.
You mentioned the Korean Peninsula. We've got good capacity in Korea.
We've traded troops for new equipment, as you know. We've brought some troops _ our troop levels down in South Korea, but replaced those troops with more capacity. [. . .]

The person he asked that to (his wording) was "the chairman of the Joint Chiefs." That would be Meyers who has just informed Congress (as reported in this morning's Times) that Iraq limits the military's abilities. Does Bully Boy just not get it? Does he hear one thing but say another?
Was he winging it in the press conference? Does he pay attention to anything that a leader should?

(Those are open-ended questions that you'll need to complete in essay form.)

Jonah e-mails to note Damien Cave's "Army Recruiters Say They Feel Pressure to Bend Rules:"

Interviews with more than two dozen recruiters in 10 states hint at the extent of their concern, if not the exact scope of the transgressions. Several spoke of concealing mental-health histories and police records. They described falsified documents, wallet-size cheat sheets slipped to applicants before the military's aptitude test and commanding officers who look the other way. And they voiced doubts about the quality of some troops destined for the front lines.
The recruiters insisted on anonymity to avoid being disciplined, but their accounts were consistent, and the specifics were verified in several cases by documents and interviews with military officials and applicants' families.
Yesterday, the issue drew national attention as CBS News reported that a high-school student outside Denver recorded two recruiters as they advised him how to cheat. The student, David McSwane, said one recruiter had told him how to create a diploma from a nonexistent school, while the other had helped him buy a product to cleanse traces of marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms from his body. The Army said the recruiters had been suspended while it investigated.
By the Army's own count, there were 320 substantiated cases of what it calls recruitment improprieties in 2004, up from 199 in 1999, the last year it missed its active-duty recruitment goal, and 213 in 2002, the year before the war in Iraq started. The offenses varied from threats and coercion to false promises that applicants would not be sent to Iraq. Many incidents involved more than one recruiter, and the number of those investigated rose to 1,118 last year, or nearly one in five of all recruiters, up from 913 in 2002, or one in eight.

Liang e-mails to highlight Douglas Jehl's "3 Ex-Officials Describe Bullying by Bolton:"

The three former officials provided the accounts in interviews with the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, according to transcripts of the conversations. The committee is reviewing Mr. Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations.
The firsthand accounts came from a former ambassador to South Korea, a former assistant secretary of state, and the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency's weapons proliferation center. All three described Mr. Bolton as unwilling to listen to alternative views, the transcripts show, and two provided new details about episodes in which he sought to punish those who challenged his positions.
[. . .]
One of the former officials, John S. Wolf, who served under Mr. Bolton as an assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, described three different occasions in which he said Mr. Bolton had sought to punish those with whom he had clashed. "I believe that it would be fair to say that some of the officers within my bureau complained that they felt undue pressure to conform to the views of the under secretary, versus the views that they could support," Mr. Wolf said, according to the transcript.

Erika e-mails to note Abby Goodnough's "State Judge Allows Teenager in Florida to Get an Abortion:"

A circuit court judge in Florida has ruled that a pregnant teenager in state custody can get an abortion over the state's objections, a lawyer involved in the case said Monday night.
The lawyer, Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, said the judge, Ronald Alvarez of Palm Beach County Circuit Court, ruled that the girl was competent to make decisions regarding her pregnancy and had the right to do so under the state's Constitution.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Posted at 04:26 am by thecommonills
Permalink

Monday, May 02, 2005

Isaiah's contribution

There's a post now of Isaiah's contribution for the community. He felt the community could use some visuals (I agree).

I was able to increase the size slightly but not by much. In addition, I was the f**king tracer (a joke anyone who's seen Chasing Amy will get). Isaiah's scan wasn't working with the program Rebecca's taught me to use (which I'm sure is something I'm doing wrong) so I went into the program and attempted to outline it to make sure things showed up.

Point? As drawn by Isaiah it's outstanding. If anything's messed up, blame it on my tracing.

I'll continue to try to work on figuring out how to increase the size of scans on my end.

Isaiah will be contributing when he's inspired. We both hope that each Sunday, there will be one contribution to share with the community. But that's a hope.

The drawing is slighty bigger if you click on it. (And a lot bigger for a few seconds.) The size is my screw up (my apologies to Isaiah) and hopefully we can all practice patience (including me) while I try to figure out how to use this program.

For more on Isaiah, go to Rebecca's blog where she'll have an entry on Isaiah posted. (It's not up yet, I just e-mailed her to let her know Isaiah's first drawing was up.) Gina and Krista will have a something with Isaiah in their upcoming round-robin (and they'll be reproducing this as an attachment).

Kat does Kat's Korner where she comments on music. Ruth is doing Ruth's Morning Edition Report. Rob & Kara will continue to weigh in with their studies. Members have shared poems, editorials and comments. We're a community so any member who's like to share is encouraged to do so (one time or regularly). On my end, if it requires learning something new (like it will with Isaiah), I'll study up (but don't expect perfection).

I'm really happy with Isaiah's contribution and I hope you are as well.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Posted at 11:13 pm by thecommonills
Permalink

Isaiah's editorial cartoon

Please note that community member Isaiah has a cartoon up at the site. I'm not able to post photos or drawings here (that I know of), so I'll refer you to the this entry.

Posted at 11:12 pm by thecommonills
Permalink

Attempting to post something from Isaiah; comments on Bruce Springsteen and Judy Collins' new albums (comments, not reviews)

Here's what's planned to be coming up shortly (within an hour), community member Isaiah has an entry he'd like to share. I'll be using a new software program while attempting to post it. So if it does work, it may take an hour to get it posted.

(gina & krista round-robin readers know what Isaiah's contribution is.)

I'll also add, to correct something, that I do have Judy Collins' Portrait of an American Girl and Bruce Springsteen's Devils & Dust. They were in get well packages and I heard from the givers after the post went up where I mentioned that I didn't have them. So I was incorrect. (I'm not big on those sacks with crepe paper and had left them on a huge table in this room without going through them. There were also some DVDS, a few books, etc.) (I'm also not a big fan of wrapping paper as anyone who's received gifts from me could attest.)

I haven't listened to Devils & Dust (which I have three copies of). I tried playing one copy on the JVC and on the Sony. No luck with either. It's the new CD format (where the disc is thicker because one side is audio and the other is a DVD). When the Times had reported on this new format, they'd noted that some stereo systems wouldn't be able to play them. I'm assuming that I will be able to listen on my DVD players (stand alones or the DVD drive on this computer). Possibly, it will also play on the jam box, but I haven't attempted it. (That's for Charlie who's not been able to get his copy to play either.)

But, Susan, the Judy Collins album is really good, I agree. If anyone is a Judy Collins' fan, I'll join Susan in suggesting that you check out Portrait of an American Girl.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Posted at 11:09 pm by thecommonills
Permalink

40 Community Members weigh in on PBS

E-mails came in regarding PBS. Of the three hundred and seventy-four that arrived after this morning's post which dealt with PBS, forty wanted to be quoted. There's not one answer and there's a wide range of opinion in the community. (E-mails that arrived this morning are not included in the count because they largely dealt with "Can you believe this?" and not with what part of the article in this morning's Times that they couldn't believe.)

Those not wishing to be quoted more often than not favored PBS. (I won't try to do a percentage. My math is horrible. Check my math on forty members being quoted below.) If my outrage over the story and offering my opinion inhibited anyone from expressing their own, I apologize. If I had it to do over, I would just highlight the story and ask for input. (Shirley also noted that I was asking the community to respond on this quickly considering that some members have expressed they don't check this site until the evening. That is correct and my apologies for that as well.)

Erika e-mails that she loves PBS "as bad as it is." She wonders if that's the "appropriate" attitude to have but feels that the NewsHour, "despite it's many faults including being right, not leaning right, being right," still allows a bit of hope because it's a "conversation."

Marcia feels that PBS is "totally, completely f**ked . . . [and] needs to go!" Marcia points out that on a "shoe string" budget Democracy Now! is better able to inform viewers (listeners, readers) than the NewsHour.

Liang brings up the budget in her e-mail and wants to know where the money goes? "International journalism does not abound on PBS. [. . .] Foreign correspondents from newspapers are brought on to discuss what they are seeing. I doubt the NewsHour pays for The Christian Science Monitor or The New York Times to station their correspondents in Iraq, for instance."

Ben notes the budget in his e-mails as well. He wonders why "long ago," Masterpiece Theatre wasn't replaced with something more regional that "really was plays and not imported mini-series?"

Various people note the issue of plays.

Lynda remembers "when a network was doing plays in the 80s on live television. I remember Sally Field doing one. What is PBS's reasoning for not doing something similar?"

Lynda's remembering when NBC did a series of plays (including Sally Field in the lead role of A Member of the Wedding). This was during the early eighties (1980?) when NBC was dead last and willing to experiment. Sally Field (and others participating) didn't clean up (in terms of paydays) but did it out of love for the project (play) and a desire to bring live performances and plays back into people's living rooms. It's hard to believe PBS couldn't mount something similar today. Once aired live, PBS would have be able to build their own library of "Masterpieces" to air as "Best of"s, not to mention they could make some profit from the sales of videotapes and DVDs.

But as Lewis points out, they wouldn't even need to go with big names: "Chicago has a strong theater scene. I do not understand why PBS isn't utilizing local theater companies to put on plays. Make it a fifty week series, one week to spotlight an area in each state. If there was concern of fees to put on A Streetcar Named Desire, most of those areas have a regional playwright or two who is trying to establish his [or her] name and would probably be willing to cut a deal for the attention that could result from having his [or her] play aired on national television."

When an idea blooms in the community, every member seems to be on a similar page because Alabama e-mails on the same topic with a twist. Alabama feels that in the age of "contests for mediocre singers, why doesn't PBS do a play-fest. They hold a play contest. Twenty aspiring playwrights are picked and each week there are two things aired, the play and the backstory on putting it on."

Which would be similar to a Project Greenlight for plays. [Project Greenlight being the screenplay/director contest on HBO largely associated with Ben Affleck and Matt Damon.]

Lynette e-mails that the "cultural scene here [San Francisco] is huge and I always wonder why we aren't recognized for our arts. Symphonies across the country would benefit from PBS doing a series where you got a city highlighted here or there. I don't understand why they don't do that. You're looking at giving local PBS stations the responsibilities of filming the special and everyone sharing them across the country. I'm sure the local areas would love to be involved in a national program since the biggest complaint I hear in my area is that everything is top-down.
This would be local stations filming content and providing it for the national audience."

Jimarcus wonders why, when his local symphony, performs a free show outdoors every spring, his PBS never bothers to air it? "Since it's for the public and the park fills up quickly, it seems to me this is the sort of the program they could do for little money but would bring a lot of pleasure to viewers."

Brad wonders why anyone should bother defending PBS because "it's not just that they won't stand up for themselves" but also that "they create the situation where they have to battle this battle every budget cycle. It's insane. If they stood up just once, PBS members would and Congress would get so many e-mails, calls and letters that they'd lay off at least for a few years."

Francisco writes in to note that when he was a child he could learn from PBS but that he doesn't learn now "from cartoons to Arthur and Miguel & Maya. They are cute stories but this isn't The Electric Company, Zoom or Sesame Street and I wonder why the cartoons air at all?"

Devon e-mails about the cartoons but feels that they are worth airing because, unlike cartoons on the other networks, "I can let my children watch and not to worry that they're getting all these fights, bullets and explosions."

Elaine notes that PBS "did their part in cheerleading us into war so I won't be signing up to defend it." Elaine recommends that members utilize FAIR's archives to do some research on PBS' problems over the years "before rushing to take up the cause of PBS."

Lloyd e-mails that if his local NPR didn't air Democracy Now! he wouldn't care about NPR or PBS at all. But due to the fact that this allows him to listen to Democracy Now!, he feels that members should "realize not everyone has a [sattellite] dish so if PBS and/or NPR go under, I'm not sure where those of us without a dish would get our daily Democracy Now?"

Roy notes that Independent Lens is his favorite PBS feature (this is a series that airs a different documentary each week) but "I'm really upset when I hear the news of what is being turned down."

Kara's also bothered by what doesn't get aired. Specifically, "no programming revolving around labor. PBS is public television, not corporate television. I won't defend that piece of s**t that can give us investing tips but can never program for unions or what about when they turned down Danny Schechter's weekly program on human rights years ago? A weekly series on human rights around the globe was 'too controversial' for PBS so why should I shed any tears?"

??? feels "they've caved so many times that I don't feel like defending them. I'll defend them and the result will be that they'll just turn around and cave again. I have issues to support that people will actually fight on. The timid tabbys of PBS brought this on themselves. I just feel if I got mobilized with others on this, I'd be breaking my back for nothing because they'd sell out everyone going to the mat for them. They always do."

Dominick notes "60 Minutes and 60 Minutes II got attention for programming last year. Why aren't those sort of stories on PBS? I don't see the point in fighting for them when they're so cowardly."

Maria feels that PBS is "too watered down. It once mattered but it stop mattering a long time ago. I'll let my kids watch. Not because it's educational but because it's inoffensive. I'm talking about the cartoons which are feel good cartoons like the Smurfs used to be. But if I have time on the weekend or at night and turn it on it's Suzie Orman. I am so glad you named her this morning because I see her on my PBS station more than I see Big Bird. I'm sick of that cheap infomerical airing constantly. I think PBS should be ashamed."

Beth feels she could go "either way. I think it should be so much more than it is, like it used to be, but I'm just worried of how much worse things would get if PBS wasn't around."

Juan praises PBS for "showing An American Family and that's really it. They should be delivering strong American programming. But everything else they offer that's not news comes from England."

Billie notes that in her area there were two specials that may have only been regional "one was on Lady Bird Johnson's contributions to ecology and the other was on JFK's assassination. Those were strong programs and the JFK one was produced by my station [Dallas PBS station]. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Lady Bird Johnson one also came out of Texas. To me, those were strong programs and I wish there were more like them. But because of those two programs, two years ago, I think. I would sign a petition or do an e-mail to save PBS. It's really a shame that I can only think of two programs that make me care."

Susan feels that the "various music specials are all recorded at one time. I love Judy Collins but I'd prefer a concert with Judy Collins. Not five 'Americana' specials that appear to be based on one concert that's been cut up to give you a bit of this, a bit of that. There was a special that I liked on the Mamas and the Papas but I was so disappointed to discover that it was on DVD and had been for at least a year before PBS aired it. The one hour concerts make me very upset because when they had Alanis [Morissette] on, they bleeped her lyrics."

Domingo also feels that the music specials "are worthless. Whether its a repeat of a HBO concert or something else, it's as though I've seen it multiple times already. Do they not know how to put on their own concerts?"

Jess (The Third Estate Sunday Review) notes that when he was "a kid, Carole King had a great special on PBS. It was done for PBS. It was aired live, or that's how I remember it. What happened to those days? I'm sick of the canned specials with an audience seated at little round tables applauding politely."

Zach feels like his PBS station has "really strayed from its purpose. Between Antique Roadshow and some dopey reality show, its become like the lowest grade basic cable station that I avoid like the plague. I watched for Bill Moyers. For NOW and for his intelligent interviews with the likes of Joseph Campbell. Now when I happen to land on PBS, I flip the channel quickly because it's all this junk appealing to hobbyists."

Marci feels PBS has grown "hideous" but has a "personal attachment to it even now that means I'll lobby for it with e-mails, phone calls, letters, faxes, whatever I'm asked to do."

Tamara also uses the adjective "worthless" to describe PBS but wonders "how much more worthless TV would be without it? I think it would be a great deal more worthless. I wish PBS was better and that it served the people but even half-assed it is doing a better job than ABC, NBC or CBS."

Lilly wonders how anyone can not defend PBS? "It has huge problems but save it and then try to address the problems."

Rick also e-mails that "problems or not PBS is needed!"

Cedric e-mails to note PBS's problems with inclusion. "Where are the people of color, where are the women. Why is Jim Lehrer still hosting the NewsHour? Shouldn't they have passed it on to [Margaret] Warner or someone else by now? Outside of the children's programming, it's pretty much impossible to find people of color or women in non-traditional roles."

[Cedric also caught that I mispelled Jim Lehrer's last name -- I wrongly spelled it "Lehren." Thanks for catching that Cedric. I've corrected it.]

Gore Vidal is God says he's "sick of it all. They have commercials from their 'sponsors.' Every few years they need something more and yet the quality continues to go down. Before PBS was created, I lived in Boston and we actually had public television. PBS isn't public television. It's done a lousy job of serving the public and of representing the public. Were it not for the MacArthur Foundation, I'm not sure that there would be anything at all worth watching on PBS these days."

Durham Gal also notes the MacArthur Foundation and wonders why more foundations aren't helping with programming "instead of Exxon or some investment company or drug company? The corporate monies compromise PBS and have led to current problems just as much as has their failure to respond to attacks strongly. They could ignore the attacks but they cave instead.
If they're going to respond at all they need to do so strongly."

Theresa wonders why PBS is "always needing saving? Is PBS ever going to save itself or keep expecting others to save it?"

Heath echoes that comment when he notes, "I'll fight again, like always, but I'm really getting tired of it. Seems like after each battles PBS is less and less worth watching."

Campbell e-mails in to note that the Democracy Now!, I'd sign up for the thirty dollars a month pledge where they automatically take it out of your account each week. I tried to put my money where my mouth was. But I was told Democracy Now! was 'too political.' It's that attitude that makes me shrug my shoulders and long for the day when I can stop fighting to save a network that means less and less to me with each passing day."

Abhilasha's problem with her PBS station is "that everything worth watching airs at midnight or later. If I happen to be up, I can find something worth watching but during my normal viewing hours, it's all useless programming. I don't know if they shove the 'controversial' stuff on at the late hour but any documentary worth seeing or special that's actual news seems to air after midnight where most people will never see it."

Micia thinks PBS is worthless "to anyone who can afford cable but I wonder if people in this country grasp that not everyone has cable? With cable rates skyrocket, economy tanking, and
areas still not served when you can afford it, a great deal of people depend upon PBS."

Shawn feels that "caving has resulted in PBS not caring about anything and no one caring about PBS. It's a vicious circle."

Enrico weighs in that "PBS has betrayed the public trust and the service it owes to the public of informing them. They could address controversial errors in a 'balanced' manner by offering someone from the real left and from the right, or real right because maybe we don't see people from the real right on PBS, and that would be a great dialogue for the public to have and take part in. Instead we get 'specials' pushing books, books on tape and other nonsense which is just infomericals passing for programming. If that's how it's going to be, bring back the Hair by Lori informercial because at least Cher shuddering when she saw the root of the hair that didn't use Lori products made me laugh."

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Posted at 11:08 pm by thecommonills
Permalink

Ruth's Morning Edition Report

Ruth: My youngest son is now married, for the second time, it was nice, nondenominational, and I've passed on some photos for Gina and Krista to include in the gina & krista round-robin. Did I miss anything last week? Was their a miracle, a parting of the ocean, and suddenly Morning Edition was a first rate program? If I was wondering that, the hard frosk from "political analyst" Cokie Roberts straightened me out right away.

Political Analysis: Social Security, Bolton and Judicial Nominees

Morning Edition, May 2, 2005 · News analyst Cokie Roberts previews the week ahead in politics. She discusses President Bush's ideas for changing Social Security, the nomination of John Bolton to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and the Senate dispute over judicial nominations.

"Politicial analyst" Cokie Roberts? Are you plotzing? You will be.

Here's a general question I'll toss out - Renee Montagne, exactly why are you there during Cokie's "analysis?" You serve no purpose.

She's like the usher at my son's wedding this weekend. She nods, she stands there. We were all saying, "Bernie, you're supposed to show people where to sit" but no matter how many times we explained his job to him, it still seemed too much. Renee is that usher only more so.

As one point in the "analysis," Cokie makes this statement regarding Social Security, "The Democrats are more nervous in a way about means testing Social Security which is what the president's plan is essentially proposing . . ."

Is that not the perfect opportunity for Renee to stop her? Shouldn't she say, "Cokes, means testing. I'm not sure all our listeners will grasp that. Could you explain it?"

Renee doesn't do that. Now maybe Cokie is glowering at Renee the entire time and Renee just wants her to get done with this bit and leave already? Well Renee is supposed to have a job to do. Her job is not to say, "Great Cokie!" Nor is it to wait for Cokie to finish speaking so Renee can ask the pre-prepared question from ahead of time. Renee is as useless as Bernie was Saturday. (People ended up sitting on the wrong side. I don't know how you can not know that there is a groom's side and a bride's side but with Bernie not doing his job, everyone was all over the place.)

Cokie can pipe off with statements (true or false) about anything because no one challenges her. It's like This Week during the nineties without visuals.

If CPB is worried about monies being wasted at either NPR or PBS, I'd suggest they start by cutting off Cokie's salary. This is the type of "analysis" our monies support from NPR's "political analyst"

* On Social Security, Cokie declares Bully Boy "has failed to rally the public!"

What a brave "analyst" Cokie is stating the obvious weeks and weeks after everyone knew it.

*"There are people in Washington who think the fact that the First Lady performed so nicely at the White House correspondent dinner Saturday night has softened up ... *Bully Boy*'s image somewhat going into this fight as well."

I'm sure "there are people in Washington" who say Cokie is toast. Will they be quoted as well? I'm missing how this rumor mill, blind item, quilting circle gossip not worthy of Louella Parsons or Hedda Hopper, is worth wasting NPR listener's time with.

I've substituted any term such as "president" or his last name with "Bully Boy" and noted it with astericks.

Now let's focus on this back and forth with Cokie and Renee.

Renee: The Democrats have yet to come up with a solution to the long term problems that social security will face are they starting for-to feel any heat about-about that?

Cokie: Again, not so far. But they can't be happy that the usually friendly Washington Post editorial page is now saying that they will have to come up with some specifics given the fact that the *Bully Boy* has. And people do seem to be taking something of a serious look at the *Bully Boy*'s proposal.

Who's taking a serious look, Cokie?

Who says that Washington Post editorial page is Democrat friendly?

Will anyone challenge Cokie or will she always just offer musings passed off as "analysis?"

We certainly can't expect Cokie to be held accountable by Renee who must be the only journalist in the world who hasn't heard that the Democrats say repealing the Bush tax cuts to the very wealthy would provide the funds for solvency.

What's the plan? That's what Renee wants to know. Instead of answering that, Cokie wants to say there's no plan. So Renee and Cokie both disappointed listeners this morning with almost five minutes of paskustva.

Maybe it was a case of the people with a plan being some of those "none that mattered" people that Cokie enjoys ignoring?

I'd suggest that everyone read Paul Krugman's column in The New York Times today because he answers the questions that you're wondering about but won't find addressed by Morning Edition as long as Renee and Cokie control the debate.

[From Krugman's column:]

The administration and its apologists emphasize the fact that under the Bush plan, workers earning higher wages would face cuts, and they talk as if that makes it a plan that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. But the rich wouldn't feel any pain, because people with high incomes don't depend on Social Security benefits.
Cut an average worker's benefits, and you're imposing real hardship. Cut or even eliminate Dick Cheney's benefits, and only his accountants will notice.
I asked Jason Furman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to calculate the benefit cuts under the Bush scheme as a percentage of pre-retirement income. That's a way to see who would really bear the burden of the proposed cuts. It turns out that the middle class would face severe cuts, but the wealthy would not.
The average worker - average pay now is $37,000 - retiring in 2075 would face a cut equal to 10 percent of pre-retirement income. Workers earning 60 percent more than average, the equivalent of $58,000 today, would see benefit cuts equal to almost 13 percent of their income before retirement.
But above that level, the cuts would become less and less significant. Workers earning three times the average wage would face cuts equal to only 9 percent of their income before retirement. Someone earning the equivalent of $1 million today would see benefit cuts equal to only 1 percent of pre-retirement income.
In short, this would be a gut punch to the middle class, but a fleabite for the truly wealthy.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Posted at 11:06 pm by thecommonills
Permalink

Thanks to Chris Donovan, Gloria Steinem's name is now spelled correctly on the Meet the Press "about" page

Martha and another community member both received e-mails today from Chris Donovan (of NBC) who addressed the issue of "Gloria Steiner" on the "about" page of Meet the Press.

I have no idea who got the other e-mails but Donovan got Martha and another member's e-mails today and noted that Gloria Steinem's name had been corrected and thanked them for bringing the typo to his attention.

Martha: Maybe I'm being played but he seemed sincerely unaware of the problem until today. I've e-mailed four times before last Friday and each time received only the automated e-mail reply from Meet the Press. I have no idea what Chris Donovan does at NBC but he got my e-mail and he addressed the issue so I hope you will note him.

Gladly. And we will note again that, after over two years of having the error, it has been fixed. So I'll even join Martha and our other member in saying "Thank you" to Chris Donovan.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Posted at 11:05 pm by thecommonills
Permalink

Contact Me