As noted earlier, the last two posts weren't planned for tonight. (But again, members determine what we focus on.) Arianna Huffington's new site went up today. I didn't even have time to check it out. If you didn't as well, it's The Huffington Post and I'll try to include the link to it in a post tomorrow morning (and we will do a permalink to it tomorrow evening).

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

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

Consider this an addendum to the earlier entry if you'd like. This is something that Dallas brought to my attention two weeks ago (it's the long promised post, sorry for the delay, Dallas).
I'd mentioned the issue Dallas raised to a few members who were subscribers, like Dallas, to the New York Times. I started getting feedback and as more feedback came in from members, I realized that those who ridicule the "nonreaders" of a daily paper hadn't really focused on people. Maybe they had a poll or two on people who never picked up a daily paper.

But there's more than that going on. (The Times and every other newspaper should be aware of this. Although the smart ass comments, usually aimed as "Generations X & Y" really aren't coming from articles printed in newspaper.) I wanted to really work on compiling this but Dallas has been waiting (again, my apologies to Dallas) and it goes to a problem with the New York Times' panel's recommendation. So instead of holding it and continuing to work on it, we'll just (in the words of Kat) note that "it is what it is." (But thank yous to Dallas and every member who responded to e-mails on this topic as well as to Gina and Krista who twice posted this issue and a request for feedback here in their gina & krista round-robin.)

What did the panel overlook? What did some commentators (in magazines) overlook?

What always gets overlooked -- the readers.

Who's talking to the readers?

No one on the panel.

That's not a slam to the panel who did deal with readers' concerns. (I'm assuming, for instance, that Gail Collins supported exploring the e-mail issue because members have forwarded e-mails they sent to her.)

Circulation is a problem at every paper. The 151 members who are subscribers (as am I) to the New York Times were all asked, "Have you been surveyed?" No, they hadn't. Every now and then, they get an e-mail (as have I) asking you to participate in a survey.

???: So I click on the link thinking the paper wants my opinion on something but I'm taking to some poll that has nothing to do with the paper and I'm wondering how much money the paper makes off of people like me when it promotes its e-mail list.

Besides the 151 members that currently subscribe, we also heard from 301 (I'm lowballing because I don't want to count up the e-mails again -- it could be 315 -- math isn't my strong suit) members who used to subscribe.

Did the Times speak to them? No. No one ever e-mailed to ask, "Why did you drop your subscription?" (One paper did do that after the election. I had intended to research that and credit them for doing that but again, "it is what it is." If it helps, you can find it somewhere on Poynter because that's where I saw it months ago. I'm thinking it was either The Boston Globe or The Chicago Tribune -- but I'm sure I'm remembering wrong.)

The number of people who aren't reading a daily paper in print doesn't just include the oft-ridiculed group dubbed "Jon Stewart's Daily Show audience." It also includes people who just had enough. Just said, "No more." And who's talking to them?

Only 2 of the 301 (low figure) cancelled their subscriptions to the Times because of something that appeared in print. Citing "moral reasons," they cancelled their subscriptions out of solidarity with George, the reader who was outed by Daniel Okrent.

Cindy: I told my husband I just couldn't face the paper anymore after what they did to him.
They could do that to me, they could do it to my husband, they could do it to any reader.

Dan: I cancelled it because it was disgusting what Okrent did and the Times showed no desire to address the issue. As a reader, it offended me.

It bothered other members as well. But of the 299 (low figure) that cancelled and of the 72 of the 151 currently subscribing who are considering cancelling, one thing popped up repeatedly.

Want to know what that was? The Times should care. (As should other newspapers as well.)

Delivery problems. Which was what caused Dallas to raise the issue to begin with.

Dallas: I'm not subscribing to an evening paper.

Exactly. Where's the quality control at the Times on this?

No one's been surveyed that e-mailed this site. Which leads to current subscribers feeling like the Times is more than happy to take their money, but doesn't really care if you get the paper or not.

Frank: On Monday morning, I don't want to hear, "We'll credit your account." That's not doing me a damn bit of good. I wanted a paper. I wanted to read it. I don't want it at the house when I get home tired from working. I don't want a credit. I want what I'm paying for which is morning delivery of The New York Times.

Does the Times follow their circulation rates? Do they ever wonder why sometimes a store sells out and other times it doesn't? If so, maybe Rachel has the answer.

Rachel: When it's not there and it's time to go to work, I drive around hoping to find a Starbucks that has it so I can grab it before I head to work. I even stop at the gas stations that carry it. I can tell you that what I'm told is that if the paper isn't there when people are heading out, they don't sell out. If the paper comes in at seven something or at eight or later, they don't sell out. If the paper's there by six a.m., they sell out. I spoke to clerk after clerk about this when I got your e-mail.

Too bad Rachel's not getting paid by the Times, she appears to be doing more work than the circulation department.

Is the paper aware of this problem?

Lyle doesn't want "credit," he wants a paper "and at the end of the day, I've heard all the stories so it pisses me off to come home and see it on doorstep."

(Yazz echoed Lyle's comments. With stronger language.)

I have no idea if this is a distrubtion issue or a carrier issue. But it doesn't really matter much to the people paying for delivery. And the Times has never checked in with any of the members who are current subscribers or who used to subscribe.

Lori subscribes to The Christian Science Monitor now.

Lori: I know it will be in the mail box. Yes, I won't get it the day it's printed but I know it will be there and I can count on it. I got so sick of chasing down a copy of The New York Times at least twice a week because my paper woman couldn't seem to deliver it on time.

Again, it may not be the carrier's fault, it might be a distribution issue.

But Lori's left the Times, and home delivery, to go with The Christian Science Monitor even though it means she's seeing the paper after it's old news. But it's worth it to her because it arrives as promised.

People writing op-ed pieces in magazines want to make this a generation thing. It may very well be that. But if it is, it may have little to do with what joke Jon Stewart tells. Past generations grew up in cities and towns with more than one daily paper. The thought of an evening paper isn't strange to them. Maybe they're more patient?

But in this day and age when we can go online and find the paper that morning, the idea that people are supposed to wait and wait for delivery of something they're paying for isn't a game that younger readers are going to play.

Candice: When I cancelled my subscription, my mother thought I was being silly. She pointed out how many times she's waited over the years for the paper to arrive. No offense to Mom, but I don't stay at home all day. I'm not a homemaker. I work a ten hour day. I don't need this aggrevation. When I'd call to complain that the paper wasn't there and I'd ask what should be a basic question, I couldn't get a straight answer.

Candice's basic question? "What is normally delivery time? Don't give me a three hour range."

Again, if it's generational, you're looking at generations that have grown up with pizza being delivered in fifteen minutes or less of "it's free!"

If it's generational, it has to do with not being used to an "evening paper" and now having the opportunity, when the paper doesn't arrive on time, to go online and read what didn't get dropped off at your door.

Charlie: They want my money but they don't seem at all concerned if I get the paper or not. When I try to go through the phone system to complain, I'm routed through this automated maze that always takes me two calls to reach an actual person. Then I get, "Oh, we're sorry."
When it happens over and over, "sorry" doesn't cut it and you're not "sorry" or it wouldn't keep happening.

"Does the Times even care?" is the question Erika wanted answered.

Her delivery problems were steady a few years back for a period of two months. Each day, she had to complain. No one ever followed up by contacting her and asking if the situation had improved (it has but she wonders if it wasn't the fact that she started tipping her carrier two hundred dollars each Christmas).

We're focusing on the Times because that's the paper we focus on here. But there were a few members who noted that they didn't subscribe to the Times but, reading the request for feedback in the gina & krista round-robin, they wanted to weigh in. So let's be clear, it's not just the Times.

And although the majority of the members responding were out the door in the morning, not all were. Pat's a nurse who works the third shift.

Pat: When I get off, the sun's out, the school buses are running, you'd think my paper would be waiting on my porch for me. It rarely is. My ideal morning would be to come home, read the paper while I drank a cup of tea and ate some fruit. There are days when I'm waiting an hour after I've gotten home before the paper gets thrown on my porch. If it hasn't come after an hour, I usually go on to sleep unless I have errands and this really upsets me because long before I get home, the paper should be there waiting.

The problem's not in the way a human voice over the phone interacts with you (Dallas wanted it noted that all the people he's spoken to have been very nice and asked that Biancca be singled out). The problem's not with getting credit for the paper you didn't get. The problem is with getting the paper and receiving it in a timely fashion.

Again, it may be a distribution issue. Or it may be a carrier issue. But where is the Times' quality control on this?

Current subscribers and former subscribers were all asked, "Did anyone ever contact you as a follow up to your problem to see if it had been corrected?" Universally the response was no.
And, again, no one ever checked to begin with to see if there was a problem.

When delivery is part of your business, you need to be practicing some oversight.

Personally, I don't think it's a carrier issue. It's too widespread for that. (If it is a carrier issue, the Times needs to work on the hiring policies for their carriers.) It's not confined to one region. (There are even complaints from NYC.)

The panel considered a number of issues. But, whether they realize it or not, the paper's job goes beyond putting together an issue. And again, this isn't just the Times. (The Chicago Tribune was a paper cited quite often that also would benefit from the paper practicing some quality control over their distribution system.)

It's strikes me as strange that in an age when other business (grocery stores, retail, et al) follow up on a basic complaint with a phone call or letter that the Times is perfectly happy to hand out "credit" day in and day out without ever addressing the issue.

I don't call up (or use the online system) when I don't get the paper. I go up the street and buy it. It saves me the hassle of navigating the online system (which isn't as user friendly as they seem to think it is) or navigating the phone system. To me, my time is more valuable.

Susan noted that she doesn't complain. But her reason is she doesn't want to get her delivery person in trouble. Who knows nation wide this problem is?

I don't. I'm going by the problems members had. But the Times doesn't know anything about it at all. And if they want to argue that when complaints from one delivery area reach X, they look into it, they're mistaken if they think everyone's complaining to them. And they're mistaken if they think that's "quality control." It's not.

Rob brought up something that I hadn't thought of but it is a good point. Having subscribed to the Times for over ten years, he's surprised that no survey's ever been sent to him asking him about the quality of service. Reading his e-mail, I thought about the years I've been subscribing and how it is strange that month after month, year after year, the Times wants my money, but they never check in to see if I'm satisfied with the delivery system.

Jane e-mailed that last month she had a real problem with delivery.

Jane: It just wasn't my month, nothing went right. Including attempting to get breakfast at McDonalds. That morning, I was already on edge because the paper never arrived and I didn't want to go buy one in case it did, so I waited and waited until I had to get in the car and go. I went through the drive through to get breakfast. I didn't check the sack. I got to work and it's not what I ordered and I can't eat pork. I call up and speak to the manager on duty. He apologizes and says come back up and they'll fix it. I explain I'm at work now and can't leave.
He apologizes and tells me to ask for him the next time I'm in which I did. A week later, he calls to check and see if I've had anymore problems. I never get that from the Times. I don't get a paper? It's no skin off their nose. Which is why I tell myself now that the next month where I miss ten papers, I'm cancelling. I've had it.

The panel dealt with issue of content. But, other than the Okrent outing of "George," members had complaints about what made it into the paper (and what didn't) but they were thinking about cancelling because of it. And of the members who used to subscribe only 2 of (at least ) 301 cancelled because of something that made the paper (the outing of "George").

The panel was given a task and hopefully they addressed it to the best of their abililty. But if the Times wants to know how to increase circulation, how to keep subscribers or why some subscribers left, they're going to have to start touching base. They can do that with, as Rob suggested, a printed survey they send out to subscribers (inside the paper, Rob suggests, to save on postage). But right now, the newspaper industry is faced with falling circulation and it's not being addressed.

All the silly "jokes" about Gen-X or Gen-Y or The Daily Show aren't addressing why some people are bailing on papers and why some who are trying to hang on are considering bailing.
Yes, it's easy (and probably "fun") to crack jokes about The Daily Show and "apethetic generations." But before the next pundit cracks a joke, maybe someone needs to talk to people who would be reading a daily paper if they could count on it arriving? Maybe they need to talk to people who are subscribing but considering cancelling?

It's not as "fun" (or as easy) as just thinking up put downs, but it's a little more reality based.

At some point (probably in the near future), we'll be dealing with electronic editions. When that day comes, I'm sure there will still be problems with delivery and distribution (maybe a page doesn't load?). But we aren't there yet. And the Times wants to sell a print edition. It's their responsibilty to ensure quality control. It's not Rachel's job to go all over her neighborhood surveying clerks about what time the paper needs to arrive to sell out. It's not Dallas's job to try to explain to them the importance of the paper arriving in time to be a morning paper.

The Times, and other papers as well, needs to stop pushing their responsibilities off on subscribers and start doing the follow up that most business models would have told you was required years ago.

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

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

The Times had a panel report issued today. Ten full pages (with a few names continued on the eleventh). E-mails arrived asking how I missed it?

I missed it. If I had seen it, I wouldn't have written about it this morning (but I didn't see it). Ten pages of attempts to deal with serious issues isn't a quick read for me. I would have wanted to read it, think about it, re-read it, think some more. There's no way I would've posted anything about it this morning if I had seen it (but, truthfully, I didn't see it before I posted).

A lot of members were angry with the conclusions. Those who were angry generally expressed the review that an issue had already been addressed and nothing had come of it. Susan !. Stranahan addressed a similar thought at CJR Daily:

At the time -- March of 2004 -- Bumiller was describing President Bush's eagerness to get into the campaign fray. "'People are viewing him already as a candidate, so why should we muzzle one of our most effective voices in framing the debate?' said a senior White House official who asked not to be named because he did not want to be pestered by reporters." (Emphasis ours.)
Our first thought, then and now, was that the news that Bush was eager to hit the campaign trail hardly ranked as an astonishing development, whether sourced by name or not. Our second thought was this: obviously, two interests were served here -- those of the source who didn't want a raft of reporters on his trail, and those of Bumiller, who didn't want reporters not named Bumiller to get to said source. Our third thought was that it's less clear whether the interests of the Times' readers were, or are, served by this sort of coy tomfoolery. Since that time, the Times -- and the Washington Post, for that matter -- have repeatedly paid lip service to erasing anonymice from their pages -- an effort that has largely failed. (We get the feeling nobody was trying very hard.)
So, today the Times is taking another stab. The paper released an internal committee report recommending ways to build reader confidence. Among the measures, as the Times' Katharine Q. Seelye writes, is one more attempt to limit reliance on anonymous sources.

A large number of members expressed frustration that the same issue was being addressed again after little had changed since it was last addressed.

Far be it from me to defend the Times, but possibly the people serving on the panel shared your frustration which is why they included it in their findings.

We're going to deal quickly with the nine recommendations. After this posts, there will also be an addendum of sorts. The purpose of the panel's recommendations is to improve the quality of the paper and they focus on what's going into print and what the response from editors and reporters could be. The panel didn't include another segment (and it may have been outside their scope but Dallas has raised the issue and I've been working on it for two weeks now) so we'll address that in an addendum.

1) A dialogue with our publics.

Only two members brought up this recommendation and the subheadings under it. Liang and Terry both felt this was a good idea. Terry felt it contained "the strongest ideas in the entire report."

(Use the link provided in the CJR Daily excerpt to access the report.)

2) Reaching out to readers, improving our sources.

The e-mail issue (readers to reporters and editors) will pick up in a bit.

The second suggestion is something I want to weigh in on because, as I'm reading it, I disagree with it: "Encourage the practice of reporters' interim and final checks with sources to verify specific points."

That can read like (and maybe it's not intended to), "check your quotes." While magazines have traditionally done that, my worry here is that someone will give a strong quote and then back down from it when it's read back to them. If that's not the way that point's meant to be read, fine. But about ten years ago, a friend of mine got burned on a quote (that appeared in print) and after, she'd only quote if she had someone on tape. The tape machine tended to inhibit people she was interviewing.

(If that seems off topic, some people who know me read this and if I didn't raise that point, I'd catch hell over the phone.)

The third point seems a practical one and no one raised it so we'll move to the e-mail issue.

Elaine: There's not a problem reaching someone on my end. There's a problem getting a reply. I made a point to praise Robin Toner's writing to her editor last summer in an e-mail and got an immediate response that was quite lengthy from the editor. I'd e-mailed him prior and after and never heard from him. The problem's not with reaching someone, it's with getting a response when you have a criticism.

Dallas: Spring 2004, I praised a piece by Kit Seeyle to Bill Keller. I had a response in a matter of hours. But anytime I've had a question or a problem, I've never heard back from him. It's not an issue of contact, it's an issue of getting a reply. With the exception of Daniel Okrent, his assistant Arthur Bovino and Gail Collins, no one else ever wants to reply to a criticism. And I'll add that my e-mail Gail Collins replied to was far from "pleasant." Her reply was pleasant and lengthy. I didn't agree with it but I think more highly of her than others at the paper due to the fact that she's the only one at the paper (Okrent and Bovino are independent contractors) who's ever replied to a serious complaint.

It can be hard for many to navigate the Times' web site to find contact information. But Eli and Lynda both offered comments similar to Dallas' (Lynda also noted that Gail Collins responded).
So I'm not sure the issue is a lack of contact information. That said, as someone who puts the contact information at the bottom of each post (of mine), I obviosly support the practice. I'm just not sure, based on members comments, that it will make a great deal of difference.

3) Unidentified sources: some next steps.

This was addressed at the top of the piece. And this was the one that members found most frustrating (482 if my math was correct -- always a big if).

4) Reducing factual errors.

This recommendation resulted in the second largest number of comments to this site (296 -- again, my math is always a big if).

There are internal and external suggestions.

But there's a problem because the current system isn't working. Everyone of the 296 had a horror story. We're going with Dallas' horror story because he's been waiting (and waiting) for the topic of the addendum to be addressed and because earlier a number of you had noted it (back in December).

Dallas: What does it matter what they suggest when the current steps don't work? Alan Wolfe wrote a book review entitled "The New Pamphleteers" that was published July 11, 2004. For three months I attempted to get a correction. Wolfe reviews several books including David Brock's Republican Noise Machine. Could you quote from the previous entry about this? [Yes, we will.] But I e-mailed Keller, Okrent, Sulzberger and the corrections department. I typed up letters to Keller and Okrent. I phoned the paper repeatedly. They've never corrected the review as of today when I checked online.

So let's take the book review that has thirty of you still upset: Alan Wolfe's "The New Pamphleteers."
It appeared in the July 11th Sunday Book Review. There's been plenty of time for the Times to issue a correction but the paper has failed to do so.
Calls, e-mails and letters have resulted in no correction.
What needs to be corrected?
Read the following two paragraphs closely:

Brock's previous book, ''Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative,'' his 2002 mea culpa for gutter-shouting from the conservative side, was engaging and informative. Too bad, then, that he now seems blinded by the left. ''The Republican Noise Machine'' is as petty in its discussion of people as it is sloppy in its handling of facts. Unable to keep an insult in his quiver, Brock gleefully announces that the Catholic theologian Michael Novak had his thesis rejected at Harvard and that the political scientist Abigail Thernstrom did not get academic tenure, factoids that are either irrelevant (anyone familiar with the academy knows what thesis committees can be like) or wrong (Thernstrom rejected a full-time academic career).
Brock also fails to grasp the conflicts that have emerged within right-wing punditry since he served in its ranks. Chris Matthews was not a supporter of the war in Iraq and Bill O'Reilly has serious questions about it. Lou Dobbs now sounds like Dick Gephardt when he discusses outsourcing. Andrew Sullivan's position on gay marriage is anathema to many other conservatives. Conservatives may well have shared a party line when they were out of power, but now that they have an actual president advancing their worldview, their ideas suddenly have consequences -- and turmoil is the inevitable result. Libertarians attack Bush's statism; fiscal conservatives, his big spending. This kind of behavior among liberals is called political suicide.

Did you note the emphasis? Let's go to the book Wolfe is supposed to have read to review it:

During the George W. Bush era, [Chris] Matthews distinguished himself as the lone host of a cable talk show who opposed the Iraq war, joining hands with both the liberal Left and some members of the Far Right, such as Pat Buchanan (p. 240 of The Republican Noise Machine).

We can quibble over Bill O'Reilly's "serious questions" (if they're so serious, why did O'Reilly admit he was wrong about the war on ABC's Good Morning America -- when pressed to do so -- and not on his own show?). But the fact is Wolfe makes the claim that David Brock doesn't realize some on the right are against the war. Brock is aware of that and notes Pat Buchanan. Wolfe asserts that Brock doesn't realize that Chris Matthews didn't support the war. Right there on page 240 of Brock's book is Brock addressing that issue. The book Wolfe was supposed to have read before reviewing it.
Translation, Wofle is wrong and the Times has addressed this matter by ignoring it.

What do you have to do to get a correction? Calls, e-mails and letters don't appear to work. Maybe you have to stand outside the entrance with a sign begging for a correction?

(In fairness, I'll note that the panel does speak of problems with e-mail reaching the person it's sent to.)

5) The News/Opinion divide.

Shirley noted that the oft referred to "floating op-ed" might result in less criticism for Elisabeth Bumiller. Todd brought up the point Bob Somerby has often made at The Daily Howler, that a "White House Letter" needed to be balanced out during a presidential election year. Wally objected strongly to the attitude that a sports columnist was not allowed to comment on events outside of sports in his/her column.

Wally: That seemed snide and petty to me. If that's the operating system than Thomas Friedman, Nicholas Kristof and others shouldn't be allowed to mention any sports, even in passing, in their op-eds.

Under this recommendation, there was a discussion of the magazine vs. the newspaper.
That resulted in 47 e-mails. Five members felt that the daily paper had superior journalism and that the magazine had 'too much attitude.' Forty-two members expressed the belief that the magazine had stronger reporting. (Yazz, Lloyd, Nora, Wally and Joe felt that the magazine reporting had fewer errors.)

Having addressed the Times, I'll comment on e-mails with regard to this site. There's someone (as we all know) who feels that one response to his two e-mails wasn't sufficient. He was also upset that he wasn't quoted, despite never having asked to be quoted. I'd noted that in personal e-mails he was told the policy. What I didn't think of, until Shirley caught it and e-mailed about this today, was that each e-mail gets an automated response:

Thank you for writing. Your input shapes the community. Due to the rising level of e-mails, this may be the only response you get. If there's something that needs additional comment, an e-mail will go out. If you'd like to be quoted, please include your permission for that and the name under which you should be quoted. Feedback and criticism is appreciated and welcome. Your suggestions make the community so don't hesitate to bring up something you feel is not being addressed. Thank you. -- ci

The person can hold whatever opinion they wish, but the automated reply goes out (automatically) anytime someone writes. The policy is outlined there. I'm not going to chase down quotes. If I had to do that for some, I'd have to do it for all. As noted before, there was a period where we were getting some people claiming to have been members (of what, I don't know, the "years" they spoke of didn't apply to this site which isn't even a year old) who wanted to gripe about Amy Goodman or Katrina vanden Heuvel. I didn't chase them down with, "Can I quote you on this?" A) They weren't members. B) If they'd wanted to be quoted, the reply told them how to go about that. So the person in question didn't have to go through the blog (as I wrongly assumed) to be familar with the policy here. Thank you to Shirley for catching that.

I'll also note, again, that we (which really can mean "we" because Ava of Third Estate Sunday Review is helping with some of the e-mails) don't reply to the press. Anytime someone, for instance, from the Times has written, it has been read. If they've brought up an error, it's been corrected. When they have repeatedly brought up that an article bearing ___'s name didn't mean that ____ wrote it as it was printed, we've noted that here. In January, one of the funniest e-mails came in from someone's at the Times that had been criticized. I didn't agree with all of _____'s points, but we have incorporated _____'s comments from time to time. I noted that e-mail here to say that if I ever was going to respond to someone from the Times it would be that writer because it was a great e-mail. (It was not a kiss-ass e-mail. It was, however a funny one.) But, as noted then, if an e-mail correspondence were to develop, I don't know that I could be objective. So e-mails from people who are criticized at any publication or from any broadcast medium are read, but there's no reply going out other than the automated reply.

In terms of e-mails that get replies, not all require them. Some people are just attempting to highlight something and it then goes up here. Other people will say, "I need to get this off my chest" and offer a critique of the Times or something else. When replies are needed, members come first. After members, it's bloggers. After them it's visitors. But with 800 e-mails on a slow day, even with Ava helping out some days, there's no way that everyone will get a response. I do read all of them myself. If Ava's helping out, she'll ask if there's anyone I would've replied to if I'd had the time and she writes them.

There's also a criteria for bloggers in that community members who've created their own blogs will get replies more often than bloggers who are non-members.

Members have been very understanding of the policy and none of have complained. But I'll say again that I preferred the old days when I could personally respond to every e-mail that came in. The day Barbara Boxer backed Stephanie Tubbs Jones on the Ohio issue, the e-mails soared and they've never dropped down to their previous level again.

A visitor e-mailed Saturday asking what was the point in e-mailing if there wouldn't be a reply.
One point of it would be that input does shape the community. The issues we emphasize are impacted by the e-mails.

Left to my own devices, every day would probably be "Bring the troops home now!" And there's never a day that I don't think about some topic, "Oh, that's what I'll write about this evening" and then, going through the e-mails, I find another concern (or concerns) that the community has. (This is the perfect example. When I did see the panel's report, I thought, "Oh, there may be a Saturday entry in this. Then I started reading the e-mails and it was obvious the community wanted to weigh in now.) Of the entries I've written, the best ones have resulted from members e-mailing saying they wanted something addressed.

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

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

From an e-mail that went out to those who've signed up at Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches:


The following was written by Fernando Suarez, who lost his son in Iraq. His appeal is followed by some links you can click to take further action to support the cause.

To all media outlets
To all who love peace and justice
To the citizens of the United States
To the entire world
Pablo Paredes and Kevin Benderman will be subjected to a court martial for having opposed Bush's criminal war in Iraq.
Both applied for conscientious objector status and were denied. Both are accused of disobeying orders among other charges.
In San Diego and at Fort Stewart, Georgia, both will be tried in proceedings that without a doubt will mirror the absurd theater in which Camilo Mejia was pronounced guilty by a military tribunal that sentenced him to a year in prison.
Beginning tomorrow, May 11, we will see similar trials in which justice will be conspicuously absent, in which the power of the state will impose its will over international law, and in which young men will be sentenced and shipped to military prisons.
But all of this can be avoided if the international peace community
comes to the defense of these two brave human beings and brave soliders.
Why brave soldiers? Because they understand their duty as members of the military to defend the Constitution of the United States, to defend democracy and freedom, and they understand that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with these hallowed values. Why courageous human beings? Because by refusing to take part in war crimes they risk their personal safety and their careers.
These war crimes have been perpetrated in Irak by a president who has brought only economic hardship to families in the United States and death and destruction to the people of Iraq.
These young men are the spokesmen for thousands of soldiers who have deserted and we must give them our total support. I invite you to participate in a day of international resistence, to sign petitions of solidarity, and to demonstrate against these courts martial, against the illegal occupation of Iraq, and for the immediate return of our troops.
More than 1600 U.S. soldiers have died already and more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis have perished including thousands of children. Thousandsof children are now orphans in both nations.
Now is the time to overcome our fear and to protest and demand an end to Bush's historic crimes.

*COME* to National City (south of San Diego)
* THIS*
Tuesday!
Join the struggle of
*PABLO PAREDES*, a US sailor who refused to be a cog in the war machine.
*FERNANDO SUAREZ DEL SOLAR*,* father of one of the first U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq : "Thank you, my son. Thank you for your courageous stand, for your brave act of love and respect for human life, and above all thank you for being an example of strength and patriotism for the young people of your generation....The true soldier defends the Constitution, life, liberty, and democracy, and does not exterminate a foreign land for economic gain."

*NOAM CHOMSKY:**
"The actions that Pablo Paredes is taking are honorable and impressive, and merit the support of people who are committed to peace, justice, and the rule of law -- not force -- in world affairs. It is no exaggeration to say that the possibilities for decent human survival depend on that commitment. I hope that others will be inspired by Pablo's courageous actions, and will not only lend him their support, but will find their own ways to work for the same ends."
*HOWARD ZINN: * "Your refusal to participate in a war which is contrary to international law and which violates basic standards of moral behaviour is to be commended and admired. Your act is in keeping with a long tradition in our country -- from the Boston Tea Party, to the refusal to accept the Fugitive Slave Acts, to the civil disobedience of Martin Luther king -- of following your conscience rather than blindly obeying orders. Democracy requires citizens who will think for themselves and insist that the government uphold the principles it is supposed to stand for."
*RON KOVIC*, author:_ Born on the 4th of July_*: *
"I want to send my support and admiration to Pablo Paredes for his courageous opposition to the war in Iraq...he is an inspiration to all of us! I want to encourage everyone to stand with Pablo and other brave war resisters who are finding the courage withinside themselves to begin saying what really needs to be said!...what they are now doing, at great personal risk, is an extremely courageous act of citizenship that every American should be proud of!"*

*On-going Events in National City/San Diego Tuesday-Friday THIS WEEK!*
*Camilo Mejia*
*Fernando Suarez del Solar*
*Naomi Klein*
*Blase Bonpane*
*Aidan Delgado*
*Marjorie Cohn*
*Cindy Sheehan*
are among those who will come to San Diego in support of War Resister Pablo Paredes/_.*

*Voices of Resistance*
*Tuesday, May 10 2005
7:00 PM to 9:00 PM
Aswan Hall
401 Mile of Cars Way
National City, CA
*Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Aidan Delgado, three outspoken war resisters, will share their personal expereinces and motivations in seeking Conscientious Objector status and renouncing the war.
Join us on this "National Day of Action for GI Resisters" in a show of overwhelming support on the day before the US military brings sailor Pablo Paredes (San Diego, CA) and soldier Kevin Benderman (Ft. Stewart, GA) before military court martial tribunals for their opposition to the Iraq War.
Directions to Aswan Hall:
401 Mile-of-Cars Way (aka 24th St.)
National City (free parking)
Take I-5 to Mile-of-Cars Way.
Exit EAST.
LEFT at 1st intersection (Hoover Ave.)
LEFT into the first driveway.
*For Additional Events and other info: * *www.DefendPablo.org*
http://www.defendpablo.org/
*or San Diego Military Counseling Project
619-692-3686*

POR UNA GENERACION LLENA DE PAZ Y AMOR!!
EL GUERRERO AZTECA
Que dios les bendiga.
Atentamente:
Fam. Suarez del Solar.
Padres del "GUERRERO AZTECA"
Jesus Alberto Suarez del Solar Navarro Lance Corporal USMC1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division
fernando@guerreroazteca.org
Fvsuarez2000@yahoo.com.mx

Please use the e-mail function below to spread the word by sending this post to friends and family.

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

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

Lloyd e-mails to note that Media Matters has a critique of Mary Matalin's participation in the Sunday Chat & Chews. Matalin was on Meet the Press with Tim Russert and James Carville.
When you read Media Matters' critique (which we'll excerpt in a second), ask yourself what Carville was doing? Where was Carville in all of this?

Here's an excerpt from the Media Matters' post entitled "On Meet the Press, Matalin peddled misinformation to discredit opposition to Bush's judicial, ambassadorial nominees:"

Republican political strategist Mary Matalin distorted the facts to discredit opposition to President Bush's controversial judicial and ambassadorial nominees. Appearing on the May 8 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Matalin falsely claimed that "[w]e have a docket problem" because of "a legislative filibuster used for the purposes of stopping nominees" and that the "people who're coming out of the woodwork" to criticize John R. Bolton, Bush's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "are avowed, outspoken Bush bashers."
In fact, the number of current judicial vacancies is significantly lower than at the end of the Clinton administration. Moreover, Bush has yet to nominate candidates to fill most of the available positions, while the officials who have "com[e] out of the woodwork" to criticize Bolton include many conservative and politically unaligned Bush administration officials.

Carville, read the transcript, notes it's Mother's Day "so I've got to be a little careful here," but time and again he let's her spout off lies and doesn't correct her. For every three, he may swing the bat at one. (I'm working on a Times post, forgive the sports metaphor.) (And note, what follows are my opinions, I'm not speaking for Media Matters or summarizing their post in what follows. Read their post, it's worth reading, but I'm about to go off on an editorial tangent.)

It's really past time that they stopped participating in roundtables together. Not just because America's "fascination" with them crashed and burned before Speechless tanked, but also because Carville is lousy when it comes to standing up to Matalin.

I don't care that they're married. This isn't Newlyweds. This isn't, "Oh, isn't it cute how Nick and Jessica . . ." This is about issues (granted, not many on Meet the Press) and Carville never holds her accountable the way he does Robert Novak or Tucker Carlson or anyone else's he's paired with. It's not cute. It's not funny.

It's sick.

She shoots scattershot and he responds to one of her many claims each time he speaks. Are we supposed to be impressed? Are we supposed to holler, "Wow, he refuted one!"

It's insane and someone should have pulled him aside long ago and said, "Carville, you're not helping the cause. Be married to her, be happy with her, but don't debate her on TV because she wipes the floor with you. You find her sexy and amusing, that's you, not the Democratic Party."

Because it really is disgusting. He won't hold her accountable. She knows it, she knows she can spit out multiple lies and Carville will only call her on one.

And if you feel I'm being too harsh on Carville (and maybe I am), ask yourself this: "Why does Media Matters have to run a fact check on Matalin?" Why? Carville was right there, wasn't he?
Shouldn't he have fact checked her on the spot?

(Yes, I think he should have but he never does.)

Let's go the Meet the Press transcript. Here's one passage at random, follow along:


MR. RUSSERT: Mary Matalin....
MS. MATALIN: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...has this gone too far?
MS. MATALIN: It's demagoguery. That's sheer demagoguery.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, you don't agree with Pat Robertson.
MS. MATALIN: I think that was an injudicious thing to say, but that the secular left has behaved imperialistically--there's no other word for it. They have subverted the democratic process by taking their issues to the judiciary. What the so-called religious right has done has taken their petition and their concerns into the democratic process, into the public square. They organize and they try to affect legislation, as opposed to being the subverted process of democracy which is what the secular left does.
This is all demagoguery. There is a secular left. There is a religious right. It is the way in which the secular left overestimates its uniformity is funny. They're not--there's not just Christian conservatives. There is a lot of the people who are concerned about traditional values and in politics and in the public square. There are lots of Jews, there are a lot of conservative Muslims. There are--it's ecumenical. There's Catholics. It's across the board. There is not a uniformity. There's lots of pluralism and they're part of the democratic process. And this is just demagoguery on the parts of these left-wing extremists.
MR. CARVILLE: You know, I know it's Mother's Day so I've got to be a little careful here but it is kind of odd that Pat Robertson is saying that the federal judges are worse than Osama bin Laden and we're getting accused of demagoguery. I mean, if there's anything more demagogic than saying that, I have no idea what it is. And, look, it's like anything that you do--everybody says, "Well, you're just attacking people of faith." Oh, man, that's a kind of--that is a ridiculous thing. Judicial appointments are part of the political system. It's always going to be that way. This is a fight that the country needs to have. There's nothing wrong with it. And, you know, each side is going to have to make its points.
MR. RUSSERT: It sounds as though, and based on my conversations with Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Carville, that there's going to be the so-called nuclear option, that Senator Bill Frist will say "No longer need..."

Russer's moved on to a new topic. Carville's had his chance to refute.

Let's review some of the basics.

Matalin's decried the"secular left" (a MoveOn.org commercial). Carville refutes her notion that Pat Roberston's remarks are merely "injudicious." He swung at that one. What did he let fly over the plate while he was scratching his groin?

Matalin just drew a line where the left isn't religious but the right is and so is the center. She's pushed the myth that everyone on the left is 'Godless.' Carville just watched that one fly over the plate. She's stated that the left has subverted the democratic process and Carville's . . . staring at the sun? Where he is?

Don't give me that crap about it's Mother's Day. This isn't a warm & fuzzy sitdown with Barbra Walters for a prime time special. This is debate-the-issues time. Carville, like every day that's not Mothers' Day, lets Matalin say whatever she wants. He'll pick one item to argue. But he'll let her other charges stand.

It's not cute, it's not funny. The Sonny & Cher Show got old a long time ago. And Carville's refusal to challenge her assertions should have long ago led to his refusing to participate in these roundtables. Granted, there are people who would just say, "Mary, you're right." There are some lousy spokespeople for the Democratic Party. But Carville's only got a case of the shys when he's seated opposite Matalin.

He's not helping the Democratic Party when he goes on opposite her.

And let's be honest, there's something really trashy about booking them together. This isn't a dinner. There's no reason they have to arrive and leave together. This is supposed to be about their profession and their professionalism. Instead it turns into some sort of vanity project.

Give them an MTV show. Give them a VH1 show or a Lifetime Show. But stop booking them together. It's not amusing. At a party, you'd walk away from the bickering pair. You wouldn't care to hear this nonsense. You'd be embarrassed for Carville that the cat gets his tongue everytime the person he's disagreeing with is his wife. But someone's decided at Meet the Press that this is the epitome of "class." It's not. It's tacky and it's tawdry.

I don't care for Matalin's political beliefs, but is the message here that she only rates as a guest if her husband's booked? Is the same true of Carville? Is there only value as a freak show?

Pair them up with other people because, as TV, this thing got old long ago. In terms of a debate (even what passes for a "debate" on Meet the Press), Carville should realize that by refusing to debate her the way he does others, he hurts his cause.

It's ridiculous. It's been allowed to go on and on. Do neither of them realize that they are booked as a "freak show?" That's what's going on. "Watch them bicker. Oh, they're married, it's so funny when they go after one another."

Even if Carville would conduct himself the way he does with other pundits, it would still be a "freak show." For the issues they speak about, if nothing else, you'd think after a decade of this nonsense, they'd say "Enough." (Though, were I Matalin, I'd continue with it for professional reasons -- she wipes the floor with an opponent who keeps one hand tied behind his back.)

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

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

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

Headlines for May 9, 2005
- U.S. Death Toll In Iraq Tops 1600
- Over 300 Iraqis Killed Over Past 10 Days
- Leaked Memo: U.S. "Fixed Facts" To Justify Iraq War
- Three Afghan Women Brutally Killed
- Appeals Court Throws Out FBI Whistleblower Suit
- Vatican Forces Out Liberal Magazine Editor
- California Labor Organizer Miguel Contreras, 52, Dies
- Anti-Nuclear Peace Activist Elmer Maas, 70, Dies

Terrorist Cuban Exile Luis Posada Carriles Seeking Political Asylum in U.S.
A chief terrorist with long ties to US intelligence agencies is seeking asylum in the United States. The FBI has evidence linking him to an airline bombing that killed 73 people. We're talking about the notorious militant Cuban exile: Luis Posada Carriles. Today we speak with one of the few American reporters who has interviewed him and the president of the national assembly of Cuba, which is calling for his extradition to Venezuela.

EXCLUSIVE: Top Cuban Official Ricardo Alarcon Demands U.S. Hand Over Terrorist Posada
In an exclusive interview, the president of the Cuban National Assembly Ricardo Alarcon gives his most extended remarks to date on the case of the notorious Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles. Alarcon says, "Now the Bush doctrine - those who harbor a terrorist are as guilty as the terrorist himself - should be proven. The proof is in the pudding."

From Headlines, we'll note this:

Anti-Nuclear Peace Activist Elmer Maas, 70, Dies
And longtime peace activist Elmer Maas has died. He was a lifelong anti-nuclear activist and a founder of the Plowshares movement. In 1980, along with Phil and Dan Berrigan and five others, he hammered on nuclear warheads at the General Electric plant in King of Prussia Pennsylvania. The action became known as the Plowshares Eight. He would have turned 70 in August.

At The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby's plate is full and I'm tempted to swipe from the comments on NYT David Brooks but I'll excert instead from commentary on Michael Kinsley. From today's Daily Howler:

But none of that mattered when Michael Kinsley sat down to type on SS. Amazingly, Kinsley praised Bush for the honesty he displayed in his recent TV press conference--and he said that Bush was especially honest when he discussed SS! "There was a remarkable amount of honesty and near-honesty" in the conference, the scribe weirdly said. "Above all, Bush was honest and even courageous about Social Security." But good grief! Kinsley's column appeared two days after Bush lied to those five young workers, and two days before he lied to the mothers. Yes, we've really defined dishonesty down when a conservative president gets praised by a liberal in the midst of a grisly performance like that. When such praise comes from a famous "liberal spokesmen," we’ve reached the day when this gentleman's burn-out must be described as it is.
[. . .]
Yes, that was The Meathead Proposition: Bush uses rosy projections when he estimates stock returns, but he uses contradictory gloomy projections when he says that the trust fund will expire by the year 2041. Many of you are familiar with this argument, for good reason; as Drum noted, it had already been "batted around a fair amount" by February 1, twelve days before Kinsley's column appeared--the column which attributed the idea to Meathead. Indeed, the idea had been widely discussed, all across the liberal web. But, as usual, Kinsley was clueless. He seemed to think his idea was new; indeed, he assured us that the idea wasn't his. He had heard it at a Hollywood party, he seemed to say as he laid out the notion.
No, this isn't a hanging offense, although it seemed to suggest that Kinsley was clueless--that he didn't know the shape of the discourse occurring all over the liberal world. Indeed, our analysts rolled their eyes at this column only because they had seen this gentleman's consummate cluelessness before. How out-of-touch is Michael Kinsley? In October 2004, he did a segment on Washington Journal, a segment where his utter cluelessness rang out loud and clear. An e-mailer asked him what he thought about a widely discussed Washington think tank. Our analysts (and several of our readers) were startled by Kinsley's odd reply. He spoke with C-SPAN’s Steven Scully, who presented the e-mailer’s query:
SCULLY (10/24/04): An e-mail from J. Steele: "Mr. Kinsley, how much influence do you believe the Project for the New American Century has had on President Bush?"
The e-mailer asked an obvious question. But as usual, Kinsley was utterly clueless. Here was the full discussion. And yes, this exchange should amaze:
SCULLY (10/24/04): An e-mail from J. Steele: "Mr. Kinsley, how much influence do you believe the Project for the New American Century has had on President Bush?"
KINSLEY: Now, someone will have to remind me what that is.
SCULLY: That was the, the letter--wasn't that the letter that came out in 1997, co-written by Donald Rumsfeld and others?
KINSLEY: I gotta confess, I don't know.
SCULLY: OK--
KINSLEY: I, so I, so obviously--it may be influencing President Bush but it isn't influencing me much. And I apologize.
Readers can watch this remarkable exchange on the tape of the C-SPAN program. Just click here; the exchange begins about 16:45 into the session.
Many readers will understand what made this exchange so remarkable. As Scully seemed to know (but Kinsley clearly didn't), The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an important Washington think tank--a think tank whose highly influential members began arguing for military intervention in Iraq during Bill Clinton's second term. Indeed, here's the PNAC letter to which Scully referred (it was actually written in January 1998); in it, PNAC's members urged President Clinton "to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power."
"This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts," the letter continued. "Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater."
As many of our readers will know, this letter created a great deal of discussion in the run-up to the war in Iraq. It created discussion because of its authors; the letter had been written by a string of big players in the current Bush Administration. Its authors did included Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, and several other big players in the Admin which eventually went to war in Iraq (among them: John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Robert Zoellick, Richard Perle). To state the obvious, there was no reason why these people shouldn't have lobbied Clinton this way; they argued openly for their policy views, which is every citizen's perfect right. But the letter, written in early 1998, showed that major players in the Bush Admin had wanted to go to war with Iraq long before the events of September 11, 2001.

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

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

From Danny Schechter's News Dissector this morning, we'll note "SECURITY BOONDOGGLE CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ? A BILL OF CITIZENS MEDIA RIGHTS:"

Going through as many airports as I do, its distressing to see all the ongoing harassment and humiliating searches in the name of security by the white-shirted TSA who appear so efficient and committed to safety procedures that we follow like sheep while rationalizing its need. Never mind that old people are suspected as terrorists and terrorized and traumatized during these War on Terror games that seem to be preparing us for even more government intrusion.
And then, to read how the bozos of Home Security have made us less secure. Report after report has documented that the system is deeply flawed. And now the NY Times on Sunday reported on page 1.
"U.S. to Spend Billions More to Alter Security …After spending more than $4.5 billion, the federalgovernment has concluded that much of the antiterrorism equipment is ineffective."
Will anyone be held accountable for this boondoggle? Where is Tom Ridge? Where is his boss? Its time to open the books. Isn't it time for Congressional hearings on Terror War profiteering? How many of these companies are GOP related?
Its only money, or is it?
RE: OUR KIND OF TERRORIST:
Last week, I reported that the State Department said it "didn't know" if convicted anti-Castro Cuban terrorist was seeking asylum in the US. Perhaps they will read today's NY Times:
"Luis Posada Carriles, who is a symbol for the armed anti-Castro movement, is seeking political asylum in the U.S".
www.nytimes.com

Rachel e-mails to note Bob Somerby's Saturday Daily Howler where Somerby addresses the writing of John Tierney of the New York Times :

In these four paragraphs, Tierney restates a scripted claim that has driven our discourse for several decades. He pretends there’s something novel and strange about the process by which Congress borrows money from the SS trustees. He compares this process to familiar disasters; he makes us think it's like Uncle Festus spending the rent money down at the track. But as a matter of fact, it isn't like that. Congress doesn't simply "spend" that money. Before it "spends" the money, it borrows it--in just the same way that it has borrowed money from a wide range of entities for many years.
How should Dems respond to familiar claims--claims in which we're tediously told that the SS trust fund has already been spent? Dems should remember the logic of borrow and spend; more precisely, they should always remember to insert the word "borrow" in the discussion. Congress didn't simply "spend" the money; before it spent the money, it borrowed it. It has borrowed this way for the past forty years, from a vast array of sources. And yes, it has always paid back this borrowed money, just as it will do with the SS trustees--unless trained typists convince us that we should run out on this one narrow part of our debt.

Thanks Rachel for catching that. I completely forgot about the planned Saturday Howler.

Moving to a different Rachel, Rachel Maddow, this morning on The Rachel Maddow Show,
Maddow noted that the American military fatalities in Iraq had hit the 1600 mark. (It's at 1602 currently.)

Via BuzzFlash, Zach draws our attention to The Louisville, Kentucky's The Courier-Journal's "Home From Iraq" (by Molly Bingham):


We spent 10 months in Iraq, working on a story, understanding who the people are who are fighting, why they fight, what their fundamental beliefs are, when they started, what kinds of backgrounds they come from, what education, jobs they have. Were they former military, are they Iraqi or foreign? Are they part of al-Qaida? What we came up with is a story in itself, and one that Vanity Fair ran in July 2004 with my text and pictures. [My colleague Steve Connors] shot a documentary film that is still waiting to find a home. But the basic point for this discussion is that we both thought it was really journalistically important to understand who it was who was resisting the presence of the foreign troops. If you didn't understand that, how could you report what was clearly becoming an "ongoing conflict?" And if you were reading the news in America, or Europe, how could you understand the full context of what was unfolding if what motivates the "other side" of the conflict is not understood, or even discussed?
Just the process of working on that story has revealed many things to me about my own country. I'd like to share some of them with you: [. . .]

To read more click here.

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

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

"The real question here is how far did John Bolton stretch the truth or stretch the facts, regarding intelligence," Mr. Biden said Sunday on the CBS News program "Face the Nation." Mr. Biden said the panel needed the documents to learn more about whether Mr. Bolton, as under secretary of state for arms control, had sought "to push the envelope" in making public assertions about Syria, Cuba and other countries that were not supported by objective intelligence assessments.
In appealing the decision, Mr. Biden said in a letter to Ms. Rice on Saturday that the panel needed the documents to help determine whether Mr. Bolton's efforts "to make statements that went far beyond what the intelligence would support" should call into question his fitness to be United Nations ambassador.

That's from Douglas Jehl's "Rice's Reason for Withholding Bolton Files: A Chilling Effect" in this morning's New York Times. A number of you, including Greg, Erika, Tony, Lisa and Denise, e-mailed to note Biden's continued fight ("and lonely fight," as Denise noted).

Kyle: It just seems like Joe [Biden] is the only Democrat pushing on this issue so can we give him a nod?

Yes, we can. Biden is pushing on the issue. It does deserve noting.

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

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

In this morning's New York Times, we'll start off by noting Tim Weiner's "Case of Cuban Exile Could Test the U.S. Definition of Terrorist:"


Mr. Posada, a Cuban exile, has long been a symbol for the armed anti-Castro movement in the United States. He remains a prime suspect in the bombing of a Cuban commercial airliner that killed 73 people in 1976. He has admitted to plotting attacks that damaged tourist spots in Havana and killed an Italian visitor there in 1997. He was convicted in Panama in a 2000 bomb plot against Mr. Castro. He is no longer welcome in his old Latin America haunts.
Mr. Posada, 77, sneaked back into Florida six weeks ago in an effort to seek political asylum for having served as a cold war soldier on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1960's, his lawyer, Eduardo Soto, said at a news conference last month.
Venezuela wants to extradite and retry him for the Cuban airline bombing. Mr. Posada was involved "up to his eyeballs" in planning the attack, said Carter Cornick, a retired counterterrorism specialist for the Federal Bureau of Investigation who investigated Mr. Posada's role in that case. A newly declassified 1976 F.B.I. document places Mr. Posada, who had been a senior Venezuelan intelligence officer, at two meetings where the bombing was planned.

Eli e-mails to note Robert Pear's "States Propose Sweeping Changes to Trim Medicaid by Billions:"


Under the proposals, some beneficiaries would have to pay more for care, and states would have more latitude to limit the scope of services.
The proposals, drafted by separate working groups of governors and state legislators, provide guidance to Congress, which 10 days ago endorsed a budget blueprint that would cut projected Medicaid spending by $10 billion over the next five years.
Many of the proposals resemble ideas advanced by President Bush as part of his 2006 budget. In some cases, the governors embrace Mr. Bush's proposals but go further. At the same time, they also reject some of the president's recommendations that they believe would shift costs to the states.

Joy e-mails to note Alan Cowell's "After Winning One Campaign, Blair Is Facing Another Against Him, in His Own Party:"

It's not unusual in politics for an election victor to enjoy a honeymoon, however brief. But three days after a national vote in Britain that gave him a historic third term, Prime Minister Tony Blair confronted a widening debate about his tenure in office.
Almost unanimously, Sunday newspapers devoted their front pages to articles chronicling disputes over when he would fulfill his pledge to stand down before the next election in favor of the chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown.

Joy: There's not really anything in here that wasn't up at the site yesterday but since the Times often ignores reality, I figured I should e-mail about this.

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

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

From Scotland's The Herald, we'll note Stephen Graham's "UN engineer killed in bombing of Kabul internet cafe:"

A UN engineer was among three people killed when a suicide attacker blew himself up in an internet cafe in Kabul, the first fatal attack on a UN staffer in the capital since the Taliban fell in 2001.
The weekend bombing followed a series of kidnap attempts on foreigners and the killing of a British development worker, deepening a sense of insecurity as a Taliban-led uprising revives in the south.
The country's top law-enforcer said police were erecting extra checkpoints.
"There are criminal elements who have a lot to gain by destabilising Afghanistan and halting and reversing the progress the country has made," said Ali Ahmad Jalali, the interior minister. "We will never allow that to happen.

From The Economist, Billy e-mails "Hunting Uganda's child-killers:"


NO ONE doubts that terrible crimes have been committed in northern Uganda. The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel group led by Joseph Kony, a man who thinks himself semi-divine, has spent the past 18 years slaughtering peasants, enslaving children and slicing off the lips and noses of conscripts it suspects of disloyalty. But does this mean that the newly established International Criminal Court (ICC) should be going after Mr Kony and his lieutenants? Several community leaders in northern Uganda think not.
As the ICC prepares to issue its first arrest warrants against the LRA's leaders, Rwot Acana II, the paramount chief of the northern Acholi people, who have borne the brunt of the rebels' atrocities, predicts that it will be "the last nail in the coffin" of a fragile peace process. The threat of prosecution, he argues, will deter the rebels from accepting a government-offered amnesty, and therefore prolong the war. He and other Acholi leaders have been furiously lobbying the ICC to back off. They argue that it would be better to apply traditional Acholi justice. If the rebels confess their guilt and undergo cleansing rituals, they will be accepted back into their communities, say the ICC's critics.

Also from The Economist, we'll note "Stagflation, the remix:"

LIKE the disco era it dominated, stagflation has a distinctive beat: slow growth, rising inflation, high oil prices and weak labour markets. In the 1970s this nasty combination haunted the global economy. Could it be making a comeback?
Today's world economy does seem to be playing some similar tunes. In the statement accompanying its latest interest-rate hike on May 3rd, America's Federal Reserve fretted about both price pressure and a slowdown in spending. On May 4th, the European Central Bank kept interest rates unchanged, but worried aloud about oil prices and slowing growth.
The evidence is mounting that global growth has slowed. In America, output grew by an annualised 3.1% in the first three months of 2005, the slowest pace for two years. More recent figures, from weak retail sales to soggy consumer confidence, suggest this "soft patch" may be getting softer by the day. In Britain, the latest numbers--in retail sales and manufacturing--point to weaker growth. And in the euro zone, sluggish economies are looking ever more lethargic.
Yet even as growth is slowing, price pressures are looming. In America, consumer prices rose 3.1% in the year to March, up from 1.7% a year ago. In Britain, inflation jumped unexpectedly in March. And in the euro zone, consumer prices are still rising faster than the 2% goal that the European Central Bank targets. With output slowing and inflation stubborn, it is small wonder that the concerns about stagflation are back in fashion.

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

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