Here's the weekend schedule for Air America radio's programming. (Fortunately, they've put them in order because I screwed up the order by which Marty Kaplin's show and Bobby Kennedy and Mike Papantonio's shows were repeating on Sundays.) We're also including "news" because there are members who really enjoy, for instance, Rachel Maddow and Randi Rhodes. I've included "news" in full (out of fairness). If you don't enjoy someone listed in news, don't pay attention to the item on them. (And yes, we'll give The Laura Flanders Show it's own listing on Saturday.)

Remember, if you're not in one of the 63 areas that Air America broadcasts over the airwaves (and you don't have satellite radio), you can listen online (via real player or windows media player). You can also listen online, Brenda notes, if you live in an area like her where there is a station but the signal's not clear.

From the Air America home page:


Weekend Shows

So What Else Is News?
Saturday 3pm-5pm with host Marty Kaplan

Ring of Fire
Saturday 5pm-7pm
When one-third of union members vote Republican, something's seriously wrong with the American labor movement. Mike talks with Stewart Acuff, National Organizing Director of the AFL-CIO, about the push to get unionists back on the progressive path.
Thanks to "regulatory" councils stacked with industry insiders, the corporate pirates of the fishing industry are plundering the great Pacific fisheries and killing off endangered wildlife. Bobby talks with Paul Koberstein, editor of Cascadia Times and author of "The Cats Running the Fish House."
Drug addict? Drop-out? No problem, the U.S. military wants you! In their desperation to shore up flagging enlistment, some military recruiters are breaking every rule in the book - and many unsuspecting teens are getting a very raw deal. Mike talks with Liz Rivera Goldstein, a "counter recruiter" and founder of the Teen Peace Project.

The Laura Flanders Show
Saturday & Sunday 7pm-10pm The winds of change are blowing. This weekend, Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey D-CA, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-DC, on changing attitudes, towards the war in Iraq and a new effort to bring troops home. Listeners weigh in on the state of the American Dream, with help from two top New York Times journalists, Janny Scott and David Leonhardt, part of newspaper's Class Matters reporting team. Plus revolutionary womanist writer Bell Hooks and pop singer-songwriter Jill Sobule, who recently interviewed Laura. Get the scoop right here!

The Kyle Jason Show Saturday 10pm-Midnight
This Saturday night, Kyle and his crew will dedicate the show to a discussion about Hip-Hop culture. More specifically; they will debate and discuss the influence of magazines that promote Hip-Hop culture. Are these periodicals benefiting their readers? Do they promote unity and positivity or do they perpetuate a culture of ignorance and negativity? What do you think the overall effect is on the end-user, a.k.a., the reader? The Phone lines will be open, so give Kyle a call and let him know what you think about the issue. And, as always Kyle will be playing some funky music from his grab-bag. Call 1-866-303-2270 (A.A.R.O)

Best of Mike Malloy
Sunday Midnight to 3am

Ecotalk Sunday 7am-8am
On the heels of Al Gore's impassioned presentation on global warning; "humanity is on a collision course with the planet", delivered at last week's World Environment Day conference, came word that the head of the President's Council on Environmental Quality doctored documents on climate change to minimize the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (even though it's pretty clear to the rest of us!). We'll hear from the Union of Concerned Scientists, as well as a defender of such egregious editing. We'll also meet the author of a new book on "Nature Deficit Disorder".

Liberal Arts
Sunday 1pm-2pm with host Katherine Lanpher

Politically Direct
Sunday 2pm-3pm with host David Bender

The Revolution Starts Now!
Sunday 10pm-11pm with host Steve Earle

On The Real
Sunday 11pm-1am with Chuck D and Gia'na Garel

Air America News

Air America Supports ONE: The Campaign to Fight Poverty
From July 6th-9th, the leaders of the most powerful nations in the world will convene at the G8 summit to determine the fate of the impoverished. Take action by signing the "One" declaration, or attend a star-studded Live 8 concert in mass protest.

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC
Rachel Maddow, host of The Rachel Maddow Show, AAR's early morning news hour, will be become MSNBC's first and only progressive spokesperson when she takes her place as a regular panelist on the 'The Situation', hosted by conservative bow tie model Tucker Carlson.

Randi in Phoenix
Randi will broadcast live from Phoenix June 13th-17th on 1010 Talk KXXT

Al Franken Returns to Sundance
You asked for it and it's back: the second season of Sundance Channel's The Al Franken Show. Every day, starting June 6 at 11:30pm (repeated at 2:30am and 7:00am).

Morning Sedition NYC Summer Tour
Marc and Mark continue their New York City tour with a live broadcast this Friday, June 10th from The Strand Bookstore, 828 Broadway at 12th St. Guests will include Democratic Mayoral candidate Virginia Fields, playwright and actor Eric Bogosian, and Comedian Jim David.

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

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

It's Friday which means some members want the Sunday Chat & Chews lineup. So grab the palm pilots, day planners and to-do list for those brave enough to watch.

ABC's This Week (Sundays, check local listings) offers the following lineup:

Guests:
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
Ranking member, Financial Services Committee
Suze Orman
Financial Adviser
Anthony Hsieh CEO, LendingTree.com
Rep. Walter Jones Jr., R-N.C.
Armed Services Committee
Brad Pitt
Actor

It's not bad enough "Suze Orman" inflicts herself upon PBS viewers (often during pledge weeks which seem to come more often) with her infomercials for her books, tapes, et al while passing her "special" off as "public affairs," now she's on ABC This Week?

If you're considering watching one of the Sunday Chat & Chews, you might want to pay attention to this:

Then, the man who brought you "Freedom Fries," Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. A conservative Christian from North Carolina, he voted to go to war in Iraq but now wants the United States to get out. He has asked the administration to apologize for what he calls the misinformation that led to war, and has personally written to the families of hundreds of troops killed in Iraq. Jones sits down for his first interview on national television.

That should make for an interesting interview and I don't believe any other Sunday Chat & Chew has had him on.

Democracy Now! viewers, listeners and readers will remember this from the May 25th Headlines:

Backer of 'Freedom Fries' Now Opposes the War in Iraq
But also on Capitol Hill -- a surprising critic of the war has emerged -- Republican Walter Jones. The Congressman from North Carolina recently told a local newspaper that the US went to war "with no justification." Jones made international headlines three years ago when he lashed out at France for not supporting the war effort. In March 2003 he demanded that three Congressional cafeterias ban the word French from the menus. French fries soon became freedom fries. While the ban is still in force, Jones' current view on the war appears to be closer to France's than President Bush's. Jones said "If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong. Congress must be told the truth."

Please note, Democracy Now! is not a Sunday Chat & Chew. It's real journalism and I offer the above because it gives background and also demonstrates that this was news in May. Good for This Week for having Walter Jones on.

The round table is Robert Reich, Linda Douglas, and George Will and they will discuss:

Howard Dean's recent rash of comments about Republicans, President Bush's low approval ratings, the new layoffs announced by General Motors and the rest of the week's political events.


"Recent rash of comments about Republicans?" Well, it gives you a tip off to where they stand. Also tells you that someone's going for alliteration.

Over at NBC's Meet the Press (Sundays, check your local listings) the guests are:

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D - DE)
Ranking Member, Foreign Relations Committee

REP. CURT WELDON (R - PA) Vice Chairman, Armed Services Committee Vice Chairman, Homeland Security Committee Author, "Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information that Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America... and How the CIA has Ignored it"

For the roundtable:

DAVID BRODER
Washington Post
JOHN HARWOOD
Wall Street Journal
GWEN IFILL
PBS' "Washington Week"
JUDY WOODRUFF
Former Anchor, "Inside Politics"

CBS's Face the Nation (Sundays, check your local listings) will have the following focus:

Topics:
Guantanamo Bay, Patriot Act, Iraq
Guests:
Sen. Patrick Leahy
Democrat - Vermont
Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Republican - South Carolina
John Harris
Author, The Survivor: Bill Clinton In The White House

If I'd watch one of them, I'd go with either This Week or Face the Nation. This Week is a Cokie Roberts-free zone this week and those can be so rare. Plus they have Walter Jones and I'd be curious as to his statements. (Which will no doubt be covered by Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis. Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler, will highlight the Sunday Chat & Chews if anything stands out. Between the two of them, I'm able to skip the Chat & Chews.) But, like any other member of this community, list the Patriot Act as a topic (as Face the Nation does) and you've peaked my interest.


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

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

Kevin's had to wait on this, and my apologies to him for that.

Kevin e-mailed to note that the new edition of Mother Jones magazine is out. Kevin wanted to note that the "Editor's Note" this time is a strong one "and deserves attention." After the last few, I was wary. (And never read their note each issue until angry members pointed them out.)
He asked that I note whether I agreed or not. (Which might be curiousity or might be knowing how angry the community's been at two editor's note and not wanting to stand alone on this.)

I read it Thursday (when Kevin e-mailed on it) and I'd agree it's strong and worth noting. (So Kevin's not standing alone.)

From the "Editor's Note:"

For its part, much of the left has spent the months since November (really, it has been spending years) wallowing in insecure self-inspection; the Democratic Party has invited everyone form linguists to preachers to exorcise the internal flaw that could explain its ineffectuality. Party leaders might heed the formulation of W.B. Yeats in his poem "To a Friend Whose Work Has Come to Nothing": "For how can you compete/ Being honour bred, with one/ Who, were it proved he lies/ Were neither shamed in his own/ Nor in his neighbor's eyes?" The Democrats need to recognize that their biggest internal problem may be their inability to size up their external one. Simply put, they have an unscrupulous antagonist.
[. . .]
Lastly, and speaking from the self-centeredness of our offices, what does all this mean for Mother Jones? When the crisis at the core of our nation's political decline is a direct attack on the truth, the institution that should take the lead in confronting and correcting the dangers is the press. That means us. We have been, since our founding, a reported magazine, and would rather spend our resources ferreting out the facts of a matter than spend our breath expounding opinions. In the current climate, and facing the present danger, we do not find our political orientation to be inconsistent with our devotion to fact. We're better positioned to honor objective fact because we aren't insulted by the charge that we're "the liberal media." We have offered space in these pages to the dialogue about constructive course corrections that might avail the left. But we won't respond to the political winds by calibrating our message. We have looked at the problem, and decided that the answer is not to accommodate. In upcoming issues, you, our readers, will witness our rededication to this fight, and our confidence that reality is our ally. Considering the demonstrated belief of leaders on the right that furthering their agenda requires bludgeoning and inconvenient truth, we evidentally are not alone in concluding that the facts are on our side.
-- Russ Rymer

[For Doug who's about to start a summer semester, this is pp. 4-5 of the May/June issue of Mother Jones. In the class, everyone will be doing a paper on the press and truth vs. spin. Doug gets the New York Times but if you're noting something about the press from a print sourcein any of your entries for the next few weeks -- I think it's three, let me know if that's wrong Doug -- and it's not available online, please try to note the pages to help Doug out. The first paragraph is page four, the second -- begins with "Lastly" -- is page five.]

The "Editor's Note" isn't available online (I think I typed it up correctly but if spell check shows a problem Doug, trust that I've got a typo). But Russ Rymer was announced as the new editor-in-chief on January 13, 2005.

From that press release (in full, it's a press release and I know members have had questions regarding the editorial leadership after two "Editor's Notes" that were bothersome so we'll note it in full):

Mother Jones magazine announced today that Russ Rymer has been named editor-in-chief of Mother Jones, effective February 7.
A noted writer and editor, Rymer has held senior editing posts at seven national and regional magazines and has written for the New Yorker, New York Times Magazine, Harper’s, The Atlantic, Smithsonian, Mother Jones, and many other magazines. His first book Genie: A Scientific Tragedy was a finalist for the National Book Critics’ Circle Award and was turned into a PBS documentary. His second book American Beach: A Saga of Race, Wealth, and Memory was named a New York Times Notable Book and was a finalist for a Los Angeles Times Book Award.
Rymer is currently the top editor at Portland Monthly, which in only two years has become the seventh-largest city magazine in the country in newsstand sales and the top-ranked city magazine in the country in sales per-capita. An issue of Hippocrates magazine (now Health) that he conceived and edited won a 1989 National Magazine Award for Best Single Topic Issue. In 2002, he was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship for a project related to the fate of craftsmanship in the era of globalization.
"These political times demand that Mother Jones be at its most energetic and muscular," says Jay Harris, Mother Jones' president and publisher. "Russ and the editors will produce a magazine that leaves no doubt about the power of progressive ideas. He will treat our readers to powerful writing and to great reporting that searches out truth and brings back scalps."
Rymer says he wants to lead a magazine "that makes clear why progressive ideas are right for the nation's future. At a time when our own government is recklessly endangering our national security and economic stability, and neglecting our social welfare, Mother Jones' voice is needed more than ever. I’m excited to be here."
With a circulation of 240,000, Mother Jones is the largest-circulation progressive publication in the country. The magazine’s circulation has been on a steady upward track for the past six years, growing from 130,000 in 1998.
Mother Jones won a National Magazine Award for General Excellence in 2001, its fourth NMA, and was a finalist in General Excellence again in 2003.

I'm still making my way through the issue (Kevin judges it to be "the strongest issue in months")
and hopefully we can highlight some articles from it. (Time permitting.) But articles available online can be found at the Mother Jones website.

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 June 10, 2005
- After Weeks of Mass Rebellion, New President in Bolivia
- Conyers to Hold Hearings on Downing Street Memo
- Justice Department: FBI Failed on Pre-9/11 Intelligence
- Dem Leader Reid to White House: No Docs, No Bolton
- Republicans Threaten to Cut UN Funding
- Former RNC Chair May Head Corporation for Public Broadcasting
- Saddam Lawyers Say They Have No Access to Evidence

NEW FEATURE: Democracy Now! is now offering the program's daily news summary translated into Spanish. Los Titulares de Hoy

New Bolivian President Sworn in After Weeks of Mass Rebellion
The head of Bolivia's Supreme Court, Eduardo Rodriguez, was sworn in as president after a day marked by massive protest and widespread fears of a bloodbath or a civil war. The situation in the country remains tense but many believe that the worst-case scenario has been avoided. Earlier this week, President Carlos Mesa resigned amid massive protest against his government, giving the right-wing head of the Bolivian Senate, Hormando Vaca Diez an opportunity to take power as his constitutional successor. But Vaca Diez declined the post after protesters blockaded parliament to prevent his appointment. We go to Cochabamba to speak with Bolivia analyst, Jim Shultz and we speak with Bolivian researcher and activist, Marcela Olivera as well as Tom Hayden. [includes rush transcript - partial]

Anti-Sweatshop Activist and Chief Nicaragua Negotiator on CAFTA Debate Central America Free Trade
We host a debate on the U.S.-backed Central American Free Trade Agreement between veteran anti-sweatshop activist Charles Kernaghan of the National Labor Committee and Nicaragua's chief negotiator on CAFTA, Carlos Sequeira.

We'll note Matthew Rothschild's latest "This Just In" at The Progressive (it's entitled "The Iraq Tide Is Out"):

The tide of public opinion has finally gone out on the Iraq War.
And it won't be coming back in anytime soon.
According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, "nearly three quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable."
Already, Bush's illegal and duplicitous war has taken the lives of 1,676 U.S. soldiers and wounded 12,861.
And anywhere between 22,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have been killed, as well.
Here are some other poll numbers that spell trouble for Bush: "Two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down, and nearly six in ten say the war was not worth the price," according to the Post article.

From The Black Commentator, Tori calls our attention to Randall G. Shelden's "Slavery in the Third Millennium, Part I - Prisons and Slavery: Seeking Cheap Labor and Control of African-Americans:"


The winter, 2005 issue of Contexts (a leading sociology journal) featured a photo essay on the infamous Cummins Prison Farm in Arkansas. One photo showed about twenty convicts in a field picking cotton, while a white guard stood over them. Another photo showed a tractor pulling about 8 carts filled with convicts returning from the fields, with four guards riding on horses along the left side. The black and white photos could have easily been taken 100 years ago at one of several "plantation prisons" in the South. They were among about 5,000 photographs taken by sociologist Bruce Jackson between 1971 and 1975.
Plantation prisons emerged in the southern states shortly after the end of the Civil War. Not surprisingly they were modeled after the slave plantation. Practically all of the prisoners were black, both male and female. They were sent to these prisons "on the flimsiest pretexts and then put to hard labor in the fields of these prisons, often in chain gangs." Prisons like Parchman in Mississippi and Cummins in Arkansas were little more than slave plantations which, along with convict leasing, extended the slave system long after emancipation.
Many of these prisons became notorious over the years, resulting in literally thousands of deaths. Perhaps the most infamous case came to light at the Tucker Prison Farm where a reform-minded warden named Tom Murton discovered numerous bodies of dead prisoners buried in the fields in the 1960s. The scandal created quite a stir at the time. Even a movie, Brubaker, starring Robert Redford was made about this scandal.
Throughout history those in power have sought to control groups that they perceived to be a threat and/or groups they wished to dominate for political or economic gain. The methods of control have varied from economic marginalization to thought control via propaganda to subjecting them to the control of the legal system to total or partial segregation and finally, in extreme cases, total extermination (e.g., genocide). In America such control has targeted Native Americans, African slaves, labor agitators and many others.

Trina e-mails to note Ari Berman's "Outrageous Outtakes:"

** There's nothing more pathetic than Democrats lining up to bash DNC Chairman Howard Dean. Now publicity hounds like Joe Biden are getting an unexpected assist from the Associated Press and headline writers at the New York Times online. A headline posted yesterday at 12:57 pm read, "Newsview: Some Democrats Angry With Dean." Not one Democrat, however, was quoted criticizing Dean. A revised headline posted later in the day, titled, "Dean Visits Democratic Leaders in Congress After Stir," made it sound as if Dean was summoned to the Hill for an apology. He was, in fact, in a meeting with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to discuss the Democrats agenda for the next few weeks of Congress. Reid, rightfully, stood by his party's chairman. "Reid Declines to Join Blame Dean Choir" may have been more appropriate.

Trina: The article [in the Times] is gossip and petty passing for news.

The article is, CORRECTION, written by Anne E. Kornblut. I'll correct that (from Ann Kornblutt) this evening when I'm at my own computer. (Apologies to Kornblut.)* In addition, "online" is missing from the section on Krista's comments (thanks Shirley) and there are two words to correct in Ruth's post (my mistake as I copied and paste bit by bit). Someone, a visitor also e-mailed to gripe, and it was a gripe, that a link in Ruth's post isn't accurate. Here's my reply to that, you know the author, the publication has a search engine, you know the date; therefore, get over yourself. (I also was so out of this morning that I failed to provide a link to a Times article. Author's name and the title are provided so it can be searched and my attitude on that, expressed previously, maybe why no one e-mailed on that.)


Two things to note from BuzzFlash:

This Week BuzzFlash's GOP Hypocrite is a State Senator from Kansas Who Commits Hypocrisy Everytime She Votes for Herself, Because She is Opposed to Women Having the Right to Vote -- And Now She Wants Women to Help Elect Her Kansas Secretary of State. So Many Republican Hypocrites, So Little Time.

So check out the BuzzFlash pick for GOP Hypocrite of the Week.


Also BuzzFlash has an interview with George E. Lowe, "BuzzFlash Interview With George E. Lowe: Can 'It' Happen Here? Isn't 'It" Already? A Fascist Christian America."

We'll do an excerpt of the interview this evening (when hopefully my headache will be gone and I can enjoy what should be a pretty incredible interview). If there is a slight delay in posting this evening, I've decided to take a nap before posting. But to Carl and Steve, don't worry, we will have the Sunday Chat & Chews schedules posted tonight.

Where's The Daily Howler? Friday's isn't up yet. We will note it -- hopefully tonight.

But we will note Tom Hayden on Democracy Now! this evening (one comment in particular). It's one of those "the Times never tells you" topics. And Kevin, you're comments on Mother Jones (that should have gone up yesterday) are first on my list for tonight's posts. (Sorry for the delay.)

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

*On names, there's a guest on Democracy Now! listed in the summaries whose name is not in the heading. That choice was made by me because I can't tell if I'm looking at an "r" and a "n" or a "m."

[Note: This entry has gone up three times today via e-mail. Three times it has ended up vanishing. This time it was done by logging into Blogger so there shouldn't be anymore problems with it disappearing. But for those e-mailing, yes, it probably does mean that after a brief period of no problems e-mailing the mid-day post, we're not in store for a string of them.]

[Note II: I've just come back in and added the NEW FEATURE: Democracy Now! is now offering the program's daily news summary translated into Spanish. Los Titulares de Hoy to the entry. Please make sure to do your part to get the word out on the new feature.]

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

Ruth: This Morning Edition Report will be a bit behind and there's a reason for that. I was bothered in particular by one segment and I wanted to look into it.

On Wednesday, there were two segments on Morning Edition that caught my attention.


Bush, Blair at Odds on African Aid, Global Warming
by Don Gonyea
Morning Edition, June 8, 2005 · President Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House Tuesday. They discussed aid for Africa and global warming, subjects on which they disagree. Bush pledged an additional $674 million for famine relief in Africa, but it's far less than what Blair was seeking.

In the segment, we heard the Bully Boy refer to Prime Minister Tony Blair as "Tony Blair" and apparently the collequial nature was something Don Gonyea just had to emulate.

Now I know some people don't care for titles. C.I., for instance, will not usually use titles, medical, elected or anything. That's fine, that's consistent.

But while Gonyea was happy to note "President Bush" and "the president repeatedly," Prime Minister Tony Blair was always "Blair" as though Gonyea were reporting on an episode of Facts of Life.

"But Blair had come here to . . ."
"On Africa, Blair is . . ."
"Blair would like the U.S. to . . ."
"Blair offered praise . . ."

No "Prime Minister Blair." The Bully Boy was never "Bush."

If you're going to give one leader a title and you're a news agency, you need to refer to others by their title. You either use titles or you don't. It came off disrespectful and biased.

This was the segment where Morning Edition discussed the Downing St. Memo or at least referred to it. But first we had to hear of AIDS and climate change. Those are worthy topics, to be sure, but the Downing St. Memo is a major topic.

When Gonyea finally got around to "reporting on that" it was to note that it raised questions about Iraq, that it had appeared in the Sunday Times of London "some five weeks ago" and then to note the responses of "Blair" and then "the president."

Mr. Blair gave the "no the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form" response we've all heard of or read by now. Bully Boy lied (and the press never called him on it that I saw) by saying "the world speaks, he ignored the world." What did Hussein ignore? Inspectors were doing their job in Iraq when Bully Boy decided it was time to go to war. Did Hussein ignore popular opinion or the will of the people? No, that was the Bully Boy. Gonyea doesn't inform the listeners of that because apparently that requires more knowledge and more skill than Gonyea posesses.

Now let's deal with the second segment because this is where I was most bothered.


Britons React to Bush-Blair Summit

Morning Edition, June 8, 2005 · Michael White, political editor of Britain's Guardian newspaper, discusses British reaction to Prime Minister Tony Blair's meeting with President Bush.

The Cokie Roberts Gas Bag handling this segment was Steve and everyone probably knows how I feel regarding Gas Bag Steve.

Steve says, "Joining us now is Michael White the political editor of The Guardian." And what do they talk about? First climate change. I'll note that Steve did use "Mr. Blair." The G8 summitt was discussed.

Then the segment finally gets to what I'm expecting to be the main topic.

Steve: Michael White, how strong is Tony Blair's political position back home these days?

At last. We're about to find out about not only the Sunday Times of London's report on the Downing St. Memo but also there report on England and America increasing bombings of Iraq in 2002 to force Saddam Hussein into declaring war. Right?

Wrong.

Michael White: It's weaker than it was before he went into the deserts of Iraq, as your listeners will know. He was re-elected with a parlimentary majority. There's a parlimentary system so the president and the congress aren't seperate in the way they are in the U.S. .... [he's going over the number of seats held] On the other hand it's his third term and most governments would consider that pretty good and his critics in the Iraq war which is uh a great dividing issue in in Europe for the last three or four years ... Chancellor Schroeder and President Chirac of France, dare I say, are in much bigger trouble themselves so uh it's also part of the cycle but [Prime Minister Blair is] certainly weaker and not likely to last more than a year or so now, I suspect.

And?

That's it.

Why is he weaker? Michael White doesn't tell you.

In this country, we've rightly noted the silence from our media on the issue of the Downing St. Memo. But I spent all day today [Thursday] looking for an article on it in The Guardian and got my granddaughter Tracey to help. I couldn't find anything.

I was more than willing to blame Steve or Morning Edition or NPR for the lousy interview. But having looked and looked, I think The Guardian, and certainly Michael White, deserve some criticism as well.

That's not to let our media off the hook. But it bears noting that The Guardian hasn't been doing it's part to address the topic either. On April 27, 2005, before the release of the Downing St. Memo, Michael White did co-write an article on how a Tory leader had called Prime Minister Blair a "liar." But Tracey and I were unable to find anything Mr. White wrote about the Downing St. Memo or, for that matter, anyone else at The Guardian.

We tried searching by "Downing St. Memo" and found many things but didn't see any article on it. (If it was mentioned in, for instance, the article on blogging, it was mentioned in passing so briefly that my old eyes and Tracey's young ones couldn't detect it.) We pulled various phrases from the memo and searched by that but still found nothing.

Has The Guardian written about the Downing St. Memo? It's a British paper so it may not matter in some ways. But I know my friend Treva thinks of it as a brave paper for the left so I'm sure others do as well. If it's a brave paper for the left, why the silence?

It may be something as simple as not wanting to give a competitor any publicity. But I've heard, and I've said, "The British press is reporting on it." I need to correct my statements. The Sunday Times of London has reported on the issue. As for the British press, it appears The Guardian hasn't and I'm not familiar enough with the other papers to make a finding.

At the BBC, I can find a few paragraphs on it in a story on blogs. That's it.

Now I'm an old woman who's idea of a fancy electronic gadget during my teenage years was a pinball machine so maybe I'm not the best person in the world to be doing searches. (My granddaughter is very computer savy.) But I'm not finding coverage of it at The Guardian and I'm only find one article (an article on blogs) that covers it at the BBC.

I considered that perhaps they're referring to it by some other name (even though The Sunday Times of London called it the "Downing Street Memo"). So besides searching "Downing Street Memo" and "Downing St. Memo," I also searched various phrases such as "intelligence and facts were being fixed" and "Bush wanted to remove Saddam." That didn't return any item on the Times of London's revelations.

At The Independent, which this site highlights, I found the article C.I. highlighted. I also found two other articles, one on May 1st and one on May 2nd.

At The Guardian website, you can find a May 1st article (from The Observer) about accusations of Prime Minister Blair lying. This has to do with the Goldsmith memo and is a completely different memo.

Search "MATTHEW RYCROFT " at The Guardian (he is the one who wrote the Downing Street Memo) and you come back with one article, from 2003, on the BBC and the Hutton inquiry. ("MATTHEW RYCROFT" returns no search result at the BBC.)

I say all that not to excuse our domestic media. This story should be seriously covered and the issues it raises should be answered. But as someone who's said to friends, "The British press is covering it," I need to correct that. The British press as a whole is not covering it. The Times of London and The Independent have covered it. The Guardian and the BBC (if they're search engines are working) do not appear overly concerned with the Downing Street Memo.

Tracey's father reads the weekly Financial Times, so we figured we'd try that. It did turn up the results from The Independent but nothing more.

I found Michael White to be useless as a political analsyst. He came off bored while discussing Prime Minister Blair. His statements, superficial ones, weren't news to anyone who comes to this site. But even the domestic media has caught up in reporting on Prime Minister Blair's problems in England. There was nothing Mr. White stated that hadn't been reported on NPR already.

That's not to left Steve off the hook. He should have asked. The segment prior ended with quotes from Mr. Blair and the Bully Boy on this issue.

Perhaps I'm wrong and The Guardian has been covering this. If so, please notify me via e-mail. But as it stands, I'm thinking until Naomi Klein mentions it in a column, it's not an issue The Guardian's going to concern itself with.

[Ruth can be e-mailed care of this site: common_ills@yahoo.com. Also note, I've copied and pasted this and if something runs together or isn't italicized, that's my fault, not Ruth's and I'll fix it.]

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

President Bush offered a ringing defense today of a much debated law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks, asserting that it has not stepped on civil liberties, as its critics contend, but has protected America from terrorist threats.
[. . .]
Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Mr. Bush's speech amounted to "a classic bait and switch."
"He once again ignored bipartisan concerns about the Patriot Act and presented a false choice to the American people - that we have to reauthorize the Patriot Act without any changes or leave our country vulnerable to terrorist attacks," Mr. Feingold said. He said many lawmakers in both parties had concluded that portions of the act infringed on freedom.

The above is from David Stout's "Bush Urges Congress to Keep Patriot Act Intact" in this morning's New York Times. Lot of quotes from the Bully Boy. Feingold has to stand for everyone concerned. (Feingold's statements, as printed in the paper, are above in full.) Ron Wyden has discussed the medical aspect publicly this week (Monday, in fact). Wyden's not in the article. Lot of Bully Boy stumbling around for words and offering up what he can muster without any challenges. Stout also fails to "connect the dots" in terms of noting that there's still no board set up, after all this time, to oversee and ensure that civil liberties are protected. Did I miss the Times write up on the 9-11 commissioner's new panel that held the public hearing this week?

No, I didn't. Because while the Times did give a heads up, they failed to report on the public hearing. Now granted the paper seems to feel it's pretty damn important that we know daily details of the Michael Jackson hearing and goodness knows they steno pool is busy taking down the jottings of the Bully Boy each chance they get. But considering how the paper hyped and promoted and endorsed the 9-11 commission's findings (book tie-in, really now), if and when another attack comes and the media does their few minutes of hand wringing, make sure the Times gets a moment at the mike to ask "how could we?"

It's meaingless, it was last time and we quickly returned to the fluff of missing blondes and celebrity scandals and life style stories (all the media). But the Times' failure to report on this week's public hearing is more than surprising. I really don't think our country will see any benefits from the repeated (usually five times a week) reporting on the Jackson case. But the Times has chosen to push that nonsense repeatedly.

In a similar waste of time, Alan Cowell reports on the mood in England. Now that wouldn't be a problem. Certainly as the Times stumbled around (willfully) in the dark regarding the Downing St. Memo published in the Sunday Times of London on May 1st, Alan Cowell could have reported on the "mood" in England over that. The New York Times still hasn't reported on the Times of London's May 29th article that in 2002, England and the US upped the bombings in an attempt to force Saddam Hussein to strike back (thereby starting the invasion/occupation much sooner). So is Cowell telling us about the "mood" on that?

No, he and the Times (New York) feel it's much more important to tell us about Cherie Booth (Tony Blair's spouse) speaking engagement here and how some of Booth's usual critics in England are in an uproar over the payment she received. It's not news. It's not even good gossip.

But the Times finds a way to tease it out into an eighteen paragraph article. It's the sort of "in depth" piece on an "issue" one expects to see explored in the New York Post. Somehow it made it into the Times.

Francisco e-mails to wonder if possibly this item in "World Briefings" might not be important than all the gossip about Cherie Booth:

MEXICO: POLICE CHIEF GUNNED DOWN ON HIS FIRST DAY
The new police chief of the violent border city of Nuevo Laredo, Alejandro Domínguez Coello, was shot to death as he left his office on Wednesday night, after only seven hours on the job. Mr. Domínguez, 51, was the head of the local Chamber of Commerce when he agreed to take the job as chief, which was opened when José Valdés left for a City Council post in May. Drug smuggling has transformed the border city into a war zone where violent death is common. Antonio Betancourt (NYT)

Krista also notes "World Briefings" online and wonders about this item:

GERMANY: 9/11 SUSPECT FACES EXPULSION
A federal court upheld the acquittal of Abdelghani Mzoudi, left, a Moroccan accused of links to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. His acquittal by a court in Hamburg in 2004 was decided partly by a United States refusal to permit Ramzi bin al-Shibh, suspected of being a leader of the Sept. 11 plot and held in American custody, to testify. Though his acquittal was upheld, the authorities said they would deport him within two weeks. According to The Associated Press, Moroccan authorities have said they have no warrants for Mr. Mzoudi, and United States officials have refused comment on whether they are interested in him. Kirsten Grieshaber (NYT)

Krista: "Left"? There's no photo online. But "left" indicates to me that there was supposed to be and that this was supposed to be a longer item. Did we lose out on this story, a news story, so Cowell could gab and dish about Tony Blair's wife for paragaraph after paragraph? If they're running a photo, that suggests it's an important item.

Apparently we did, Krista, apparently we did.

In terms of real issues, the kind that effect our lives, George e-mails to note David E. Rosenbaum's "Lawmakers Inch Along in Tackling Social Security:"


After the meeting, the second-ranking Republican on the committee, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, said the Senate was unlikely to approve legislation that included investment accounts financed by Social Security taxes.
"I don't think we're going to get it," Mr. Hatch said. "We can't get even one Democrat, and some Republicans won't go along either."
Asked whether he thought his committee would advance a Social Security bill in the next month, Mr. Grassley said he hoped so but added, "Time slips."
This is one example of how the top item on the president's domestic policy agenda is faltering, heading into two months of intense legislative maneuvering that is likely to determine its fate.
Another indication came on Wednesday when, for the first time, Representative Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican who is the majority leader, hinted that action on Social Security might not be in the cards in the House this year.

(FYI, the above story? It gets thirteen paragraphs. Five less than the gossip over Cherie Booth.) (Or to cite the Times' most recent "nationally important" coverage of the Jackson trial -- jury deliberations -- four less paragraphs than that article received.)

Avoid Anne E. Kornblut's "With Remarks, Dean Stirs Criticism from Both Parties." Not just because she tosses around the "scientific terms" "red states" (she apparently thinks she's in the fashion section or else needs to use "lingo") and that kind of nonsense alone will enrage community members. But also because, if there's a clue out there, she can't find it.
Ben notes this in his section in his e-mail:

The criticism escalated last weekend, as several leading Democrats - especially former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, both prospective presidential candidates - openly expressed disapproval of Dr. Dean's comments.
Republicans also pounced on his remarks. Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, denounced them on the Senate floor on Wednesday. "This kind of hate speech really doesn't have a productive place in our political discourse in this country," Mr. Smith said.

In fact it's popular with others (such as Portland and Wendy whom Smith represents -- both of whom laugh at his use of "hate speech"). Ben asks what makes a one term senator who was on a losing presidential ticket a "leading Democrat?" I have no idea. Nor is the Edwards and Dean conflict new (apparently the whole world missed their earlier conflict in the debate -- now granted Sharpton stepped in and that's what most people focused on, but Dean and Edwards have never been public "buds"). As for Biden? Maybe a word dropped out? Maybe it meant to read "leading cribbers who happen to be Democrats?" Biden's not going to live that down. He couldn't make it through his declared run because of it. But breezy, chatty reporting won't ever bring up those details.

The nonsense of the problems with fundraising have been dealt with by Liberal Oasis and Interesting Times as well as Katrina vanden Heuvel (whom I forgot to mention Wednesday night, my apologies). But the article feels the need (fourl days after gas bag Cokie Roberts has already weighed in with "conventional wisdom") to explore that as well. Or to offer it in a some say/others say manner that's neither informative or insightful. And of course, there's nothing about the fact that Dean's doing what this community said needed to be done -- work on the party infrastructure in the states.

Billie e-mails to note that Howard Dean will be her area (Dallas/Fort Worth) Friday, June 17.

Billie: He's out there. He's going around pulling together the party members and getting them excited and motivated. There's no indication that Kornblut grasps that fact. But I don't believe the inbred circles are talking about. I can tell you that I'm excited about that. I can tell you that I could care less what John Edwards or Joe Biden think about Howard Dean.

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

[Note: This entry has been corrected. First Anne E. Kornblutt's name has been spelled correctly now. My apologies for that -- and that's sincere, I do belive writers deserve proper credit for their work -- regardless of what I think of it -- which is something the press might want to consider the next time the Oscars roll around and they "cover" and "predict" on nominations but fail to acknowledge the people writing the scripts. Second, Krista's "online" was omitted from her entry. I think that was my mistake -- it wasn't Krista's. I was tired this morning and will gladly cop to it. However, the line merged which usually means it's a Blogger problem and as many of you have noted, the Democracy Now! post went up, then vanished, then went up again -- it was e-mailed again -- then disappeared. It's currently up. If it disappears again, I'll do it from the computer and not via e-mail. Also note, for some reason there is a "repeat" at the top of the post -- title and date. I have no idea why that's happening. Lastly, links to Liberal Oasis, Interesting Times and KvH were added. No, no link to a Times story was added. If I mess up -- and I did on that -- you go to their web site, if you want to read more, and you search by title, author or phrase from a sentence.]

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

The F.B.I. missed at least five chances in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, to find two hijackers as they prepared for the attacks and settled in San Diego, the Justice Department inspector general said in a report made public on Thursday after being kept secret for a year. Investigators were stymied by bureaucratic obstacles, communication breakdowns and a lack of urgency, the report said.
The blistering findings mirror those of the independent Sept. 11 commission last summer and a joint Congressional inquiry in 2002 but they also provide significant new details about the many bureaucratic breakdowns that plagued the Federal Bureau of Investigation before the attacks and are likely to fuel questions about the bureau's efforts to remake itself. The Sept. 11 commission had access to an earlier version of the inspector general's study and incorporated parts of those findings in its final report.
[. . .]
Kristen Breitweiser, a leader of a Sept. 11 survivors' group whose husband died in the attacks, called the report "a long time coming."
She said it was "wholly unacceptable that more than three years after 9/11, the F.B.I. still doesn't have a useable computer system, and we're still dealing with the same problems we were before. How much ineptitude are we going to tolerate?"


The above is from Eric Lichtblau's "Report Details F.B.I.'s Failure on 2 Hijackers" in this morning's New York Times. It's the single entry spotlight for this morning. Chuck Hagel, senator from Nebraska, is quoted in the story which I mention because so is Breitweiser. Breitweiser, obviously, is nationally known. But Lichtblau included a citizen (Breitweiser) who was effected directly by the events along with the Times' usual "official sources" so I'll give him credit for that. Lichtblau's focus is prior to September 11th which does allow him to justify overlooking the remarks of Sibel Edmonds but at what point will the Times offer a story on failures in the translation department of the FBI that pieces together pre-Sept. 11th and post Sept. 11th failures? Again, Lichtblau's story is structered and worded in such a way that Edmonds doesn't have to be included. (I obviously feel her statements, public record, should have been.) But where's the big, brave piece in the paper that attempts to pull it all together?

Regardless, Lichtblau's story is worth reading and worthy of a single entry. (I'm about to fall over right now, if you can't follow my comments, it's not you, it's me. Within the framework Licthblau creates, it's a strong article.)

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

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

603 or 604 e-mails arrived on Felicity Barringer's comments. (Jim insists it was 604. Jess, Dona, Ty and Ava insist it was 604. I got 602, always check my math.)

No one agreed with Barringer's opinion. (All clearly felt it was opinion.)

Some started arriving last night and some were read by this morning (I read everyone that came in). By this morning, I knew there were too many to do an entry on it. Call me a "gatekeepr" if you want and I'll plead guilty on it in this instance.

In terms of the site, as our numbers have grown and grown and . . . there's been very little time to pull together voices on an issue. I personally (my opinion) (as always, I could be wrong) don't see the point in our "return" to a post of members voices being about a Times reporter's opinion.
We've done lighter topics, to be sure. We did favorite movies and we did favorite song. Usually, we're weighing in on Iraq or something in the news.

Personally, I don't have the time to extract quotes from all those e-mails and get them up in one evening. And one comment that many echoed was that a response needed to be made immediately. I think members would be more upset if they stayed up tonight (or woke up tomorrow morning) and there was nothing up about this.

Reading over some of the e-mails this morning, it was obvious that we could give up the Thursday spotlight to alternative media and focus on Barringer or we could stick to our own schedule and post a summary.

Even with that, the work was going to be too much for me to pull together in a number of hours.
So I contacted Ava and Jess this morning and asked them if they could help and if they could check with Jim, Dona and Ty on this as well. All were willing to assist on this.

The comments largely had general themes (and we'll be dealing with those shortly) but I didn't trust that my eyes alone, hurrying through the e-mails would be able to determine every point that a number of you felt was important to make. Thank you to everyone who weighed in and thank you to Jess, Ava, Ty, Jim and Dona for the time they spent reading over these today and for the three hour discussion they participated on this topic tonight. (As every member knows, Dona, Ty, Jim, Ava and Jess are community members. They also run their own site, The Third Estate Sunday Review.)

I'm going to start by noting the forty-two (a figure we all agreed upon) who are personally upset with me. I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong or to "get over it." You're upset and you have every right to express that.

The forty-two are upset that Barringer's remarks were allowed to go up without a response from me on what she expressed in her e-mail. That's a logical outcome to expect. And certainly, when The Nation prints letters, they allow the writer of the piece the letters are aimed at to respond to the remarks. Sometimes that leads to a very informative exchange (sometimes it leads to nonsense, which intended to be humorous or not, comes off insulting such as 'kiss your ouchies' or whatever appeared last month).

I'm not aware of The Progressive, In These Times or Ms. doing that. Either approach is valid.

I'd stated from the start of this site, however, if anyone wanted to weigh in their remarks would be posted, it would be their space and I wouldn't comment on it. The reason for that being that I've stated my opinion in my critique, they were now stating their opinion.

Lloyd feels that by not responding "you blew it." And Lloyd's entitled to that opinion and he may be right and I may be wrong.

Yazz felt "even for you, that was taking 'in fairness' to ridiculous levels' by not responding." Yazz may be right.

Of the forty-two, the question that kept coming through was why didn't I respond.

First, for the record, I did respond. And apologies to Barringer for that. When her e-mail was recieved, I offered it in the interview with Beth. Barringer came off (to me) as sincere in her remarks. She's not the first to write (nor is her e-mail the one I've most enjoyed -- that honor goes to the Times reporter who wrote in January -- the one noted in this space that I'd love to respond to but I don't want to risk conflicts of interests emerging from exchanging e-mails with reporters whose work is evaluated here).

No one's ever wanted to go on the record. I disagreed with Barringer but I saw where she was coming from. The e-mail struck me as sincere and to attempt to give it an airing, I noted it at the top of the e-mail with Beth. (While trying to do so in such a way that she wasn't outed as the writer of it.) So there was a response, a pre-emptive one that wasn't intended to be such.

We're going to refer to her as FB because I'm not sure of the spelling and don't want to have to recheck the spelling each time before I post this.

So FB wrote an e-mail. She brought up specifics concerns (as opposed to the majority of Times reporters who e-mail -- though others have raised specific concerns and those concerns have been noted here in the past). I didn't agree with her opinion. But I attempted to present both sides in the interview with Beth because I do see where FB is coming from (and I could be wrong and often am). Ideally, FB's comments would have gone up by themselves with no interceding remarks on my part.

Again, no one ever wants to go public. Or didn't until FB. So to make sure that something I disagreed with but could understand why she felt that way was addressed, I attempted to summarize her view. And I offered my view because I disagreed and even I have my "in fairness" limits. (Or I think I do, Yazz.)

Dallas e-mailed her to advise her of the entry (as requested by me). She e-mailed Dallas back giving her permission to be quoted. Her remarks went up, with her name on them, as would any reporter from the Times who gave permission. (They were also added, in full, to the original post at this site. They weren't added to the copy post at the relay site but I'm not sure we were up then. However, her remarks posted here were carried over to the mirror site.) (I'll check this weekend for the entry at the mirror site and if it's up there, her remarks will be added to that post as well.)

But I'm not interested, personally, in debating opinion. That's why we don't cover the op-ed pages. (Or I don't.) (Members can if they want.) There are two editorials we've focused on at this site: the slapdown of NOW for endorsing during the primary and the slapdown of Gerry Adams. In both cases, we didn't do a point by point. With NOW, I think it was sexist. No other organization or group was criticized for their endorsement. The criticism may have come from wanting NOW to be "taken seriously." If that were the case, it was a desire to be helpful possibly but it was still sexist because NOW's statements shouldn't require "rescuing." (Nor did I have a problem with NOW's endorsement and I'd already chosen a candidate other than the one NOW endorsed.) With Adams, it's mentioned when we comment on Ireland because members think it goes to a larger problem with the reporting on Northern Ireland in the paper.

But there's never been a detailed response on either nor do I have the desire to.

When the idiot (and if he's offended by that, too bad -- when you come to me with your problems with Rebecca, you're acting like a child and if you're an adult that makes you an idiot in my opinion) from the centrist organization "wrote Rebecca" (as she's noted and I've noted -- that e-mail was addressed to me, he didn't even have the guts to speak to her directly), he was full of suggestions of how she should write and how she should debate his policy issues. (As Rebecca noted, one policy -- the one she focused on, a presidential report -- is available online but you're not allowed to quote from it without the org's permission. I enjoyed Rebecca's hilarious comparison of that to the RIAA clamping down on Napster.)

Rebecca doesn't have to debate a policy with anyone. And if she finds the policy inane, she doesn't have to waste her time going over it. If I disagree with an opinion, I'm not going to waste my time debating it -- if it appears on the op-ed pages or in the editorial.

So that's why I choose to ignore the editorials and the op-eds here. Braver people who can put up with that sort of thing (Bob Somerby to cite only one) are welcome to it. If we comment on the mainstream here, it's the reporting (and how "opinion" makes it into the reporting or any other critique of that kind). With regards to Elisabeth Bumiller, I broke that policy once, without realizing it. When it was noticed months later, I checked and saw that it was a "White House Letter" and noted that I'd made a mistake and offered my apologies at this site.

The White House Letter is an op-ed. She can write whatever she wants in those and I could care less. I'm not interested in critiquing an op-ed. Nor should I be noting them here because if we do note an column, besides it being from a writer not working for the Times, it's from someone on the left and Bumiller is not of the left. Her White House Letters should never be critiqued here by me because they are op-eds. (We can highlight Somerby on them and we do. He's got the drive and energy to wade through those things -- op-eds, not just Bumiller -- it gives me a headache.)

There's also the fact that after the election, and this has been noted in an early entry at this site, a group of friends and I went over what was effective and what wasn't. If we were sharing op-eds via e-mail or mail (and I did) we went back to find out which people made a difference.
No offense to the Times, but no one there made a difference as a writer. Molly Ivins persuaded people with her humor. Some saw Dowd as "confusing" and some saw Krugman as too "wonkish" while they weren't sure why Herbert was focusing on something. (I've never in my life sent out -- by e-mail or regular mail -- a column by Thomas Friedman or any other neoliberal.) I enjoy Dowd, Krugman and Herbert (and when Safire was stepping down, there was a thing on what each offered to the paper and why Safire's departure, my opinion, didn't mean that his replacement had to be a white, conservative male -- obviously the Times felt differently). (We also built an entry around the nonsense, my opinion, of three Times' columnists on Iraq.)

We could go into models and theories at this site. I hold several degrees and we could be as wonky as the next person. But that didn't work when my friends and I looked at the post-election feedback. I enjoy Dowd's perspective (even when I disagree) and I'm certainly not the only person who bought BushWorld since it was a best seller. But the Times wasn't reaching the average person with their op-eds. (Their editorials were more succesful from the feedback we received.) Partly that's due to the fact that, in their own way, all three are addressing issues that aren't always noted elsewhere. Dowd's doing a pop-culture blend and your enjoyment (or nonenjoyment) will depend on how closely you've followed events.
Molly Ivins, on the other hand, keeps it basic and walks you through. Ellen Goodman was another one rated very highly in feedback.

The week The Common Ills began was the week that we'd crunched all the results from our poll and there was never a chance that we'd be focusing on op-eds from the Times here as a result.
(Again, members can highlight an op-ed. That means writing something about it. That doesn't mean e-mailing "link to this.")

(Of the male newspaper columnists that were e-mailed, Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune was the only one that was rated as having any impact. Chapman is not of the left. He has many important points to make but the reason he's never highlighted here is because we are a resource/review for the left.)

So the above provides where I'm coming from on the issue. (It does not say that I'm right.)
And this has been covered in various entries here.

If tomorrow Elisabeth Bumiller asks to be quoted here, her entry would go up. She might say "Your humor is mean, nasty and lowers the level of discourse." She might be right. I don't know that I need to haul out "Don't knock the mock." It's up here in various entries. I would assume that members are familiar with that slogan. Her opinion that the humor is not valid is her opinion and she's been critiqued here so why shouldn't she be able to weigh in?

I obviously wouldn't agree with her but isn't that obvious from this site? Does it really require a response from me?

And what if I'm wrong. I firmly belive in "don't knock the mock" (and the data on the op-ed results backs that up) but I could be wrong. Is it wrong to let her have her say without commenting?

As far as I know, FB didn't distort any comments here. (She noted she was confused by some.)
I didn't check that (I didn't reread the entry -- that was a mistake and one I won't make again).
If she'd gotten something that had been said here wrong (a quote, not an interpretation), that might require some comment on my part. (It sounded like what was up here and no one noted a problem with it, so I'm sure she got it right. But it was a mistake on my part not to have checked.)

Otherwise, my opinion, let her have her say. I've had mine, she's entitled to her's.

And while I will think about what she's written (asI do with regard to everyone who e-mails from the Times), I'm not going to stop doing something I believe in because FB or someone else disagrees.

Unfortunately for FB, I didn't think she was going to agree to go public. Again, no one e-mailing from the Times ever wants to. (And some have valid reasons for that.) But I saw the e-mail as her opinion and felt it should be out here in some form so I attempted to present it and then presented my own. If I'd known she'd say "quote me," I wouldn't have done that. So (and Yazz will probably e-mail that he was choking on "in fairness" throughout this post -- and he's got a right to that opinion) I will say to FB that I'm sorry that I did offer my opinion ahead of time.

Had an e-mail come back (as soon as someone writes common_ills@yahoo.com, the automated reply goes out and the policy for being quoted is in that e-mail; all a person has to do is write back, "Quote me on this" or "quote me in full" or "note me as"), I wouldn't have offered my opinion in the interview with Beth.

Obviously, I disagree with FB's take on it. But even had I not offered an opinion ahead of time, I would expect it to be obvious by what's up here day after day. I don't see the point in responding, "When FB says ____, she's obviously unaware of . . . ."

The above shouldn't make anyone feel that there reactions are wrong. The forty-two have an opinion and it's valid. But it's not keeping with anything I've noted here before. In fact, it's against the policies we've gone over here repeatedly. Due to their reactions, I am rethinking it and I will continue to give their opinions thought. They may be right and I may be wrong.

Sherry was one of the forty-two and she added at the end that she hoped she hadn't made me mad. She didn't. She expressed her opinion and there's nothing wrong with that. I appreciate Sherry's e-mail along with the other forty-one who felt as she did. It comes down to an opinion and I could be wrong. I will give the matter more thought. (Which doesn't mean expect a conclusion tomorrow. I don't comment on Rebecca's personal revelations about me -- on whether they're the way I see it or not -- at her site -- so please stop e-mailing on that, she's offering her opinion of personal experiences we've shared or parties we've gone to in the past and her take is as valid as mine if I agree or disagree; however, she is correct that I do not make a snap judgement. I circle around a topic -- note the poor writing in any entry by me -- and I will ask input from friends. I'll think and think and after awhile, I'll have some sort of decision -- whether it's right or wrong.)

If the forty-two worry their concerns may not be given proper attention, I would remind everyone that when The Common Ills started, in terms of the Times, the plan was to note articles in the main section without any comment from me. Gina and Yazz led the fight for opinions and commentary from me. Obviously, they successfully made their case. I don't know what I'll decide but I will weigh the comments and continue to think about them.

Moving on. A number of you wanted a response from the panel that reviewed the e-mail from FB and the original entry at this site (they also reviewed the original article which Shirley scanned and sent out -- if you're interested in the article -- and a number of you are, contact Shirley who's e-mail address is on your ballots -- remember votes need to be coming in).

For the panel to respond, they would have to a) want to and b) have time to compose a response. It's been noted to each of the five that the community wants a panel response. They will follow up on that or not. (If they do follow up, it will be posted here.)

If FB had e-mailed on Tuesday "quote me," there would have been no panel. Her remarks would have gone up that day. The reason I pulled the panel together was because to me it was opinion versus opinion and I didn't want to attempt to present FB's opinion (called X in the interview with Beth) without being sure that I wasn't seeing something that only I saw. As for why those five (thirty e-mails), Elaine, being a longterm friend (pre-college), is someone I could pick up the phone and call. Due to Shirley and Eli serving on other panels, I had their phone numbers. Kat and I often speak by phone so she was someone that could be quickly reached. Dallas is a community member who works his butt off (tomorrow morning, in an e-mail, I will have links to main stories from the Times that Dallas would have copied and pasted as he went through the Times and never once saying, "Hey, highlight this," but just because he knows I work from the print edition and does that to help out; he also, as noted before, is the one hunting down the links for The Third Estate Sunday Review -- for a roundtable or anything else. He's a very active member and most members know that from his entries we've posted but he also does a great deal that never gets noted).

When the "red state" v. "blue state" nonsense started up, he was one of the people saying it needed to be addressed. He goes far back in the community and does a great deal. Billie is another but she's busy (and Folding Star's being busy with finals and jury duty to answer the question from Marcia and Brandon as to why Folding Star wasn't asked to be on that panel).

FB had written, there was no indication that she would want to be quoted. I wanted to be sure she would be heard and I had sworn to Beth that our long post-poned interview would be done Tuesday night. The interview seemed a way to present FB's remarks as well as Z who wrote an e-mail that I let Beth summarize in the interview.

(Beth quoted a phrase from the e-mail. I didn't realize that until the next day -- I was very tired, and am tired now. If I'd caught it, I wouldn't have allowed the phrase to go up. But I doubt it's a phrase that Z repeats at the office. If that's not the case, my apologies to Z.)

The last question that came up most frequently (I'm working from Ava's notes of the discussion Third Estate Sunday Review and I had on the e-mails -- thank you, Ava) was does someone from the Times have the right to go up immediately?

No, they don't. That's a very good point. On the 'Okrent wasn't censured' (which you can believe or not, I personally believe Randy Cohen was correct), we waited on that because there were other things going on. (I belive it was three days after the fact that it was posted -- I could be wrong.) FB was dealt with because the interview with Beth seemed the perfect place to deal with it and also to knock out Z's problem (which was I critical and hadn't I been offered Love in the Green Zone gossip?).

Had the interview not been planned, it would have waited. But (no gasps of surprise here), I can write in circles. (There was a joke about that, by me, that Beth edited out. I really liked that joke.) With Beth steering the interview, if I was unclear, she could say, "Wait, you lost me."

But, for instance, dealing with this entry now (besides meaing very little sleep for me tonight or that I monopolized Ava, Jim, Jess, Ty and Dona's time) results in us not being able to note Kevin's praise of something in Mother Jones (which we'll note tomorrow, I'm sorry Kevin).

There's no reason that the Times gets to jump ahead or cut in line. If it comes in and they say "quote me," short of a major event happening (which could be news or something that the community already had planned) it would wait. I certainly wouldn't look at the clock and say, "Fine, I'll just get two and half hours of sleep tonight" for a Times reporter who wants to have their say.

FB offered an opinion that I disagreed with but that I did see as valid. There was no indication that there would be any quoting from it and Beth's interview was scheduled. Since FB was being addressed, it seemed only fair to note Z as well since Z's e-mail came in the same day.

That deals with the questions. (If you had a question that wasn't answered, please e-mail me because indvidual questions that popped up in small numbers weren't dealt with. The intent is to respond to those this weekend but e-mail me a reminder because I might forget.)

Now for the opinion of the community members who wrote in (all 602, 603, 0r 604 of you).

Jim and Ty composed this summary (which all six of us agreed represented the e-mails):

The Times's idea of "balance" is not The Common Ills idea of balance. The Common Ills does not see, for instance, The Brookings Institute as a left organization. It may be left-leaning, but it is not a left organization in the opinion of the members of this community. The Times, as noted many times here, lives and dies by its official sources. If this community agreed with the Times outlook on that, the issue would not pop up repeatedly. But it does pop up repeatedly. When the protests took place at the inauguration, the Times saw fit to note a topless woman and remain silent about other protestors and other events. Felicity Barringer's opinions are in keeping with the Times, they are not in keeping with this community.

Having decided to spotlight three individuals as "cracks" in a landscape, she never offers the landscape. The landscape of environmentalists is a wide landscape and Felicity Barringer and the Times would have to move beyond their usual "think tanks" and recognize other voices.
Giving time to the opinions of three in a landscape of millions is not balanced out with a couple of sentences of how others disagree. Let's hear from the others. Let's hear from Greenpeace, for instance.

A Rudith Miller link was wanted by the members because this goes to what makes the front page and what doesn't. What makes the front page is a 'shift' in thinking. Buried in the story you find doubts. It's a Rudith Miller piece in the opinion of the community. "Slam, slam freely and do so at the top" to paraphrase Rudith.

There was only one e-mail that attacked Felicity Barringer personally. All other e-mails noted that she shared her opinion when she didn't have to. They heard her opinion. They disagreed.
But they appreciated that she shared.

Criticism of her opinion (not of her) revolved around the fact that the Times has their standards and are apparently happy with them, but those are not the standards of this community. Three people, one of whom shouldn't have been quoted in the opinion of this community, are not to be seen as a groundswell or an indication of a coming consensus. But that's how the article reads.
It was also noted that Felicity Barringer did not deal with the issue of why the one person who is not seen as an "environmentalist" by this community was noted to begin with.

The second criticism was that Felicity Barringer quoted a section of a long article. She did not quote the article in full. Having responded three weeks after the entry was posted, the article is no longer freely available. People have tossed out their print copies and they can not access the article online for free. The failure to address the specific criticism and to instead want to debate the merits of "balance" in an article that most members will not have access to wasn't seen as fair.

Except for the one member who personally attacked Felicity Barringer, everyone saw her as believing in what she said. No one questioned her sincerity. Her beliefs and statements were thought to be in keeping with the Times. While 344 members made a point to say that they appreciated her input, the membership felt that the Times' standards of "balance" are the Times' standards. The Common Ills is not a mainstream site. It does not attempt to follow up a link to Barbara Boxer with one to Trent Lott or even Joe Lieberman.

Environmentalism being a cause of the left, the community feels that they know better than Felicity Barringer or the New York Times what qualifies for voices from the environmental movement.

73 members noted that Felicity Barringer, working within the imposed framework of the Times, provided "balance" further down in the story. The 73 noted that not all reporters for the Times do that. But again, they do not see it as balance.

Sheila noted that she has no idea of Felicity Barringer's personal politics and we note that because this is the sort of thing that the Times is supposed to strive in their reporting. Within the framework of the Times, Felicity Barringer was successful.

However, this community does not believe that "cracks" make a front page story or that you lead with that and offer middle of the road voices further down. The fact that the Times does not offer a legitmate debate from the left came up repeatedly in e-mails. A Barbara Lee does not pop up reguarly in the Times (though the membership says if they see one more photo of Kay Baily Hutchinson, Republican senator from Texas, in the paper they may throw up).

Cynthia McKinney was attacked by the Times, many members noted. And there was no fair hearing on that issue (though members did recommend Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy for a discussion on that issue). It was felt that a left member of Congress had the best chance of being mentioned or having a photo run in the Times if they were being attacked. It was noted that the Black Caucus may as well not exist in the Times' eyes judging by the coverage.

These are probably not opinions Felicity Barringer or the Times would share. But these are opinions that go to the bedrock of this community. It's a difference of opinion. Felicity Barringer
speaks for the Times' viewpoint* and members were glad she chose to share. They do not, however, agree with her that her opinion is correct.
-----------------------------

* FB was writing as FB, I need to note that. She was not speaking for the Times. Members can have the opinion that she was and that's fine. But for the record, due to the guidelines at the paper, it needs to be noted that FB was speaking for FB and not for the New York Times. In her remarks, she repeatedly used the first person. I'm not saying to the community, 'You are wrong!" I am saying that, for the record, it needs to be noted that FB's remarks were FB's remarks. She's not empowered to speak for the Times and she did not attempt to speak for the Times.

I appreciate that members weighed in on this topic and I think everyone had a unique way of making a point. Every e-mail was read. I'm playing "gatekeeper" here and not doing an entry containing quotes from all 602 (or 603 or 604) e-mails because I don't have the time and I honestly don't feel comfortable with the fact that we haven't been able to have a community members post on an issue like Iraq but would take the time for a rebuttal to someone over their opinion.

With the exception of the one member that Ty and Jim noted in their summary above, everyone appreciated that FB shared her take on it. I'll note that I'm glad she did as well.

I'll also note, to the ones who felt an immediate response should have gone up and since it didn't a post should be posted on Thursday, this was posted. But remember, as members know from past entries noting community concerns, not everyone is able to do a twenty-four turn around on an issue. Some members do not have daily access to computers. Some members want to mull things over.

With regards to FB's comments, I'll play gatekeeper and say that this is the end of it unless a member has a way to tie into something else (a larger picture/view of the Times). I had my say, she had her say and the community as a whole had their say. (If the panel chooses to compose a statement, it will go up.)

I'll continue to think about the sentiments of the forty-two who feel that a response that goes up requires a response on my part. I will note, however, that if a member's opinions go up in an entry, I don't make a point to say, "They are right!" or "They are wrong!" FB shared her opinion. Hopefully, it made us think. It appears to have done that and the comments in the e-mails appear to demonstrate that we are all on another page than FB. The fact that everyone who e-mailed was in agreement on that would appear to indicate that there may not be a need for a rebuttal. (I could be wrong and I'll continue to think about it.)

But the forty-two were especially concerned about how it would play out to non-members who visited the site and didn't know the site. That's a good concern; however, the e-mails from the visitors that I have complained about indicate (to me) that even if a rebuttal had been posted, they wouldn't ahve gotten it. That's the right wingers who love to complain in e-mails and that's the middle of the roaders (the "there's nothing lovelier than a Blue Dog Democrat" in sping while their common sense spills out of their heads, apparently -- no those types have not gone away).

We're a community. If we start worrying about how something will play out to outsiders, we're doomed. If I feel myself hedging on something or about to, I end up going firmly left (or my idea of it) here. (We are not "More left than thou" -- there are many sites, organziations, et al that are lefter and more power to them and hopefully we can learn a great deal from them.)

But with Dexter Filkins, for instance, the infamous article by him, it would have been very easy to have looked at the first e-mails that came in and thought, "Woah, I better shut up!" Or, "Blow my credibility? Oh my God! They're right!"

I firmly believe that Dexter Filkins' much praised, much awarded report will not stand up to history or scrutiny. It was apparently controversial to some to say that when I originally did. I didn't temper my remarks (though I've noted that I could, as always, be wrong). The community members who were questioning of the opinion then aren't now. But we still get visitors who want to trumpet what award Filkins won or that he's "there" or some other hollow justification for what, in my opinion, was a one sided article that failed to inform readers of anything other than the 'kills' and other video game elements.

People like Amy Goodman and Dahr Jamail (to cite but two) have given a much more emcompassing view than Filkins that didn't overlook humanity to play 'kill cheerleader.' People (males) were not allowed to leave the city, they were forced back in (of all ages). It was a turkey shoot in a town and Filkins found much to rave about while not informing readers of basic details.

As noted elsewhere, a reporter has alleged that Filkins gets his pieces cleared by the military prior to print (Filkins denies that allegation). That might, if true, explain the long delay in his one-day, one-sided reporting taking so long to appear in print. Or maybe he's just been embedded so long that it doesn't really matter to him that innocents died. I don't know.

I do know that it wasn't a video game and it wasn't anything that I saw as worthy of applause.
A reporter's supposed to provide a perspective. Filkins, my opinion, provided a view from over a soldier's shoulder. I wouldn't even call it "and you are there" reporting.

Possibly he suffers from the problems natural to war reporting (as noted by Chris Hedges).
Who knows? And does it really matter? I don't think it does. I think we saw a massacre, or would have with sound reporting. Instead he picks up his awards and plaudits and it would be really easy to say nothing for fear of what someone would think.

I haven't done that and I won't. And while I understand the feelings of the forty-two on that issue, and certainly have those thoughts from time to time while I'm badly composing yet another entry, if we start censoring ourselves because others might think something or take the time to refute someone's opinion (which I'm glad FB shared), we're responding and not being pro-active.

I feel like I'm going in circles here (which probably means I started going in circles half way into this), so I'll wind down here. But I don't believe this community exists to worry what someone else will think if they happen upon something. We aren't running for office. We're not taking ads. We're not attempting to get exposure from anyone. We're independent for a reason and that's so we can speak our truth. Our voice (not mine) is the strongest thing we have.

And while I can understand concerns as to how our voice may or may not appear to outsiders, we don't exist to sway the swing voter or any other similar tactic. We're a resource/review for the left. That's our purpose. We come together as a community to share and increase our knowledge of what's out there on the left. If the Times (or any other mainstream organ) did that, as stated before, we'd be a glorified Tiger Beat saying things like "Doesn't Katrina vanden Heuvel and/or Christian Parenti have great hair?"

But voices from the left haven't been highlighted by the mainstream. Look at the roundtable the Times did in their book review and note that you had a left-leaning centerist, a right-wing leaning person (New Republican) and Katrina vanden Heuvel bringing up the left. Think about how much more life might have been in the roundtable if Katrina vanden Heuvel had been joined by Gloria Steinem or someone at Ms., by Margaret Kimberely or someone at The Black Commentator, by Salim Muwakkil or anyone at In These Times, by Matthew Rothschild or anyone at The Progressive, by someone from Left Turn or Clamor.

Instead we heard one (New Republican) hold the Cokie Roberts gasbag line and another talk electoral politics and those issues. Katrina vanden Heuvel was the voice of social justice. (And thank God she was a part of the roundtable or we would have had two white males debating what the center and the slightly left of center should do).

CJR Daily appears to be getting better in their magazine reports (from what I've been e-mailed) and that's great. Hopefully that will open the range for others. But the left didn't disappear on Sept. 12, 2001. When a member e-mails excited that a highlight here (by a member or by me) has turned them on to Laura Flanders or someone else, that's what our purpose is.

I'm going to call this a rough draft and post it. I'll spell check it sometime this weekend (hopefully tomorrow evening) and I'll provide links. Amy Goodman (as everyone knows) hosts Democracy Now! and Bob Somerby is the voice of The Daily Howler. Everyone else mentioned should be easy to locate via the permalinks on the left (always on the left). But I'm looking at the clock and I'll be up in one and a half hours. So this rough draft will have to stand for now. In the words of Kat (Kat's Korner, she's started her own site and we have a link to it on the left) it is what it is.

(Rebecca runs Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. Folding Star runs A Winding Road. I don't think I mentioned Betty but she does Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man and and she e-mailed that she'll be posting tomorrow -- her oldest child hurt himself today while climbing a tree and she'd asked me to mention that to the community "so they won't think, good Lord is she slacking off!") (I've bit the bullet and provided some, but not all links. I didn't focus on typos. I'm sure there are many. I'll catch them tomorrow evening and I'll do the rest of the links. The time stamp on this entry is when it was started. I flipped to another screen and if I was creating one right now, the time stamp would be 2:23 am. I'm going to go grab that one hour of sleep.)

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

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

From Worcester IMC, we'll note Kevin HC87's "

Holy Cross College graduating seniors and alum held a prayerful vigil outside the Naval ROTC commissioning ceremony on Friday, May 27, 2005 prior to the college's commencement ceremony. The group, Holy Cross Military Free, is comprised of student members of Pax Christ at Holy Cross and alum. Friday's, vigil was part of ongoing efforts by the group challenging the presence of ROTC at Holy Cross.

STATEMENT OF GRADUATING SENIORS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

May 26, 2005

Michael McFarland, S.J.

Office of the President College of the Holy Cross

Dear Father McFarland,

Tomorrow, on the morning of our commencement, we will participate in a vigil outside the NROTC commissioning. We will pray for the removal of ROTC at Holy Cross and the safety of the newly commissioned officers. We have written this letter to explain our participation in this witness. We say no to violence in all of its forms. We say no to violence from the Left, and we say no to violence from the Right.

As people of faith, we believe the Gospel commits us to a life of love and active nonviolence in the spirit of Jesus Christ. His love calls us to love unconditionally, friend and enemy alike, without discrimination.

The presence of the military on this campus disturbs us. ROTC is a violent institution and particularly inconsistent with the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ and his gospel. And in the spirit of our Jesuit tradition we call for the College to develop alternative means for participation in our community.

Students should not have to enter the military so that they can enter the College of the Holy Cross. It is the education we have been privileged to receive here at Holy Cross that compels us to be present at the College’s celebration of ROTC.

Over the past four years, we have been instilled with a responsibility to bear active witness to the Gospel in a spirit of peace and compassion. We recognize this is a very meaningful ceremony for our fellow students and their families, and we understand that our action will upset many in our community.

We regret this, and would rather not be out there. However, after much prayer and thought, we feel called to witness the gospel in this way. We do not apologize for this action, but hope it is received in the spirit in which we perform it: one of prayerful openness.

We pray for the safety of the commissioned NROTC cadets as they enter a dangerous world filled with moral uncertainty. We pray for them and their families. And we pray for an end to the wars which claim the lives of military personnel and civilians around the world.

While we continue to call and pray for the removal of ROTC, we encourage all members of this community to reflect on this issue. On this day of celebration and contemplation, we will bear witness to the nonviolent Christ and the tradition of Catholic peacemaking by voicing our opposition to ROTC at Holy Cross.

In Peace,

Molly Bobek, Francesca Errante, Christopher Kane, Adam Musser

As Maria has noted, when she looks at her own students, she doesn't see the apathy that the mainstream press feels is the public reaction to the war. That's an important statement -- one providing more leadership than we see in Congress (my opinion).

Six peace activists arrested at Sen. Gregg's offices" (New Hampshire Indymedia):
 

The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded the state of Colorado for passing a bipartisan resolution calling on Congress to bring the controversial Patriot Act in line with the Constitution. Colorado becomes the seventh state, and joins at least 382 other communities that have passed such resolutions. A similar resolution recently passed the Idaho state legislature.
"Nationwide, millions of Americans live in communities that have stood up and demanded that Congress bring the Patriot Act in line with the Constitution," said Lisa Graves, ACLU Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy and a native Coloradoan.
"Today, the citizens of the Centennial State join other concerned Americans from across the country who are rightly concerned about the rising use of 'sneak and peek' searches, the overly broad reach of the Act, and the expanded power to obtain virtually unchecked secret orders to search our library, medical and financial records."
The Colorado state senate passed the resolution by a vote of 32 to 2. The House of Representatives approved the measure by a vote of 39 to 29. The Colorado resolution follows similar statewide measures in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Montana and Idaho. Several other state legislatures are considering comparable measures. Most urge Congress to revisit the Patriot Act, the 2001 anti-terrorism law passed in haste only a few weeks after the attacks of 9/11, and try to prevent local authorities from engaging in racial profiling and other civil liberties abuses.
Specifically, the Colorado resolution calls on Congress to amend Patriot Act powers that "infringe on civil rights and liberties" and to oppose "the enactment of future federal legislation that infringes on civil rights and liberties." The ACLU has called on Congress to enact the Safe Act, a bipartisan measure that would make carefully calibrated changes to the Patriot Act to bring it back in line with the Constitution.
The Colorado resolution puts the tally of communities that have passed such resolutions at 383, encompassing almost 61 million Americans in 43 states. The list is diverse, encompassing large cities like New York and Los Angeles, and small towns like Castle Valley, Utah. The political makeup of the movement is also quite mixed, with many conservative-led resolutions reflecting the broad right-wing libertarian discontent with the Bush administration's civil liberties policies."
Congress is now reviewing the Patriot Act, examining how to ensure that law enforcement has the tools they need while protecting our fundamental civil liberties," Graves said. "We already know that the Patriot Act has been abused and misused, and that some secret search powers are being used to investigate American citizens who have absolutely no connection to terrorism at all. Critics from across the political spectrum, from the ACLU to the American Conservative Union, join Colorado and the nearly 60 million Americans who have demanded that we both safe and free."
To read the text of the Colorado resolution, go to:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18232&c=207
More information about the resolutions movement is online at:http://www.aclu.org/resolutions


The above is an ACLU statement that is posted at Colorado IMC. I'm noting that because this is an issue that is important to me. Way to go, Colorado. A lot of hard work goes into getting a municipality to pass a resoultion against the Patriot Act, the people of Colorado must have worked very hard to get their state informed and on board for this issue. Applause and praise to them.

"Denver Three appeal denial of data by Secret Service" is a post of a story that ran in the Denver Post. Here's the first paragraph:

The "Denver Three" are appealing a decision by the U.S. Secret Service not to hand over information about the man who booted them out of a presidential visit to Denver on March 21.

We'll note Glen Newell's "Donkey Den Sells Sexual Abuse" in full:

An announcment about a protest against a new local club that profits from the abuse of women and girls.
The next action is scheduled for Saturday June 11 at 10pm. We'll be meeting at 1109 Lincoln Street in Denver to protest and hand out flyers with information on sexual assault and the boycott. I hope to see you there. Thank you.
Forwarded from Jason Bosch, ArgusFest films ( argusfest.org)....
I want to tell you about a new club that just opened in Denver that is blatantly mocking violence and sex crimes against women and girls. Please boycott this establishment.
The Donkey Den is a bar and restaurant located in downtown Denver, which bills itself as "Tijuana Colorado".
A Tijuana "donkey den" refers to a brothel where men pay to see women have sex with animals. Such places also participate in the sexual slavery of girls (some as young as 8).
The Donkey Den's menu includes "Ho-Made Fries" and "Donkey Punch" burgers. The Encyclopedia of Sex defines a Donkey Punch as follows:"Donkey Punch (verb) During doggystyle sexual activity, a man punches his female partner as hard as he can in the back of the skull right before he reaches climax. This causes her to convulse and tighten every cavity. Such a punch is also an illegal boxing move that can cause serious and permanent injury to the brain stem."
A "Donkey Punch" is not a sex act, it is violence!
We ask that you join in boycotting the Donkey Den to show the owner that our community does not support this type of marketing.
For more information, please visit www.boycottdonkeyden.org. If you support this effort, please visit our site, and add yourself to our list of supporters.
The next action is scheduled for Saturday June 11 at 10pm. We'll be meeting at 1109 Lincoln Street in Denver to protest and hand out flyers with information on sexual assault and the boycott. Hope to see you there. Thank you.

Colorado IMC also notes the Allied Media Conference (June 17-19; Bowling Green, OH):

Organized by Clamor Magazine and Allied Media Projects, the 7th Annual Allied Media Conference is the largest gathering of grassroots media makers from all across the country, and it convenes at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio. The conference features hands-on workshops (from marketing to investigative reporting), group discussions (on topics like hip hop organizing and media justice), film screenings, artist presentations, a large exhibition hall to share our work (displaying the finest alternative media from around the country), and a whole day for educators to learn how to use independent media in the classroom. Set in a small, Midwest town, it's also a space to strengthen our community, meet new people, and enjoy each other's company. For a complete schedule of sessions and on-line registration, please visit:http://www.alliedmediaconference.com.In addition to the almost 40 sessions, the conference also features:-a live acoustic show featuring Casey Neill, Joe Jencks, and Rob Williams-The Independent For Life Music Fest featuring the Plan-It-X Records fest, Bulletteeth, Stylex, and Aloha.-the infamous AMC bowling party-an after hours hip hop partyFeel free to pass around a link to the e-flyer at: http://www.clamormagazine.org/amconlineflyer
Or, download our PDF flyer to post around town at: http://www.clamormagazine.org/amc/amc2005flyer.pdf
Any questions, please write us at amc (at) clamormagazine.org


Indymedia is something we support in this community. Obviously Indymedia as a collective is under repeated attacks. Colorado IMC was hacked awhile back and we noted it here. A number of e-mails have expressed their anger about the hacking and the feeling in the community is that we should highlight Colorado IMC by itself for the next few weeks. I fully support that. They were not the only IMC site hacked. We support all the IMC sites. But obviously time and attention doesn't permit focusing on every IMC site. Cedric asked, "Could we just adopt them for a spotlight for the next few weeks? Just to show support?" Absolutely.
We'll do that this month each Thursday. They'll get their own entry here where we'll note some items that are up.

This isn't to suggest that we don't support the others but Colorado IMC's hacking happened to be the first hack we noted here. And we noted the site each week as we waited to see if it would be back up. Because of the offensive nature of the hack and the fact that we did focus on it, the community is rooting for Colorado IMC and curious about it. So each Thursday this month, we'll continue to give them their own entry.

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

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