Talking entry, you've been warned.
Shirley e-mailed, "Since when the hell have you ever worried about spelling?" Never. But she's joking about the entry earlier today when I noted The Third Estate Sunday Review "new content" and noted that I'd delayed noting it because there was a feeling (delayed highlighting it) that there were way too many typos.
I don't care about typos. I'm busy and it is what it is (to steal from Kat). Right now, I'm on the phone with everyone as we try to rough out Sunday's The Third Estate Sunday Review so that at noon or one, people aren't still working on the edition. So we're pitching ideas right now. And may try to rough out a feature tonight.
Dona and I are both concerned about how long the edition took. It was Mother's Day so we did enforce a rest period as well as insisting that people go ahead and stop working before it was done. I know for me, speaking only for me, when I did the entry Sunday evening, I had two hours of sleep (since waking up Saturday morning) and my eyes were weeping the whole time I was doing that entry. I was tired, my eyes hurt and if it hadn't been Sunday, I would've bailed on an evening entry. I don't want to feel that tired this Sunday and I know that others were tired as well.
The typos? Never blame me for the typos at The Third Estate Sunday Review! Everyone knows I'm dyslexic. If they're counting on me for a spell check, they're making a huge mistake.
In terms of a roundtable, Ava and I take the notes and then others type them up. If something's left out (in our notes or in the typing), I have no problem going in to fix that. But otherwise, I really don't care.
I'm more concerned whether we said something then if we got every word correctly. For those who are anal or have plenty of time on their hands, they can obsess over typos. I've got entries to do here already, I'm in a hugely busy time in my life right now and there are always the e-mails to read. If I'm online, I'm posting or I'm reading e-mails. I have no "fun" time online to surf or play. Community members know that (and are quite aware that I will have typos -- as well as my typed stammer when I'm thinking about something and will repeat a word).
I'm also not foolish enough to think typos don't happen professionally. (Or that they aren't there in reporting and caught by editors.) (I'm not comparing myself to a reporter, I am noting that growing up, I knew and knew of many strong reporters who made typos -- and they lived!) It's a rare day there's not several typos in the New York Times.
I don't make a point to note those. I've noted that APAC is "Apac" in the Times. I don't think it's a typo and I waited until it showed up in more than one story. "Mr." Sinead O'Connor may have been a typo. (Obviously, it should be Ms.) But we've noted that here because of the fact that members are concerned with the way Ireland is portrayed. (By the way, Brian Lavery showed up in print today with a travel peace. Apparently that was the most important news and not the report on disarming that the paper never reported on nor the legislative body that's meeting.)
But I don't crucify them for a typo. Or any paper or newspaper (or transcript). I will note it in a book because a book has an editor -- someone whose job it is to proof the book. Errors can still be made in printing but that's why they have galleys.
However, we were all exhausted when we finished Sunday and we knew there were probably a ton of typos. So the edition was divided up and I noted the new features once I knew that most of them had been proofed in some form. That doesn't mean you won't find an error, you probably will. (Not just in what may not have been proofed yet, but in what is proofed.) The point was to catch what we could.
But there will always be errors. Looking at a computer screen for hours and hours in a row and pulling an all nighter means even the best spellers and typists will make mistakes. It's nothing to lose sleep over. If there's a factual mistake, it needs to be corrected and noted that it's corrected; however, if any typos are fixed here, from this moment forward, there won't be a note. They don't do it at The Third Estate Sunday Review and we're not going to do it here. (I say "we" because a number of people have tried to help there and have now, thankfully, stopped being so anal.)
Thank you to everyone who helps. The DN! entries, I want to note, are all dictated. I'm doing the Iraq snapshot, typing it and doing the links, myself on most days. But I'm too busy to do anything else so thanks to everyone who's helped out. Many members say they'd be happy to help and I know that's a sincere offer but I prefer to use friends from offline. For instance, today "a friend" had a name and I used it. A member might not have caught that and typed the name in. The person I dictated it to caught it and fixed it.
If there's a typo in the snapshot, that's always me. If there's something else in that entry, cut the people helping out some slack because I'm usually rushing through that and expecting every word to be caught. And often, it's a case of not one call but several. The cell drops out or I've got to take care of something so I have to call back. Most of the time, there's no time for what was said before to be read back. I'll just say "add this right before __" or "right after ___."
Those aren't the only entries that are often dictated but they are the ones that are pretty much always dictated and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Today, there was not a lot of time for highlights and I also had lost Jess' list of highlights. Ava and Jess help out by reading the e-mails so thanks to them for that. (Shirley and Martha both frequently help out with the e-mails as well and thank you them for that.) The e-mails are too many for one person and I'm honestly thinking of staying out of the public account (and asking them to as well) until the weekend because things are so busy.
Brandon should have gone in the earlier entry. He had a question about Stephan Smith and wondered if I played a "prank"? I said that I'd find the article from The Progressive and pull quote later Monday. I had linked to it in that post (via Common Dreams). I didn't know that when I linked Monday morning. A friend told me Monday evening when I was attempting to find a hard copy of the article (February, 2005 issue of The Progressive).
Megan noted that Matthew Rothschild was on KPFA's The Morning Show this morning with Barbara Olshansky, speaking about impeachment. That is correct and I missed that he was going to be on or I would've added him in the heads up.
HEADS UP: Tomorrow on KPFA's The Morning Show, Cindy Sheehan and Anthony Arnove will be guests.
Rothschild (editor of The Progressive if you're blanking or if you're a visitor) and Olshansky (of The Center for Constitutional Rights) addressed immigration and the Bully Boy's speech Monday night, the issue of the prisoners at Guantanamo (and elsewhere), Michael Hayden and the issue of impeachment.
"Here was a guy who was violating our civil liberties right and left," was one thing Rothschild offered about Hayden. He noted that failure, in the Bully Boy world, did lead to promotions from the Bully Boy but that we need to break that pattern.
Barbara Olshansky noted:
One of the things that I think is underling this type of authorization . . . is this notion that this presidency has, that this administration has, that the commander-in-chief powers which are supposed to be used outside the United States in a zone of miltary hostility . This president says, we can turn that power inside, into the United States, into the domestic, civilian, civil society and use that power here. And that underlies everything that this president is doing. . . What's really troubling is when you think that we're now going to appoint military people to fundamentally civilian posts. It adds even more structure to that idea that we can operate militarily inside the United States. That's something that . . . in the history of this country we have never abided. It's something the Framers, way back, were concerned about and it's something the courts have been really clear about and yet that is what this administration is completely -- using the military powers inside the United States to justify all of these violations.
Matthew Rothschild spoke of the signing statements:
This gets to Barbara's point of the grand conception this administration has, really coming out of Cheney's office, for the presidency. President Bush has issued 750 signing statements. That is, he'll sign a bill that Congress has brought before him instead of vetoing it, he will sign it and make it into a law and then put essentially an asterisk at the bottom that says I'm going to enforce this law to the extent that it doesn't conflict with my powers as commander-in-chief or whatever proviso he wants to attend to it. That's not our system. The president is supposed to veto the bill and let Congress try to override it or he's supposed to sign the bill and then see that the laws are faithfully executed. [. . .] This is certainly one ground for impeachment and I don't understand why it's viewed as such a partisan issue because if this is allowed to stand then if and when a Democrat becomes president that person can do just what Bush is going to be doing and then Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. I mean, I think wiser people should prevail here. And look what President Bush is doing to our Constitutional system. It really isn't about who is in control of the White House or in control of Congress.
For those wondering, Andrea Lewis and Rothschild did address that this had been done by others. Lewis noted that Bill Clinton did it over 200 times and Poppy Bush did it over a 100 times. But no one's done it in this volume and Rothschild noted that he was opposed to anyone in the Oval Office doing it. FYI, Poppy served one term for those who've forgotten. The Clinton figure is for two terms and Bully Boy, short of impeachment, will serve two terms so who knows how much higher than 750 he may climb.
There was much more, but I'm not Ruth. But she would note that Andrea Lewis and Philip Malderi are the hosts (and both participated in the discussion). Ruth's taking off this Saturday as well. She's had a blast last week and is having one this week.
Kyle, Bonnie and Brady all note the following. Brady also wants it known that he's voting for Ned Lamont (which is no surprise to members who've read his comments on Joe Lieberman in the gina & krista round-robin or here). From NOW's "NOW PAC Endorses Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate in Connecticut:"
Statement of NOW PAC Officer Melody Drnach
May 16, 2006
The National Organization for Women Political Action Committee is pleased to announce its endorsement of Democratic candidate Ned Lamont for the United States Senate. The purpose of NOW PAC is to advance women's rights through electoral activity. NOW PAC is the only political action committee that bases its endorsements on a candidate's support of the full range of feminist issues, including (but not limited to):
Support for reproductive rights without restriction
Economic equality for women
Civil rights for all
Constitutional equality for women
Elimination of violence against women
Our endorsements go to the strongest feminist candidates. We listen to our membership and respond to their requests for action in races in their states. Therefore, pursuant to the request of Connecticut NOW, NOW PAC is endorsing Ned Lamont for the U.S. Senate.
Ned Lamont ardently supports a full range of reproductive choices for women. He certainly understands that reproductive justice includes full access for rape victims to emergency contraception. Ned Lamont recognizes that "civil rights for all" encompasses the right of everyone to marry the person they choose regardless of gender. He acknowledges that support of the continuing war in Iraq continues to decimate our economy and our standing in the world. Finally, Ned Lamont knows that allowing Samuel Alito's Supreme Court confirmation vote to proceed in the Senate has put Roe v. Wade in extreme jeopardy.
The stacking of the courts has emboldened those who wish to turn back all progress in the area of civil rights, privacy rights, and of course reproductive rights. The attack on Roe in South Dakota was predictable and a direct consequence of the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The strategy to pack the courts with right-wing judges who are committed to overturning Roe is no secret. Yet, Senator Lieberman is one of seven Democrats who have promised not to filibuster any of President Bush's judicial nominees, except under "extraordinary circumstances." Well if packing the Supreme Court with abortion opponents like John Roberts and Samuel Alito is not an extraordinary circumstance, then we don't know what is.
These are precarious times for women. We cannot be satisfied with a senator who votes for women much of the time, or even most of the time. We need courageous leaders who will protect and advance all of our rights all of the time. The winner of this election will have profound influence on national policy which directly affects women and girls in Connecticut, in the nation and throughout the world. We are confident that we have found principled leadership in Ned Lamont and are proud to endorse his candidacy for U.S. Senate.
For Immediate Release
Contact: Mai Shiozaki, 202-628-8669, ext. 116; cell 202-641-1906
Show your support for NOW in any way you're able (money, if you've got it, visiting their website, getting the word out).
Lucy wonders (re: "A Note to Our Readers") if Ava and I dropped a TV review. Hold on. Okay, the answer is no. This was a group piece that was dropped due to an e-mail. It had nothing to do with entertainment programs. An e-mail, for those lost, came in (to the junk folder, it was actually a week old) and we had worked on a feature (completed it) that we killed. On what? We're not saying. Due to the peace of the day, we replied to the e-mail and noted that we would be killing a completed piece (which put us further behind) and would leave the topic alone unless there was reason to address it again. The e-mailer didn't request that, we just felt it was something to do in terms of the mood of the day.
Ava and I will note that a TV review made some friends mad ("The Limp") because they'd provided us with copies of the show and we trashed it. They're entitled to their opinion but they were told upfront, when they asked us to review it, that we don't pull punches if we write a review. That is the first time anyone's ever been upset. Most, if they haven't gotten a rave, have been able to laugh it off. We stand by our review. And they were warned, Ava had seen one episode and had advised that she didn't care for it so there was a warning going in, but even without it, we don't pull punches.
And that's it because we're ending the discussion and going to attempt a rough draft on a piece while we're all together on the line (just us and the NSA). The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com. (In fact, if the NSA could sell us copies of transcripts, it would really make it easier for Ava and I since we wouldn't have to take down the discussion when there's a roundtable.)
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
the morning show
ruths public radio report
the third estate sunday review