Stanley Tookie Williams is scheduled to be executed Tuesday and Sarah Kershaw notes in this morning's New York Times, "No Word From Governor as Execution Approaches."
Carl Hulse and Eric Schmitt seem to be attempting to provide an extensive overview in "Negotiators Say Differences Over Ban on Abuse Remain." Which makes this whispered aside stand out all the more:
It was also added to a separate Senate bill on Pentagon budget and policy, which also includes provisions on the legal rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as a call by the Senate for the Iraqi government to become much more responsible for its own security in 2006.
From Democracy Now!:
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, you mention the McCain Amendment. Explain what it is, voted 90-9, what Vice President Cheney is pressuring McCain to do, and the deal that’s being made, as I watched McCain on television yesterday, the Arizona senator, he talked about meeting at least three times with Stephen Hadley, the National Security Adviser, optimistic that they're hammering out a deal. What's going on here?
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, the law in the United States as of 9/11 is that you can’t torture anyone anywhere in the world, and you can’t send anybody to be tortured. It also included a prohibition on what we call lesser torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The administration has taken the position, under Alberto Gonzales, President's counsel, now Attorney General, that they can use cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against non-citizens all over the world. And that includes, really, things that constitute torture, waterboarding where you put people under water or drip water onto them to make them think they're drowning, assaults on people, temperature control where you can keep someone in a prison with temperatures up to 100 degrees and down to below zero, or whatever, for long periods of time. They're doing that. They want to continue to do that.
McCain said, “I don't want this anymore. Let's pass an amendment.” 90-9, it prohibits not just torture, which even the administration acknowledges is prohibited, although it defines it very narrowly, what’s prohibited, but it prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The negotiations going – and 90-9 it passed. The administration said – President said, ‘I'm going to veto that bill, but it’s part of the defense authorization bill.’ So they got a problem. So now they’re trying to amend the bill, and they’re trying to do it in two different ways. The initial amendment was: ‘Exempt the C.I.A. from this.’ What is that saying to us and the world? Exempt the C.I.A. so it can continue to torture people in black sites. And now the latest little negotiation is if they're not going to exempt the C.I.A., they want to make it possible that no criminal prosecution can be brought against the C.I.A. for engaging in this kind of conduct. What is that saying except, ‘C.I.A., continue doing what you are doing. Don't worry about it,’ and that's what they're doing here. They're trying to protect the C.I.A.
Now the deal that's really being made with the devil here is not only is there this McCain Amendment prohibiting torture anywhere in the world or in any of these U.S. facilities, but there's another amendment that’s in the same bill, and that's the one that's going to take away the right of the Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detentions in U.S. court. It's called habeas corpus. It's trying to strip that right away from the Guantanamo detainees. the case the Center won almost two years ago now. And I think the deal with the devil here is that the administration may allow the McCain Amendment into the legislation, the one that forbids torture, if there's also an amendment in the legislation that strips the courts of any right to hear these cases from Guantanamo. Now what is that saying? That's saying that, yes, we have the McCain Amendment, but we might as well put it up on the wall and just look at it and read it, because we're not going to have any way to go to court to challenge it when people are tortured. So, it's –
AMY GOODMAN: And McCain is agreeing to this?
MICHAEL RATNER: And apparently McCain is on board on this. A remarkable, remarkable thing.
Remarkable but unremarked on by the Times today.
Tori notes this from Reuters' "Supporters of Slain American Nun Vow to Pursue Planners of Killing:"
Two Brazilian ranch hands began long prison sentences Sunday after they were convicted of murdering Dorothy Stang, an American nun who was an advocate for protection of the rain forest. Their trial was seen as a test of Brazil's will to combat killings over land use on the Amazon frontier.
But Sister Dorothy's supporters said they were now ready to go after the ranchers accused of offering the two men about $22,000 to kill her, after she blocked their advance on valuable, hardwood-rich rain forest.
Brandon notes Jon Wiener's "Eugene McCarthy: 1916-2005" (Common Dreams):
Eugene McCarthy has always been a mysterious and frustrating figure. Nothing he did before 1968 hinted that he would become the liberals' antiwar leader and challenge an incumbent Democratic President; nothing he did after 1968 accomplished much of anything. Dominic Sandbrook skillfully conveys the events and the experience as well as the arguments of that year. Although he is a Shropshire lad born in 1974, Sandbrook argues like my father, born in Duluth in 1921 and a good Minnesota Democrat: He insists we focus on how the story of 1968 ended. The split among Democrats led by McCarthy ended up with Nixon in the White House. Nixon kept the war going for another five years, during which 15,000 more Americans were killed, and--we might add--during which Americans killed something like a million more Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians.
If '68 ended badly, it began with "a triumph of heroic magnitude"--Newsweek's description of McCarthy's showing in the New Hampshire primary that February. The senator from Minnesota had been the only one willing to challenge Lyndon Johnson, to make Vietnam the issue in the upcoming presidential election. Although McCarthy didn't win the popular vote--he got 42 percent in the Democratic primary--he did win twenty of the state's twenty-four convention delegates. Johnson saw the writing on the wall, and rather than lose to McCarthy a few weeks later in the Wisconsin primary, he announced he was withdrawing from his own re-election campaign. Nothing like it had ever happened before in American politics, and nothing has since.
There are some surprises, Sandbrook shows, in the story of McCarthy's 1968 triumph in New Hampshire: First, the vote for McCarthy was not primarily an antiwar vote. Exit polls suggested that most voters didn't know where he stood on it. That's because his TV ads made it impossible to tell whether he was for or against the war. Pollsters concluded that "his vote was an anti-Johnson vote, not an antiwar vote." Voters were anti-Johnson because of urban riots and "crime in the streets" as well as because of Vietnam.
Wiener discussed John Lennon on Thursday's Democracy Now! As noted earlier in this entry, you're missing out if you're not listening to, watching or reading the transcripts of Democracy Now! so be sure to check it out today.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
carl hulse
sarah kershaw
jon wiener
eric schmitt
democracy now
amy goodman
Monday, December 12, 2005
NYT: "Reporter Recounts C.I.A. Leak" (David Johnston)
Writing on news reported in this morning's New York Times (David Johnston's "Reporter Recounts Talk About C.I.A. Leak"), Eric wonders what the journalism standards are today?
That's a good question. It's one journalistic watchdogs should be exploring (instead of taking a pass on Bob Woodward). So yesterday Viveca Novak's version of events is published online at Time. Novak is the reporter who tiped Luskin off that it was known at the magazine Time that Karl Rove and Matt Cooper had spoken regarding the then unouted Valerie Plame.
Novak's reasons argued in her article is that she raised the issue because she thought Luskin was attempting to spin her when he stated that "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt."
Novak countered that a time a grand jury investigation was going on. Novak revealed that at a time when Cooper was publicly silent.
Novak didn't report on this.
She injected herself into a grand jury investigation by revealing information (for whatever reason) to the lawyer of someone of interest in the investigation.
Since Matt Cooper would plead he couldn't reveal his sources until he was faced with an actual jail sentence, some might want to consider how Novak found out and how much truth is and isn't in her account.
They might also want to question the logic of it just slipped out since, in fact, nothing just slipped out. To look at the results of the investigation -- Judith Miller's revelations, Matt Cooper's, Bob Woodward's . . . -- nothing has just slipped out.
How did it just slip it out?
Novak maintains that she felt Luskin was trying to spin her.
How so? Matt Cooper at that point wasn't writing what happened for Time. Novak wasn't writing about Cooper's knowledge. So when some at the Washington Post, in phone calls this morning, question whether it slipped or Novak was either tipping off Luskin or attempting to offer the tidbit in exchange for something, it's a question worth asking.
Novak says she didn't tell anyone at Time about it. She says that when she first spoke to Patrick Fitzgerald, November 10th of this year, not under oath, she retained her own lawyer and still failed to alert Time of what was going on. (She also spoke only after Luskin alerted Fitzgerald that she was someone who could vouch for Karl.)
The cover up of something that Novak claims just slipped up isn't being taken at face value.
There are some who believe she intentionally tipped off Luskin. There are some who believe she did so with some sort of encouragement.
She transmitted information that a federal prosecutor was seeking to Karl Rove's attorney -- information that was damaging to Karl Rove who was maintaining he'd never spoken to Matt Cooper while Cooper was refusing to answer questions.
Especially if it was an unintentional slip, with someone fighting requests to testify, she should have immediately reported the slippage to Time.
She didn't do that. If she had, would it have forced Time or Cooper's hand? This morning's callers doubt that but agree that it's possible.
Having gone from reporting to injecting herself into a investigation, did she then go Patrick Fitzgerald? No, she didn't.
She was content to stay silent while the initial investigation went on. The matter only comes up after Scooter Libby's been indicted, when Karl Rove needs someone to vouch for the new excuse.
It's awfully strange how someone who accidentally slipped was so helpful to Karl Rove both at the time of her slippage and the days and months since.
Johnston covers this point:
In her article, Ms. Novak said she was writing about her conversation with Mr. Luskin, over his objection, because he had "unilaterally" gone to the prosecutor to disclose it.
That's the only thing the callers agreed with. Relating it to Bob Woodward's silence on his source, they state that when you testify under oath, you don't then say, if you're a reporter, "I'm not at liberty to reveal my source to the public." Once you've given up your source, with the source's permission, under oath, there is no longer confidentiality.
Sources, as understood in the past, needed protection from investigations. They didn't need protection from the public. When a source is named, under oath, a reporter also names the source to the public.
They feel Woody's reluctance to do so further undermine's his defense that he's not too close to those in power. He is too close. He has traded access. He's willing to, under oath, discuss a conversation with someone attempting to determine whether charges need to be brought. That's the one area that a source, for any report, might need protection. Another would be from their employed. Woody's source has told the employers. The only one's who don't know are the public.
The callers this morning question the accuracy of Novak's report and question how honest it is, they don't question that once your source goes to a prosecutor and reveals themselves and once you testify under oath, you still have the right to not name your source to the public. Naming the source to the public would be . . . reporting. What a reporter's supposed to do.
So to answer Eric's question, what are the standards? No one knows because people involved haven't been acting on any journalistic standards and at least one watchdog that's supposed to cover journalism (and boast of doing in so in real-time) takes a pass to avoid asking uncomfortable questions about the apparently great and powerful Woody. Apparently everyone's trading something for something and while the public comes up short.
On the issue of the press, Mia notes Alexander Cockburn's "All the News That's Fit to Buy" (CounterPunch):
The Bush era has brought a robust simplicity to the business of news management: where possible, buy journalists to turn out favorable stories and, as far as hostiles are concerned, if you think you can get away with it, shoot them or blow them up.
As with much else in the Bush era, the novelty lies in the openness with which these strategies have been conducted. Regarding the strategies themselves, there's nothing fundamentally new, both in terms of paid coverage, and murder, as the killing in 1948 of CBS reporter George Polk suggests. Polk, found floating in the Bay of Salonika after being shot in the head, had become a serious inconvenience to a prime concern of US covert operations at the time, namely the onslaught on Communists in Greece.
Today we have the comical saga of the Pentagon turning to a Washington DC-based subcontractor, the Lincoln Group, to write and translate for distribution to Iraqi news outlets booster stories about the US military's successes in Iraq. I bet the Iraqi newspaper reading public was stunned to learn the truth at last.
More or less simultaneously comes news of Bush's plan, mooted to Tony Blair in April of 2004, to bomb the hq of Al Jazeera in Qatar. Blair argued against the plan, not, it seems, on moral grounds but because the assault might prompt revenge attacks.
Earlier assaults on Al Jazeera came in the form of a 2001 strike on the channel's office in Kabul. In November, 2002 the US Air Force had another crack at the target and this time managed to blow it up. The US military claimed that they didn't know the target was an Al Jazeera office, merely "a terrorist site".
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
david johnston
plamegate
alexander cockburn
That's a good question. It's one journalistic watchdogs should be exploring (instead of taking a pass on Bob Woodward). So yesterday Viveca Novak's version of events is published online at Time. Novak is the reporter who tiped Luskin off that it was known at the magazine Time that Karl Rove and Matt Cooper had spoken regarding the then unouted Valerie Plame.
Novak's reasons argued in her article is that she raised the issue because she thought Luskin was attempting to spin her when he stated that "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt."
Novak countered that a time a grand jury investigation was going on. Novak revealed that at a time when Cooper was publicly silent.
Novak didn't report on this.
She injected herself into a grand jury investigation by revealing information (for whatever reason) to the lawyer of someone of interest in the investigation.
Since Matt Cooper would plead he couldn't reveal his sources until he was faced with an actual jail sentence, some might want to consider how Novak found out and how much truth is and isn't in her account.
They might also want to question the logic of it just slipped out since, in fact, nothing just slipped out. To look at the results of the investigation -- Judith Miller's revelations, Matt Cooper's, Bob Woodward's . . . -- nothing has just slipped out.
How did it just slip it out?
Novak maintains that she felt Luskin was trying to spin her.
How so? Matt Cooper at that point wasn't writing what happened for Time. Novak wasn't writing about Cooper's knowledge. So when some at the Washington Post, in phone calls this morning, question whether it slipped or Novak was either tipping off Luskin or attempting to offer the tidbit in exchange for something, it's a question worth asking.
Novak says she didn't tell anyone at Time about it. She says that when she first spoke to Patrick Fitzgerald, November 10th of this year, not under oath, she retained her own lawyer and still failed to alert Time of what was going on. (She also spoke only after Luskin alerted Fitzgerald that she was someone who could vouch for Karl.)
The cover up of something that Novak claims just slipped up isn't being taken at face value.
There are some who believe she intentionally tipped off Luskin. There are some who believe she did so with some sort of encouragement.
She transmitted information that a federal prosecutor was seeking to Karl Rove's attorney -- information that was damaging to Karl Rove who was maintaining he'd never spoken to Matt Cooper while Cooper was refusing to answer questions.
Especially if it was an unintentional slip, with someone fighting requests to testify, she should have immediately reported the slippage to Time.
She didn't do that. If she had, would it have forced Time or Cooper's hand? This morning's callers doubt that but agree that it's possible.
Having gone from reporting to injecting herself into a investigation, did she then go Patrick Fitzgerald? No, she didn't.
She was content to stay silent while the initial investigation went on. The matter only comes up after Scooter Libby's been indicted, when Karl Rove needs someone to vouch for the new excuse.
It's awfully strange how someone who accidentally slipped was so helpful to Karl Rove both at the time of her slippage and the days and months since.
Johnston covers this point:
In her article, Ms. Novak said she was writing about her conversation with Mr. Luskin, over his objection, because he had "unilaterally" gone to the prosecutor to disclose it.
That's the only thing the callers agreed with. Relating it to Bob Woodward's silence on his source, they state that when you testify under oath, you don't then say, if you're a reporter, "I'm not at liberty to reveal my source to the public." Once you've given up your source, with the source's permission, under oath, there is no longer confidentiality.
Sources, as understood in the past, needed protection from investigations. They didn't need protection from the public. When a source is named, under oath, a reporter also names the source to the public.
They feel Woody's reluctance to do so further undermine's his defense that he's not too close to those in power. He is too close. He has traded access. He's willing to, under oath, discuss a conversation with someone attempting to determine whether charges need to be brought. That's the one area that a source, for any report, might need protection. Another would be from their employed. Woody's source has told the employers. The only one's who don't know are the public.
The callers this morning question the accuracy of Novak's report and question how honest it is, they don't question that once your source goes to a prosecutor and reveals themselves and once you testify under oath, you still have the right to not name your source to the public. Naming the source to the public would be . . . reporting. What a reporter's supposed to do.
So to answer Eric's question, what are the standards? No one knows because people involved haven't been acting on any journalistic standards and at least one watchdog that's supposed to cover journalism (and boast of doing in so in real-time) takes a pass to avoid asking uncomfortable questions about the apparently great and powerful Woody. Apparently everyone's trading something for something and while the public comes up short.
On the issue of the press, Mia notes Alexander Cockburn's "All the News That's Fit to Buy" (CounterPunch):
The Bush era has brought a robust simplicity to the business of news management: where possible, buy journalists to turn out favorable stories and, as far as hostiles are concerned, if you think you can get away with it, shoot them or blow them up.
As with much else in the Bush era, the novelty lies in the openness with which these strategies have been conducted. Regarding the strategies themselves, there's nothing fundamentally new, both in terms of paid coverage, and murder, as the killing in 1948 of CBS reporter George Polk suggests. Polk, found floating in the Bay of Salonika after being shot in the head, had become a serious inconvenience to a prime concern of US covert operations at the time, namely the onslaught on Communists in Greece.
Today we have the comical saga of the Pentagon turning to a Washington DC-based subcontractor, the Lincoln Group, to write and translate for distribution to Iraqi news outlets booster stories about the US military's successes in Iraq. I bet the Iraqi newspaper reading public was stunned to learn the truth at last.
More or less simultaneously comes news of Bush's plan, mooted to Tony Blair in April of 2004, to bomb the hq of Al Jazeera in Qatar. Blair argued against the plan, not, it seems, on moral grounds but because the assault might prompt revenge attacks.
Earlier assaults on Al Jazeera came in the form of a 2001 strike on the channel's office in Kabul. In November, 2002 the US Air Force had another crack at the target and this time managed to blow it up. The US military claimed that they didn't know the target was an Al Jazeera office, merely "a terrorist site".
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
david johnston
plamegate
alexander cockburn
Sunday, December 11, 2005
NYT: Putting the Timid in the New York Timid
It's good to be an "intellectual" conservative and "examined" by the New York Times. Anne E. Kornblut's "He Says Yes to Legalized Torture" proves that.
The one being awarded the hearts & flowers is Charles Krauthammer. Reading the article, you'll note that his positions are never critiqued. His endorsement of torture stands with approval since the Times fails to question that endorsement. His reasoning is never examined.
It's accepted as normal despite the fact that in intellectual circles, real ones, and outside them, this is an issue that's hotly contested.
But no need to get messy. Just smooth everything over. Offer that he started at The New Republic in the 1980s with the implied notion that he began by working at a liberal publication. The Times especially likes to push that lie. And maybe it's time for those actively on the left to *stop* promoting The New Republic?
You can read Robert Parry, you can read Bob Somerby, you can read any number of histories or criticisms and you'll see right away that the rag most famous this year for the attack on Arundhati Roy isn't left, isn't liberal and isn't anything to sing the praises of.
But because we haven't actively disputed the false claim loudly enough for the Times, they once again try to slide that one past the casual reader. (Who won't know better more than likely. So few read The New Republic.)
What else do you get?
Well, let's talk about what you'd get if this were a profile on Katrina vanden Heuvel. If this were a profile on KvH, you'd get various conservatives weighing in on KvH. Do you get the left weighing on Krauthammer? No, you don't. All the people quoted, and it's a lot, are from the right.
The Times endorses torture and allows the right to have their own little conversation in this lengthy article. There's no need to provide balance, let alone perspective.
A conservative "intellectual" said it and it's judged (when judged at all) by the right-wing.
That's a cute little set up. I'm sure there are a lot of future subjects of profiles in the paper that would be interested in knowing how they could get such a sweetheart deal for themselves.
The truth is, they can't. Not if they're of the left. Even if they're of the center, they risk a wayward voice being asked to critique them. But if they're of the right, part of the gas bag circuit and seen as "intellectual," they can have this kid gloves treatment.
Attacks are reserved for Molly Ivins (the first wife of the paper that refused to fade into obscurity when she left the paper). Attacks are reserved for Seymour Hersh and Noam Chomsky.
But Krauthmer gets hearts and flowers. Why, they even note his clinical practice. They fail to note that he used his license to diagnose (on TV) Al Gore as mentally ill. They fail to note anything resembling reality.
How they think this passes for news or reporting is beyond me. But they front page it on the Week in Review and maybe they'll get a shout out or a nod from The Weekly Standard? Or maybe, at the very least, those mean boys won't say as nasty things about them as they have in the past.
Putting the timid in the New York Timid this morning, Anne E. Kornblut.
We're on a break from The Third Estate Sunday Review and I'm hunting through the inbox (private address) for Isaiah and Martha's contributions. (Isaiah's comic, Martha's update on
the topics for today's The Laura Flanders Show.) I'm not seeing either but there are a ton of e-mails. Unless I missed something, the film Fallujah was not on Saturday's Flanders (a lively discussion of the after effects of Hurricane Katrina and the lack of governmental response may have bumped it or it may have been intended for Sunday to begin with). So look for that tonight and, hopefully, in a bit, we'll have something more to note. Things are going up at The Third Estate Sunday Review. Jim asked that I note that. Currently it's Ava & my TV commentary but more is due to go up. I'll accept the blame for the delay there. An e-mail came in that required (or I felt deserved) a long and searching response. Hopefully, on the other end it was appreciated. Responding meant putting everyone working on The Third Estate Sunday Review in a holding pattern. (Which wasn't my intent, I meant for them to go on without me.) Ava and I had worked on our commentary while a feature was being worked on so we had that completed. It's up. We need to work on some other pieces now and they will be up throughout the morning. If the delay puts anyone out, I accept the blame for the delay. If the delay causes anyone to curse, please note, I honestly thought I'd actually get some sleep this weekend. An all nighter on Friday and now an all nighter on Saturday hasn't resulted in more than three hours sleep for me on either day. So if you're cursing, chuckle over that.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
anne e. kornblut
charles krauthammerthe laura flanders show
the third estate sunday review
[Note: Thanks to Jim who pointed out as soon as I rejoined the Third Estate that I used "start" when I meant "stop."]
The one being awarded the hearts & flowers is Charles Krauthammer. Reading the article, you'll note that his positions are never critiqued. His endorsement of torture stands with approval since the Times fails to question that endorsement. His reasoning is never examined.
It's accepted as normal despite the fact that in intellectual circles, real ones, and outside them, this is an issue that's hotly contested.
But no need to get messy. Just smooth everything over. Offer that he started at The New Republic in the 1980s with the implied notion that he began by working at a liberal publication. The Times especially likes to push that lie. And maybe it's time for those actively on the left to *stop* promoting The New Republic?
You can read Robert Parry, you can read Bob Somerby, you can read any number of histories or criticisms and you'll see right away that the rag most famous this year for the attack on Arundhati Roy isn't left, isn't liberal and isn't anything to sing the praises of.
But because we haven't actively disputed the false claim loudly enough for the Times, they once again try to slide that one past the casual reader. (Who won't know better more than likely. So few read The New Republic.)
What else do you get?
Well, let's talk about what you'd get if this were a profile on Katrina vanden Heuvel. If this were a profile on KvH, you'd get various conservatives weighing in on KvH. Do you get the left weighing on Krauthammer? No, you don't. All the people quoted, and it's a lot, are from the right.
The Times endorses torture and allows the right to have their own little conversation in this lengthy article. There's no need to provide balance, let alone perspective.
A conservative "intellectual" said it and it's judged (when judged at all) by the right-wing.
That's a cute little set up. I'm sure there are a lot of future subjects of profiles in the paper that would be interested in knowing how they could get such a sweetheart deal for themselves.
The truth is, they can't. Not if they're of the left. Even if they're of the center, they risk a wayward voice being asked to critique them. But if they're of the right, part of the gas bag circuit and seen as "intellectual," they can have this kid gloves treatment.
Attacks are reserved for Molly Ivins (the first wife of the paper that refused to fade into obscurity when she left the paper). Attacks are reserved for Seymour Hersh and Noam Chomsky.
But Krauthmer gets hearts and flowers. Why, they even note his clinical practice. They fail to note that he used his license to diagnose (on TV) Al Gore as mentally ill. They fail to note anything resembling reality.
How they think this passes for news or reporting is beyond me. But they front page it on the Week in Review and maybe they'll get a shout out or a nod from The Weekly Standard? Or maybe, at the very least, those mean boys won't say as nasty things about them as they have in the past.
Putting the timid in the New York Timid this morning, Anne E. Kornblut.
We're on a break from The Third Estate Sunday Review and I'm hunting through the inbox (private address) for Isaiah and Martha's contributions. (Isaiah's comic, Martha's update on
the topics for today's The Laura Flanders Show.) I'm not seeing either but there are a ton of e-mails. Unless I missed something, the film Fallujah was not on Saturday's Flanders (a lively discussion of the after effects of Hurricane Katrina and the lack of governmental response may have bumped it or it may have been intended for Sunday to begin with). So look for that tonight and, hopefully, in a bit, we'll have something more to note. Things are going up at The Third Estate Sunday Review. Jim asked that I note that. Currently it's Ava & my TV commentary but more is due to go up. I'll accept the blame for the delay there. An e-mail came in that required (or I felt deserved) a long and searching response. Hopefully, on the other end it was appreciated. Responding meant putting everyone working on The Third Estate Sunday Review in a holding pattern. (Which wasn't my intent, I meant for them to go on without me.) Ava and I had worked on our commentary while a feature was being worked on so we had that completed. It's up. We need to work on some other pieces now and they will be up throughout the morning. If the delay puts anyone out, I accept the blame for the delay. If the delay causes anyone to curse, please note, I honestly thought I'd actually get some sleep this weekend. An all nighter on Friday and now an all nighter on Saturday hasn't resulted in more than three hours sleep for me on either day. So if you're cursing, chuckle over that.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
anne e. kornblut
charles krauthammerthe laura flanders show
the third estate sunday review
[Note: Thanks to Jim who pointed out as soon as I rejoined the Third Estate that I used "start" when I meant "stop."]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)