Democracy Now! offers a rememberance of Ruben Salazar, a speech by Desmond Tutu and Katrina vanden Heuvel addressing what's happening in Russia.
Headlines for February 24, 2005
- Bush's Uncle Makes $450K Off Iraq War
- Lawmakers Call No Child Left Behind Act 'Unconstitutional'
- Car Bombing in Tikrit Kills 15
- 12,000 Protest Bush Visit to Germany
- UK Attorney General: Iraq Invasion Was Illegal
- No Charges Against Marine Who Shot Wounded Un-Armed Iraqi
- Wal-Mart Abandons Plans for NYC Store
Katrina vanden Heuvel on U.S.-Russian Relations
President Bush is due to meet Russian president Vladimir Putin in the Slovakian capital of Bratislava today on the last leg of his European tour. We examine U.S.-Russian relations with Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation magazine.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu on South Africa, Poverty and Militarism
Nobel Peace prize-winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu speaks after receiving an honorary doctorate of humane letters from Fordham University. He says, "South Africa, improbably, divinely amusingly, has become a beacon of hope. If peace could come to South Africa, then peace could come any- and everywhere."
Race and Imprisonment in Texas: The Disparate Incarceration of Latinos and African Americans in the Lone Star State
A newly-released study from the Justice Policy Institute called "Race and Imprisonment in Texas" finds, in part, that finds that African-Americans are incarcerated at five times the rate of whites in Texas and that Latinos are incarcerated nearly twice as much as whites." We speak with the author of the report. [includes rush transcript]
Remembering Latino Journalist Ruben Salazar Who Was Gunned Down in 1970 by the LAPD
Salazar died after being shot by tear gas projectile shortly after he was covering the Chicano anti-Vietnam War Moratorium rally in East Los Angeles in 1970. He was a reporter and columnist at the Los Angeles Times and the news director of Spanish-language television station KMEX in Los Angeles. Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman reflect on his life, 35 years after he was killed. [includes rush transcript]
Please note that BuzzFlash interviews Danny Schechter and also note that they are offering Schechter's WMD as a BuzzFlash Premium.
Let's note Katrina vanden Heuvel's Editor's Cut today:
Ex-Nation intern Chris Kromm and the Institute for Southern Studies--a "think tank/act tank" founded by civil rights veterans, which publishes the award-winning Southern Exposure magazine--have launched a new blog, Facing South.
The Institute has been at the forefront of campaigns for economic justice, campaign finance reform, environmental sanity and most recently the defense of voting rights and the reigning in of war profiteers (over 40 percent of military contracts go to corporations operating in the South).
Why Facing South? Because the South is far from a lost cause for social change. Progressives in the region are getting energized, laying infrastructure and finding openings that draw on the region's populist streak and unbroken history of movements for justice and dignity.
At The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby's discussing a number of issues including Maureen Dowd:
This morning, Dowd has to teach a sad Logic Lesson: Just because you oppose a program, that doesn't mean you hate the troops. She has to do so because mainstream pundits have allowed this Outrage Machine to keep running -- and because the liberal web has allowed these pundits to tremble, quake, hide, refuse to speak. The liberal web simply has to insist that mainstream pundits speak up loud and long -- and if they’re going to shame these pundits into action, they’re going to have to call them by name. They're going to have to name E. J. Dionne. They’re going to have to name Richard Cohen -- and Mark Shields, Al Hunt, Chris Matthews, Eugene Robinson. But uh-oh! These are powerful figures at powerful papers -- papers your heroes may hope to write. Is that one reason why years have gone past with only THE HOWLER calling these names? Is that the reason why this obvious theme has failed to spread far from this site?
He also addresses the Summers issue (where obviously we will elect to politely disagree).
Brad notes Matthew Rothschild's "This Just In:"
Seymour Hersh has already noted that a U.S. military strike may be in the offing. And Scott Ritter puts the date somewhere in June. Don't discount Ritter. He was absolutely right on Iraq and its nonexistent stash of WMDs.
European leaders need to put their smiles away and unbow themselves.They shouldn’t placate Bush.
He only wants to push them around, this time with charm (such as it is), next time, like last time, with disdain.
Trina: Can you note these headlines from this morning's NYT? "Jobless Claims Rise; Factory Orders Fall," "Canada Says It Won't Join Missile Shield With the U.S.," and "2 British Soldiers Convicted of Abusing Prisoners in Iraq." And could you pull a quote from this one please "The Germans Bush Wasn't Able to See?"
"The Germans Bush Wasn't Able to See" is by Richard Bernstein and from A8 of this morning's paper. Addressing the Bully Boy's Bullying the World Tour, specificially the stop in Germany:
Most conspicuous was the lack of contact between ordinary Germans and an American president visiting what could almost have been a stage setting: a town with buildings but no people, the shops and restaurants in the center of town closed, and only uniformed police officers on the street.
. . .
But the dispute over the Iraq war awoke German citizens to something new in their relationship with the United States, an unease over the price that they might have to pay to be members of an alliance led by a figure whose instincts they distrust.
"Most Germans are still emotionally averse to what Bush stands for -- going it alone not paying attention to due process, which we love in Europe," said Eberhard Sandschneider, the director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.
Brady e-mailed to note the photo accompanying this article (by Markus Schreiber of the Associated Press) and state that he felt "it belongs on the front page." Use the link to the story to see a powerful photo of Germans protesting the Bully Boy.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
What's worth reading in this morning's New York Times?
On the front page of this morning's New York Times, check out Sam Dillon's " Report Faults Bush Initiative on Education:"
Concluding a yearlong study on the effectiveness of President Bush's sweeping education law, No Child Left Behind, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers drawn from many states yesterday pronounced it a flawed, convoluted and unconstitutional education reform initiative that has usurped state and local control of public schools.
The report, based on hearings in six cities, praised the law's goal of ending the gap in scholastic achievement between white and minority students. But most of the 77-page report, which the Education Department rebutted yesterday, was devoted to a detailed inventory and discussion of its flaws.
Also note John Files' "Rules on Gays Exact a Cost in Recruiting, a Study Finds:"
The military has spent more than $200 million to recruit and train personnel to replace troops discharged in the last decade for being openly gay, a new Congressional study has found.
The review by the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, was requested by more than 20 lawmakers who were concerned about the costs of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy instituted in the Clinton administration, particularly for service members with "critical occupations" and "important foreign language skills."
The accountability office plans to release its review on Friday. The New York Times obtained it from a member of Congress who had requested the study.
This is buried inside the paper because while TV Guide blurbs along the likes of "Tonight on ER!" are front page news (the Times "scoop" by a few hours), apparently "Tomorrow night on Third Watch" belongs inside the paper. Who knew?
In "World Briefing" (A10), we learn that another "environmentalist [was] gunned down in Brazil." Last time it was Dorothy Sang. This time it's Dionisio Julio Ribeiro. Is it a pattern or just a mistake? The Times can't tell you because the only story they have on the issue is this one paragraph brief (by Andrew C. Revkin).
I would recommend Ralph Blumenthal's "A School Exam's Conscientious Objector :"
Macario Guajardo was one child left behind Wednesday when his classmates took the all-important Texas statewide reading test for promotion to the sixth grade.
Actually, 11-year-old Macario, an unlikely crusader at 4-foot-11 and 93 pounds, wearing a Spider-Man T-shirt, left himself behind. He stayed out of school in protest against what he called "the big deal" of the testing program, which he said "keeps kids from expressing their imagination."
"I don't think I'm brave," Macario said at his home here in the Rio Grande Valley. "Any kid could do this. It does take a little bit of guts."
And brains. More brains and guts than our leadership has apparently.
Also note Lawrence K. Altman's "Study Challenges Abstinence as Crucial to AIDS Strategy:"
A new study in Uganda challenges the importance of abstinence as a centerpiece of the Bush administration's international AIDS prevention strategy. The study was conducted by Ugandan scientists in collaboration with researchers from Columbia and Johns Hopkins Universities.
Health officials around the world have pointed to Uganda's success in reducing the prevalence of infections with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, in recent years. President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda, the Bush administration and some public health experts have credited the decline largely to a policy known as ABC, for abstinence, be faithful (monogamy) and condom use.
Although educational campaigns promoting abstinence and monogamy may have been effective and contributed to the decline, the study found no evidence that abstinence and monogamy explained the overall decline in H.I.V. prevalence, said the lead author, Dr. Maria J. Wawer of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia.
Concluding a yearlong study on the effectiveness of President Bush's sweeping education law, No Child Left Behind, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers drawn from many states yesterday pronounced it a flawed, convoluted and unconstitutional education reform initiative that has usurped state and local control of public schools.
The report, based on hearings in six cities, praised the law's goal of ending the gap in scholastic achievement between white and minority students. But most of the 77-page report, which the Education Department rebutted yesterday, was devoted to a detailed inventory and discussion of its flaws.
Also note John Files' "Rules on Gays Exact a Cost in Recruiting, a Study Finds:"
The military has spent more than $200 million to recruit and train personnel to replace troops discharged in the last decade for being openly gay, a new Congressional study has found.
The review by the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, was requested by more than 20 lawmakers who were concerned about the costs of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy instituted in the Clinton administration, particularly for service members with "critical occupations" and "important foreign language skills."
The accountability office plans to release its review on Friday. The New York Times obtained it from a member of Congress who had requested the study.
This is buried inside the paper because while TV Guide blurbs along the likes of "Tonight on ER!" are front page news (the Times "scoop" by a few hours), apparently "Tomorrow night on Third Watch" belongs inside the paper. Who knew?
In "World Briefing" (A10), we learn that another "environmentalist [was] gunned down in Brazil." Last time it was Dorothy Sang. This time it's Dionisio Julio Ribeiro. Is it a pattern or just a mistake? The Times can't tell you because the only story they have on the issue is this one paragraph brief (by Andrew C. Revkin).
I would recommend Ralph Blumenthal's "A School Exam's Conscientious Objector :"
Macario Guajardo was one child left behind Wednesday when his classmates took the all-important Texas statewide reading test for promotion to the sixth grade.
Actually, 11-year-old Macario, an unlikely crusader at 4-foot-11 and 93 pounds, wearing a Spider-Man T-shirt, left himself behind. He stayed out of school in protest against what he called "the big deal" of the testing program, which he said "keeps kids from expressing their imagination."
"I don't think I'm brave," Macario said at his home here in the Rio Grande Valley. "Any kid could do this. It does take a little bit of guts."
And brains. More brains and guts than our leadership has apparently.
Also note Lawrence K. Altman's "Study Challenges Abstinence as Crucial to AIDS Strategy:"
A new study in Uganda challenges the importance of abstinence as a centerpiece of the Bush administration's international AIDS prevention strategy. The study was conducted by Ugandan scientists in collaboration with researchers from Columbia and Johns Hopkins Universities.
Health officials around the world have pointed to Uganda's success in reducing the prevalence of infections with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, in recent years. President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda, the Bush administration and some public health experts have credited the decline largely to a policy known as ABC, for abstinence, be faithful (monogamy) and condom use.
Although educational campaigns promoting abstinence and monogamy may have been effective and contributed to the decline, the study found no evidence that abstinence and monogamy explained the overall decline in H.I.V. prevalence, said the lead author, Dr. Maria J. Wawer of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia.
Chris Matthews & Jack Shafer got it, does Editor & Publisher's William E. Jackson Jr.?
Lloyd e-mails this morning and would like this printed.
Lloyd: On February 13th, I e-mailed you a private e-mail ripping you apart for the thing you wrote about Judy Miller ["Is Judith Miller crowing: "I was proved f**king right." again? and is Okrent now going to examine this issue?"] I don't save copies but if you still have one you can print it now. [Note: I don't. I read and then delete. E-mails that are intended to be shared are printed up and kept until they are posted. That's the site policy.] I just read something at Editor & Publisher this morning and obviously you were making a point that was valid since the thing reads just like your thing. My apologies.
Lloyd doesn't need to apologize. Rant, rave, weigh in [at common_ills@yahoo.com]. Judith Miller is a charged issue. Today's Editor & Publisher piece is by William E. Jackson Jr. and is entitled "This Time, Judith Miller Gets It Right on Chalabi " (and I disagree that it reads "just like" what was here). From that column:
Recently, Miller was criticized by Daniel Okrent, the Times' public editor (and other media critics, such as myself in a February 6 column here), for her Jan. 30 prediction on MSNBC’s "Hardball" of a political comeback by Chalabi -- with American encouragement -- following the election held that very day. The problem was: This was a "scoop" that, by her own admission, she had not seen fit to submit to the Times.
On the day of the Iraqi election, Miller told Chris Matthews on the air that her "sources" informed her that U.S. officials were, once again, in alliance with former Iraqi exile leader Chalabi, even backing him for a major cabinet post in a new Shiite-dominated government. It seemed improbable, as Chalabi had fallen into disgrace and was often regarded as one of the least popular major politicians in Iraq. But Miller claimed that the Bush Administration was making "belated and sudden outreaches" to Chalabi "to offer him expressions of cooperation and support." One wondered who was her main Iraqi source?
In any case, lo and behold, in the Feb. 13 Times, Dexter Filkins and three other Times reporters weighed in with a dramatic front-page story: "Iraqi Exile Sees His Prospects on Rise Again." They reported that, earlier in the week, "one of the American Embassy's most important diplomats" had visited Chalabi in his Baghdad compound.
The author is using Dexter Filkins' story (as we did, which is why we wrote about this on Feb. 13th) and terms such as "second, even third acts" evaluating Miller's scoop. And comments like "not bad, not bad at all."
Certainly we didn't do that here. Because as we noted then:
This isn't a defense of Miller, but, if she wants to crow she was "proven right," she may be able to convincingly crow that on this one issue.
But the issue regarding her reporting, prior to being reassigned to the UN beat, was never questioning whether Miller could jot down just what the administration or Chalabi (or both) wanted her to -- she's proven herself to be an exemplary stenographer. I'd put her in charge of keeping the minutes at any committee meeting in an instant.
I don't think (and again, I could be wrong) anyone's doubted that she was fed those stories. No one has, to the best of my knowledge, accused of her inventing questionable facts (just of swallowing them). So when Miller speaks or writes, you can be sure that someone fed her. (Overfed?). (No, Frank in Orlando, that's not a weight crack -- Miller's "lithe." Term used intentionally.)
We certainly didn't offer up any suggestion that redemption was at hand for Miller because, as stated then, no one we knew of doubted that she had a pipeline to the administration and Chalabi.
It should also be noted that the E&P piece refers to "sources" while we wondered whether "story" referred to one source. More importantly, the E&P piece doesn't address the questions raised by Chris Matthews on Hardball while Judith Miller was on the show. I'd argue that's the heart of the story and not whether or not Miller has been 'redeamed.'
Furthermore, Jack Shafer raised those issues in his original piece (for Slate -- I can't get the cached version or the original version to load presently) and certainly Matthews' shock (my term) was first noted by Shafer (who as far as I know was the first to address the issue).
Quite honestly, today's the 24th and Dexter Filkins story ran on the 13th, eleven days ago.
Commentary on it now seems a bit after the fact when the comments revolve around Miller (as opposed to the larger issues) and when the piece concludes:
Incredibly, it would appear that while she was on vacation in Florida at the end of January, she filed another article on the United Nations oil-for-food scandal (on Jan. 31, with Julia Preston); conducted the "Hardball" interview; and was on the telephone, or the Internet, to sources in Baghdad and Washington, who gave her the scoop on Chalabi's imminent phoenix-like rise from the ashes in post-election Iraq.
All in the midst of the appeal of her sentence for contempt of court in the Valerie Plame case. Not bad, not bad at all.
Again, for it to be news that Miller had a pipeline to Chalabi and the administration would mean suggesting that Miller just created her WMD stories (which are still faulty). That's not reality.
She was fed them the same way she was fed this story.
This one happened to be true. Law of averages? It really doesn't matter. What does matter are the questions Chris Matthews was asking (as Jack Shafer noted in his piece).
Matthews: You mean Americans? [Italics in the MSNBC transcript.] . . .So where --so we have an election over there. And the same day we're holding an election, the same week, we are plotting which ministries to give to Chalabi, the guy who talked us into the war in the first place. . . . Why are we in the business of deciding or even negotiating cabinet ministries in a foreign government? . . . the idea that the man who won his country back through the vice president's office, Ahmed Chalabi, finds his way now through all this electoral process to end up as oil minister or finance minister, as you say, interior minister -- and I think he has higher ambitions than that -- makes the electoral process come down to the guy who started the war, ends up winning the war, irregardless of how people vote over there.
Instead of attempting to canonize Miller, I'd argue that readers would be better served by noting that issue. Shafer did. The column today doesn't. (And yes, we did note it.)
We did note that Miller could crow "I was proved f**king right" this time -- note, this time. But we didn't suggest she was a liar before, just a sloppy reporter.
Shafer certainly deserves all the credit because he's the one who first raised the issue of what she'd said the night before. (We didn't weigh in until the morning Filkins' report ran, which appeared to confirm Miller's statements.) But again, we didn't attempt to rehabilitate Miller's image in our entry. The issue, as we saw it, went to the questions Matthews raised on Hardball (see quote above) and we wondered why the Times waited fourteen days to print any story on Chalibi. Those were (and are) issues, which is why we suggested if you were bothered by the issues raised by Matthews and why the Times refused to cover the story until that day (the 13th) you contact Daniel Okrent (at least two members did). By the same token, though I wasn't bothered by the e-mails expressing anger (as Lloyd's did), those who felt I was going soft on Miller should be advised that the contact address for William E. Jackson Jr. is letters@editorandpublisher.com. There are some serious issues here (ones Matthews and Shafer noted immediately) and the E&P column doesn't address them.
[Note, in the original piece, Jack Shafer's last name was spelled "Shaefer." That was wrong. I'll correct my mistake this evening but don't have time this morning. My apologies for getting his last name wrong. If there are other spellings in this piece, they are wrong. It's "Shafer." But I only caught that a few moments ago while doing a quick read before posting so I wouldn't be surprised if I haven "alternate" -- read "wrong" -- spellings in this entry.]
Lloyd: On February 13th, I e-mailed you a private e-mail ripping you apart for the thing you wrote about Judy Miller ["Is Judith Miller crowing: "I was proved f**king right." again? and is Okrent now going to examine this issue?"] I don't save copies but if you still have one you can print it now. [Note: I don't. I read and then delete. E-mails that are intended to be shared are printed up and kept until they are posted. That's the site policy.] I just read something at Editor & Publisher this morning and obviously you were making a point that was valid since the thing reads just like your thing. My apologies.
Lloyd doesn't need to apologize. Rant, rave, weigh in [at common_ills@yahoo.com]. Judith Miller is a charged issue. Today's Editor & Publisher piece is by William E. Jackson Jr. and is entitled "This Time, Judith Miller Gets It Right on Chalabi " (and I disagree that it reads "just like" what was here). From that column:
Recently, Miller was criticized by Daniel Okrent, the Times' public editor (and other media critics, such as myself in a February 6 column here), for her Jan. 30 prediction on MSNBC’s "Hardball" of a political comeback by Chalabi -- with American encouragement -- following the election held that very day. The problem was: This was a "scoop" that, by her own admission, she had not seen fit to submit to the Times.
On the day of the Iraqi election, Miller told Chris Matthews on the air that her "sources" informed her that U.S. officials were, once again, in alliance with former Iraqi exile leader Chalabi, even backing him for a major cabinet post in a new Shiite-dominated government. It seemed improbable, as Chalabi had fallen into disgrace and was often regarded as one of the least popular major politicians in Iraq. But Miller claimed that the Bush Administration was making "belated and sudden outreaches" to Chalabi "to offer him expressions of cooperation and support." One wondered who was her main Iraqi source?
In any case, lo and behold, in the Feb. 13 Times, Dexter Filkins and three other Times reporters weighed in with a dramatic front-page story: "Iraqi Exile Sees His Prospects on Rise Again." They reported that, earlier in the week, "one of the American Embassy's most important diplomats" had visited Chalabi in his Baghdad compound.
The author is using Dexter Filkins' story (as we did, which is why we wrote about this on Feb. 13th) and terms such as "second, even third acts" evaluating Miller's scoop. And comments like "not bad, not bad at all."
Certainly we didn't do that here. Because as we noted then:
This isn't a defense of Miller, but, if she wants to crow she was "proven right," she may be able to convincingly crow that on this one issue.
But the issue regarding her reporting, prior to being reassigned to the UN beat, was never questioning whether Miller could jot down just what the administration or Chalabi (or both) wanted her to -- she's proven herself to be an exemplary stenographer. I'd put her in charge of keeping the minutes at any committee meeting in an instant.
I don't think (and again, I could be wrong) anyone's doubted that she was fed those stories. No one has, to the best of my knowledge, accused of her inventing questionable facts (just of swallowing them). So when Miller speaks or writes, you can be sure that someone fed her. (Overfed?). (No, Frank in Orlando, that's not a weight crack -- Miller's "lithe." Term used intentionally.)
We certainly didn't offer up any suggestion that redemption was at hand for Miller because, as stated then, no one we knew of doubted that she had a pipeline to the administration and Chalabi.
It should also be noted that the E&P piece refers to "sources" while we wondered whether "story" referred to one source. More importantly, the E&P piece doesn't address the questions raised by Chris Matthews on Hardball while Judith Miller was on the show. I'd argue that's the heart of the story and not whether or not Miller has been 'redeamed.'
Furthermore, Jack Shafer raised those issues in his original piece (for Slate -- I can't get the cached version or the original version to load presently) and certainly Matthews' shock (my term) was first noted by Shafer (who as far as I know was the first to address the issue).
Quite honestly, today's the 24th and Dexter Filkins story ran on the 13th, eleven days ago.
Commentary on it now seems a bit after the fact when the comments revolve around Miller (as opposed to the larger issues) and when the piece concludes:
Incredibly, it would appear that while she was on vacation in Florida at the end of January, she filed another article on the United Nations oil-for-food scandal (on Jan. 31, with Julia Preston); conducted the "Hardball" interview; and was on the telephone, or the Internet, to sources in Baghdad and Washington, who gave her the scoop on Chalabi's imminent phoenix-like rise from the ashes in post-election Iraq.
All in the midst of the appeal of her sentence for contempt of court in the Valerie Plame case. Not bad, not bad at all.
Again, for it to be news that Miller had a pipeline to Chalabi and the administration would mean suggesting that Miller just created her WMD stories (which are still faulty). That's not reality.
She was fed them the same way she was fed this story.
This one happened to be true. Law of averages? It really doesn't matter. What does matter are the questions Chris Matthews was asking (as Jack Shafer noted in his piece).
Matthews: You mean Americans? [Italics in the MSNBC transcript.] . . .So where --so we have an election over there. And the same day we're holding an election, the same week, we are plotting which ministries to give to Chalabi, the guy who talked us into the war in the first place. . . . Why are we in the business of deciding or even negotiating cabinet ministries in a foreign government? . . . the idea that the man who won his country back through the vice president's office, Ahmed Chalabi, finds his way now through all this electoral process to end up as oil minister or finance minister, as you say, interior minister -- and I think he has higher ambitions than that -- makes the electoral process come down to the guy who started the war, ends up winning the war, irregardless of how people vote over there.
Instead of attempting to canonize Miller, I'd argue that readers would be better served by noting that issue. Shafer did. The column today doesn't. (And yes, we did note it.)
We did note that Miller could crow "I was proved f**king right" this time -- note, this time. But we didn't suggest she was a liar before, just a sloppy reporter.
Shafer certainly deserves all the credit because he's the one who first raised the issue of what she'd said the night before. (We didn't weigh in until the morning Filkins' report ran, which appeared to confirm Miller's statements.) But again, we didn't attempt to rehabilitate Miller's image in our entry. The issue, as we saw it, went to the questions Matthews raised on Hardball (see quote above) and we wondered why the Times waited fourteen days to print any story on Chalibi. Those were (and are) issues, which is why we suggested if you were bothered by the issues raised by Matthews and why the Times refused to cover the story until that day (the 13th) you contact Daniel Okrent (at least two members did). By the same token, though I wasn't bothered by the e-mails expressing anger (as Lloyd's did), those who felt I was going soft on Miller should be advised that the contact address for William E. Jackson Jr. is letters@editorandpublisher.com. There are some serious issues here (ones Matthews and Shafer noted immediately) and the E&P column doesn't address them.
[Note, in the original piece, Jack Shafer's last name was spelled "Shaefer." That was wrong. I'll correct my mistake this evening but don't have time this morning. My apologies for getting his last name wrong. If there are other spellings in this piece, they are wrong. It's "Shafer." But I only caught that a few moments ago while doing a quick read before posting so I wouldn't be surprised if I haven "alternate" -- read "wrong" -- spellings in this entry.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)