Update on C.
C came into work yesterday for the first time after several days absentee. She said that she had had her biopsy and they had found two small lesions on her liver. She needs an operation. Sounds like something that many people will, not take for granted per say, but be able to do. For C this is not the case. The doctor told C that she needs to have a place to stay for a week after the operation. This isn’t possible for a woman with no family and no social network.
C tells me of her current struggle not because she is seeking assistance from me, but just because she needs a friend. When she sees the frustration on my face and as she answers my questions about what happens if she doesn’t have the operation (she will die) she tries to make me feel better. “It will work out, don’t worry”.
C went and sat down to drink her daily Ginger Peach tea with vanilla and cinnamon. I was thinking a lot about how much she and T have come to mean to me over the summer. I realized that they aren’t just people passing through my lives. I spend more time talking and being in the same room as them than I do with my friends or family. I realized yesterday that I am beginning to love them.
I decided that I wanted to have C and T over to my house for dinner before C has to have her surgery. I’m not sure how all my roommates will feel about this. I know that three of them will be very supportive, the other two, I’m not sure how the request will go.
I told C of my plans, asking her if it was something that would interest her. As I did I saw tears well up in her eyes. At the sight of this, I too got rather teary. She said it was something she would very much like. We talked about the date of her possible surgery and logistics about how it would be possible for her to get to my house.
After she went outside later that day I was thinking about her reaction to my request. The reason she reacted like she did is because people don’t treat her like a human being. People dine together and talk together all of the time. Even though C and T have had careers and lived the life of the ‘typical’ (ha!) American we as a society have completely dismissed them because of a series of events that have put them at a disadvantage in this work of plenty. How can we be such a shallow society? How can we really call ourselves human and treat each other like this? Why do we not recognize the common humanity of those around us and reach out to people who are in a difficult space.
It is no wonder that people who are homeless appear to have mental health problems. T and I have talked about the stress that comes from living on the street. Can you imagine what it must be life once you lose hope? How can you do anything but ‘go crazy’?
To make the realizations about all of this even more clear, the shop I work at has a series of interesting characters. In contrast to Carrie’s tea I had a customer get upset because he had bought two coffees not realizing we had 50 cent refills. He became frustrated and demanded to cups of coffee for 50 cents each. Goddess, does it really matter?
I was trying to talk to some of my coworkers about all of this. One of them, E, is amazing and one of the most reflective men I have ever met. I didn’t get to finish telling him about all that I was thinking, but he helped me out in the café and heard bits of this story.
Towards the end of the shift he came by with some paperwork he wanted me to fill out: an ‘on the spot’ recognition form for being a good employee. E told me that the reason my tip jar was full and the reason he was giving me this recognition was because of the way I talked to people. E told me that I was genuine and that it meant a lot to customers to be treated to in this manner. I told E that I wasn’t doing anything special, but treating people like I wanted, and expected, them to treat me. He made me understand even more clearly that most people in this country don’t do that.
I find it so funny that we teach our children to share and to follow the ‘golden rule’ yet, as adults, we teach the opposite lessons to our children: it is all about the bottom line and what is best for you. What kind of cognitive dissonance must this create in our youth? I was blessed to have parents that followed the advice they gave me on how to treat other people.
Again, I return to the questions: What kind of nation are we? What kind of people to do we, as individuals and as a society want to be? How, in our daily lives are we living, or not living, in this way? Why is it so hard to let ourselves simply be human? What is life worth if not to interact with and love each other, and not just the each others that can benefit us in some material way?
23 July 2005
Life lessons at a Coffee shop, part one
I realize that most people have, at some point in their life, been in debt. A few days ago I woke up and found out that I had negative money in my checking account. I had come face to face with a reality I had been teetering on since graduating from college and working for Americorps.
I had been stressing over debt and money for months. This all-consuming panic and stress really eats at a person. I spend the day in question trying to figure out how I could make it through the summer. I‘ve already been working 50ish hours a week at two different jobs – so I really was struggling.
At work this day I had an incredible experience that put everything in perspective for me. I work at a café in a bookstore in a rather wealthy part of Washington DC. Part way thought my day a ‘regular’ came in. T is a younger man, perhaps in his mid-thirties. He comes to the café every day with his worn out gym bag and reads books about religion and spirituality. He has a great big toothy smile. In between his much needed naps he eats cinnamon-raisin bagels and oatmeal-raisin cookies, if he has money.
This day Tony didn’t have money for his bagel. So, I bought him one… even though I know I don’t have enough money to be doing it and I’m sure it is against some corporate capitalistic policy. He doesn’t know either of these things so the gift wouldn’t make him feel bad.
After work I was walking home (About a 30 min walk) and he was ahead of me. I caught up to him and we started talking. He told me his story (ex-Navy, plan after getting out fell through, grew up without a lot of opportunities, has no family). I ended up having him over for dinner (leftover spaghetti), he sat and talked with a few of my roommates and I.
The whole experience was really humbling. He told me his story, and there is so many intricacies I can’t write here. However, it has just all made me realize that what I have been studying and reading about class, privilege, and the struggle of people in poverty is not even close to what it is really like. Yesterday I felt an ounce of the stress most people go through. I don’t know how I’ll pay my credit card bill when it comes, I don’t know how I’ll pay for food, but I know I’ll find a way and, if I can’t, I have people to rely on. In the books I’ve read it has explained this as privilege. Now I know what that feels like even more.
I had been stressing over debt and money for months. This all-consuming panic and stress really eats at a person. I spend the day in question trying to figure out how I could make it through the summer. I‘ve already been working 50ish hours a week at two different jobs – so I really was struggling.
At work this day I had an incredible experience that put everything in perspective for me. I work at a café in a bookstore in a rather wealthy part of Washington DC. Part way thought my day a ‘regular’ came in. T is a younger man, perhaps in his mid-thirties. He comes to the café every day with his worn out gym bag and reads books about religion and spirituality. He has a great big toothy smile. In between his much needed naps he eats cinnamon-raisin bagels and oatmeal-raisin cookies, if he has money.
This day Tony didn’t have money for his bagel. So, I bought him one… even though I know I don’t have enough money to be doing it and I’m sure it is against some corporate capitalistic policy. He doesn’t know either of these things so the gift wouldn’t make him feel bad.
After work I was walking home (About a 30 min walk) and he was ahead of me. I caught up to him and we started talking. He told me his story (ex-Navy, plan after getting out fell through, grew up without a lot of opportunities, has no family). I ended up having him over for dinner (leftover spaghetti), he sat and talked with a few of my roommates and I.
The whole experience was really humbling. He told me his story, and there is so many intricacies I can’t write here. However, it has just all made me realize that what I have been studying and reading about class, privilege, and the struggle of people in poverty is not even close to what it is really like. Yesterday I felt an ounce of the stress most people go through. I don’t know how I’ll pay my credit card bill when it comes, I don’t know how I’ll pay for food, but I know I’ll find a way and, if I can’t, I have people to rely on. In the books I’ve read it has explained this as privilege. Now I know what that feels like even more.
20 July 2005
Life lessons at a Coffee shop, part two
So, a week has passed since my lucid realization of class privilege. To make this awareness even more palpable C, a homeless woman who hangs out at the coffee shop, brought me a gift the other day. C is perhaps in her mid-40s. She talks to me a lot about how hard it is to get a job without an address, but how it is impossible to live somewhere without money. She is on the waiting list for title-8 section housing, but has been for years. C is weathered beyond her years. Her neck is crooked and she walks slowly and hunched over. The other day she was going to try to get a biopsy done. She came and told me, so that I wouldn’t worry.
I thought about the fact that C felt the need to tell me about her Doctor visit. Yes, she was right, I would be worried about her if she didn’t come in for a few days. However, I realized that her need to tell me of her current life events had nothing to do with this. She simply needed someone to care about her and what is going on in her life. I am a constant presence for her. I see and talk with her daily, perhaps more than anyone else in her life (simply because she is always at the café). This experience made me realize how important it is to have people who care where you are and what you are up to. It made me realize how important it is just to have someone who will worry about you, or someone to tell your plans to. I’m not sure how I feel about being one of those people for Carrie: in a way humbled, but in a way completely and intensely sorrowful.
I mentioned that C gave me a gift. Typically I save the coupons off the receipts people don’t want and give them to Carrie to use when she buys her food. The other day she returned the favor by bringing me a ‘vegetarian starter guide’ that she had gotten from the activists on the street. I recognize that this magazine could have been in her collection of things for months and she simply felt a need to recognize our friendship on this particular day. This sentiment is itself incredibly. However, she told me that she had ‘thought of me’ and picked it up for me. I can’t explain what it felt like to be told that she thinks of me when I’m not at work.
I can’t explain how much I have learned this week. I know that the Goddess has really ‘blessed’ me (to use Tony’s words) by showing me what is really important. I don’t think that I have explained any of this very clearly, but, I’m learning more than I thought I would working at a bookstore.
I thought about the fact that C felt the need to tell me about her Doctor visit. Yes, she was right, I would be worried about her if she didn’t come in for a few days. However, I realized that her need to tell me of her current life events had nothing to do with this. She simply needed someone to care about her and what is going on in her life. I am a constant presence for her. I see and talk with her daily, perhaps more than anyone else in her life (simply because she is always at the café). This experience made me realize how important it is to have people who care where you are and what you are up to. It made me realize how important it is just to have someone who will worry about you, or someone to tell your plans to. I’m not sure how I feel about being one of those people for Carrie: in a way humbled, but in a way completely and intensely sorrowful.
I mentioned that C gave me a gift. Typically I save the coupons off the receipts people don’t want and give them to Carrie to use when she buys her food. The other day she returned the favor by bringing me a ‘vegetarian starter guide’ that she had gotten from the activists on the street. I recognize that this magazine could have been in her collection of things for months and she simply felt a need to recognize our friendship on this particular day. This sentiment is itself incredibly. However, she told me that she had ‘thought of me’ and picked it up for me. I can’t explain what it felt like to be told that she thinks of me when I’m not at work.
I can’t explain how much I have learned this week. I know that the Goddess has really ‘blessed’ me (to use Tony’s words) by showing me what is really important. I don’t think that I have explained any of this very clearly, but, I’m learning more than I thought I would working at a bookstore.
02 May 2005
Attack on PBS
For those of you who are excited and comfortable with what is left of diversity in opinon, you can ignore this email. For the rest of you (who are rather upset), you may want to write some letters, make some angry phone calls. The article attacking PBS is below (from today’s NYtimes).
Other information you need to ‘act’ is here:
The website for the broadcasting board is here: http://www.bbg.gov/
The phone number for Mr. Tomlinson’s office is:
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
330 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20237
Tel: 202/203-4545
Fax: 202/203-4585
And, if you want to show support for PBS you can do that here (by states):
DC
WETA TV 26 / 90.9 FM
2775 South Quincy Street
Arlington, VA 22206-2304
Phone: (703) 998-2600
Fax: (703) 998-3401
Email: info@weta.com
IA
IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION/IPTV
6450 Corporate Drive
P.O. Box 6450
Johnston, IA 50131
Phone: (515) 242-3100
Fax: (515) 242-4113
Email: webcomm3@iptv.org
MN
PT - Twin Cities Public Television
172 East Fourth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1447
Phone: (651) 222-1717
Fax: (651) 222-1282
Email: viewerservices@tpt.org
VT
VPT/VERMONT PUBLIC TELEVISION
Vermont Public Television
204 Ethan Allen Avenue
Colchester, VT 05446
Phone: (802) 655-4800
Fax: (802) 655-6593
Email: viewerservices@vpt.org.
WI
Wisconsin Public Television
821 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: (608) 265-2302
Fax: (608) 263-9763
Email: comments@wpt.org
Others: http://www.pbs.org/stationfinder/stationfinder_relocalize.html
It is never a bad idea to contact your senators/congressmembers either
Peace, krissy
May 2, 2005
Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases
By STEPHEN LABATON, LORNE MANLY
and ELIZABETH JENSEN
ASHINGTON, May 1 - The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.
Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers."
In late March, on the recommendation of administration officials, Mr. Tomlinson hired the director of the White House Office of Global Communications as a senior staff member, corporation officials said. While she was still on the White House staff, she helped draft guidelines governing the work of two ombudsmen whom the corporation recently appointed to review the content of public radio and television broadcasts.
Mr. Tomlinson also encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast "The Journal Editorial Report," whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. And while a search firm has been retained to find a successor for Kathleen A. Cox, the corporation's president and chief executive, whose contract was not renewed last month, Mr. Tomlinson has made clear to the board that his choice is Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee who is now an assistant secretary of state.
Mr. Tomlinson said that he was striving for balance and had no desire to impose a political point of view on programming, explaining that his efforts are intended to help public broadcasting distinguish itself in a 500-channel universe and gain financial and political support.
"My goal here is to see programming that satisfies a broad constituency," he said, adding, "I'm not after removing shows or tampering internally with shows."
But he has repeatedly criticized public television programs as too liberal overall, and said in the interview, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance."
Pat Mitchell, president and chief executive of PBS, who has sparred with Mr. Tomlinson privately but till now has not challenged him publicly, disputed the accusation of bias and was critical of some of his actions.
"I believe there has been no chilling effect, but I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective that I do not consider appropriate," Ms. Mitchell, who plans to step down when her contract expires next year, said Friday.
Robert Coonrod, who stepped down as corporation president in July 2004, has known Mr. Tomlinson about 20 years and considers him a good friend. "I believe that his motives are exactly what he says they are," he said. Mr. Tomlinson is "trying to help the people in public broadcasting understand why some people in the conservative movement think PBS is hostile to them and, two, imbue public broadcasting with the notion of balance because he thinks that long term it's a winner in getting Congressional support."
"Whether people like the way he goes about it or not is a different issue," Mr. Coonrod added.
Though PBS's ratings have stabilized lately after several years of decline, the network has faced criticism that much of its programming - shows like "Antiques Roadshow" and "Masterpiece Theater" - is little different from what can be found on cable television. Though a huge bequest to National Public Radio from the estate of Joan Kroc, widow of the founder of McDonald's, has furthered the independence of public radio, corporate support and state financing for public television have slipped in recent years, making the nearly $400 million in federal money annually funneled through the corporation increasingly important.
Nor have administration officials and lawmakers been shy about challenging certain programming. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, for example, earlier this year publicly denounced a program featuring a cartoon rabbit named Buster who visited a pair of lesbian parents.
The corporation is a private, nonprofit entity financed by Congress to ensure the vitality of public television and radio. Tension is hardwired into its charter, where its mandate to ensure "objectivity and balance" is accompanied by an exhortation to maintain public broadcasting's independence. Mr. Tomlinson said that in his view, objectivity and balance meant "a program schedule that's not skewed in one direction or another." Some corporation board members say that complaints about ideological pressure are premature.
Beth Courtney, president and chief executive of Louisiana Public Broadcasting and one of three non-Republicans on the nine-member board, said there had been no chilling of journalistic efforts. "What we should look for are the real actions," she said. "We shouldn't speculate about people's motivations."
But Mr. Tomlinson's tenure has brought criticism that his chairmanship has been the most polarizing in a generation. Christy Carpenter, a Democratic appointee to the board from 1998 to 2002, said partisanship was "essentially nonexistent" in her first years. But once Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor in chief of Reader's Digest, joined in September 2000 and President Bush's election changed the board's political composition, the tenor changed, she said.
"There was an increasingly and disturbingly aggressive desire to be more involved and to push programming in a more conservative direction," said Ms. Carpenter, who is now a vice president of the Museum of Television and Radio. One of the more disturbing developments, she added, was a "very vehement dislike for Bill Moyers."
It is not a shock that Mr. Moyers's work exercised Mr. Tomlinson. He is a reliable source of agitation for conservatives, who complain that "Now" under Mr. Moyers (who left the show last year and was replaced by David Brancaccio) was consistently critical of Republicans and the Bush administration. Days after the Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 2002 elections, Mr. Moyers - an aide in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration and a former newspaper publisher who has been associated with PBS since the 1970's - said the entire federal government was "united behind a right-wing agenda" that included "the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives."
In December 2003, three months after he was elected chairman, Mr. Tomlinson sent Ms. Mitchell of PBS a letter outlining his concerns. " 'Now With Bill Moyers' does not contain anything approaching the balance the law requires for public broadcasting," he wrote.
Shortly after, Mr. Tomlinson hired a consultant to review Mr. Moyers's program; one three-month contract cost $10,000. The reports Mr. Tomlinson saw placed the program's guests in categories like "anti-Bush," "anti-business" and "anti-Tom DeLay," referring to the House majority leader, corporation officials said. The reports found the guests were overwhelmingly anti-Bush, a conclusion Mr. Moyers disputed.
Mr. Moyers said on Friday that he did not know a content review was undertaken but that he was not surprised. "Tomlinson has waged a surreptitious and relentless campaign against 'Now' and me," he said, dismissing complaints that he is biased. Mr. Moyers left "Now" to write a book but is back on public television as host of the series "Wide Angle."
Mr. Tomlinson said he conducted the content review on his own, without sending the results to the board or making them public, because he wanted to better understand complaints he was hearing without provoking a storm. "If I wanted to be more destructive to public broadcasting but score political points, I would have come out with this study a year and a half ago," he said.
Recently, PBS refused for months to sign its latest contract with the corporation governing federal financing of national programming, holding up the release of $26.5 million. For the first time, the corporation argued that PBS's agreeing to abide by its own journalistic standards was not sufficient, but that it must adhere to the "objectivity and balance" language in the charter. In a January letter to the leaders of the three biggest producing stations, in New York, Boston and Washington, the deputy general counsel of PBS warned that this could give the corporation editorial control, infringing on its First Amendment rights and possibly leading to a demand for balance in each and every show.
The corporation said it had no such plans, and the contract was finally signed about a month ago.
Mr. Tomlinson did help get one program, "The Journal Editorial Report," on the air as a way of balancing "Now." Ms. Mitchell backed the program, but public broadcasting officials said Mr. Tomlinson was instrumental in lining up $5 million in corporate financing and pressing PBS to distribute it.
Public television executives noted that Mr. Gigot's show by design features the members of the conservative editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, while Mr. Moyers's guests included many conservatives, like Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition; Richard Viguerie, a conservative political strategist; and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Mr. Tomlinson said that it was his concerns about "objectivity and balance" that led to the creation of a new office of the ombudsman at the corporation to issue reports about public television and radio broadcasts. But the role of a White House official in setting up the office has raised questions among some public broadcasting executives about its independence. In March, after she had been hired by the corporation but was still at the White House as director of the Office of Global Communications, Mary Catherine Andrews helped draft the office's guiding principles, set up a Web page and prepare a news release about the appointment of the new ombudsmen, officials said.
Ms. Andrews said she undertook the work at the instruction of top officials at the corporation. "I was careful not to work on this project during office hours during my last days at the White House," she said.
Mr. Tomlinson has also occasionally worked with other White House officials on public broadcasting issues. Last year he enlisted the presidential adviser Karl Rove to help kill a legislative proposal that would change the composition of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's board by requiring the president to fill about half the seats with people who had experience in local radio and television. The proposal was dropped after Mr. Rove and the White House criticized it.
Mr. Tomlinson said he understood the need to reassure liberals that the traditions of public broadcasting, including public affairs programs, were not changing, "that we're not trying to put a wet blanket on this type of programming."
But his efforts to sow goodwill have shown that what he says he tries to project is sometimes read in a different way. Last November, members of the Association of Public Television Stations met in Baltimore along with officials from the corporation and PBS. Mr. Tomlinson told them they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate.
Mr. Tomlinson said that his comment was in jest and that he couldn't imagine how remarks at "a fun occasion" were taken the wrong way. Others, though, were not amused.
"I was in that room," said Ms. Mitchell. "I was surprised by the comment. I thought it was inappropriate."
Stephen Labaton reported from Washington for this article, Lorne Manly from New York and Elizabeth Jensen from Columbus, Ohio.
Other information you need to ‘act’ is here:
The website for the broadcasting board is here: http://www.bbg.gov/
The phone number for Mr. Tomlinson’s office is:
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
330 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20237
Tel: 202/203-4545
Fax: 202/203-4585
And, if you want to show support for PBS you can do that here (by states):
DC
WETA TV 26 / 90.9 FM
2775 South Quincy Street
Arlington, VA 22206-2304
Phone: (703) 998-2600
Fax: (703) 998-3401
Email: info@weta.com
IA
IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION/IPTV
6450 Corporate Drive
P.O. Box 6450
Johnston, IA 50131
Phone: (515) 242-3100
Fax: (515) 242-4113
Email: webcomm3@iptv.org
MN
PT - Twin Cities Public Television
172 East Fourth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1447
Phone: (651) 222-1717
Fax: (651) 222-1282
Email: viewerservices@tpt.org
VT
VPT/VERMONT PUBLIC TELEVISION
Vermont Public Television
204 Ethan Allen Avenue
Colchester, VT 05446
Phone: (802) 655-4800
Fax: (802) 655-6593
Email: viewerservices@vpt.org.
WI
Wisconsin Public Television
821 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: (608) 265-2302
Fax: (608) 263-9763
Email: comments@wpt.org
Others: http://www.pbs.org/stationfinder/stationfinder_relocalize.html
It is never a bad idea to contact your senators/congressmembers either
Peace, krissy
May 2, 2005
Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases
By STEPHEN LABATON, LORNE MANLY
and ELIZABETH JENSEN
ASHINGTON, May 1 - The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.
Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers."
In late March, on the recommendation of administration officials, Mr. Tomlinson hired the director of the White House Office of Global Communications as a senior staff member, corporation officials said. While she was still on the White House staff, she helped draft guidelines governing the work of two ombudsmen whom the corporation recently appointed to review the content of public radio and television broadcasts.
Mr. Tomlinson also encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast "The Journal Editorial Report," whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. And while a search firm has been retained to find a successor for Kathleen A. Cox, the corporation's president and chief executive, whose contract was not renewed last month, Mr. Tomlinson has made clear to the board that his choice is Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee who is now an assistant secretary of state.
Mr. Tomlinson said that he was striving for balance and had no desire to impose a political point of view on programming, explaining that his efforts are intended to help public broadcasting distinguish itself in a 500-channel universe and gain financial and political support.
"My goal here is to see programming that satisfies a broad constituency," he said, adding, "I'm not after removing shows or tampering internally with shows."
But he has repeatedly criticized public television programs as too liberal overall, and said in the interview, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance."
Pat Mitchell, president and chief executive of PBS, who has sparred with Mr. Tomlinson privately but till now has not challenged him publicly, disputed the accusation of bias and was critical of some of his actions.
"I believe there has been no chilling effect, but I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective that I do not consider appropriate," Ms. Mitchell, who plans to step down when her contract expires next year, said Friday.
Robert Coonrod, who stepped down as corporation president in July 2004, has known Mr. Tomlinson about 20 years and considers him a good friend. "I believe that his motives are exactly what he says they are," he said. Mr. Tomlinson is "trying to help the people in public broadcasting understand why some people in the conservative movement think PBS is hostile to them and, two, imbue public broadcasting with the notion of balance because he thinks that long term it's a winner in getting Congressional support."
"Whether people like the way he goes about it or not is a different issue," Mr. Coonrod added.
Though PBS's ratings have stabilized lately after several years of decline, the network has faced criticism that much of its programming - shows like "Antiques Roadshow" and "Masterpiece Theater" - is little different from what can be found on cable television. Though a huge bequest to National Public Radio from the estate of Joan Kroc, widow of the founder of McDonald's, has furthered the independence of public radio, corporate support and state financing for public television have slipped in recent years, making the nearly $400 million in federal money annually funneled through the corporation increasingly important.
Nor have administration officials and lawmakers been shy about challenging certain programming. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, for example, earlier this year publicly denounced a program featuring a cartoon rabbit named Buster who visited a pair of lesbian parents.
The corporation is a private, nonprofit entity financed by Congress to ensure the vitality of public television and radio. Tension is hardwired into its charter, where its mandate to ensure "objectivity and balance" is accompanied by an exhortation to maintain public broadcasting's independence. Mr. Tomlinson said that in his view, objectivity and balance meant "a program schedule that's not skewed in one direction or another." Some corporation board members say that complaints about ideological pressure are premature.
Beth Courtney, president and chief executive of Louisiana Public Broadcasting and one of three non-Republicans on the nine-member board, said there had been no chilling of journalistic efforts. "What we should look for are the real actions," she said. "We shouldn't speculate about people's motivations."
But Mr. Tomlinson's tenure has brought criticism that his chairmanship has been the most polarizing in a generation. Christy Carpenter, a Democratic appointee to the board from 1998 to 2002, said partisanship was "essentially nonexistent" in her first years. But once Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor in chief of Reader's Digest, joined in September 2000 and President Bush's election changed the board's political composition, the tenor changed, she said.
"There was an increasingly and disturbingly aggressive desire to be more involved and to push programming in a more conservative direction," said Ms. Carpenter, who is now a vice president of the Museum of Television and Radio. One of the more disturbing developments, she added, was a "very vehement dislike for Bill Moyers."
It is not a shock that Mr. Moyers's work exercised Mr. Tomlinson. He is a reliable source of agitation for conservatives, who complain that "Now" under Mr. Moyers (who left the show last year and was replaced by David Brancaccio) was consistently critical of Republicans and the Bush administration. Days after the Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 2002 elections, Mr. Moyers - an aide in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration and a former newspaper publisher who has been associated with PBS since the 1970's - said the entire federal government was "united behind a right-wing agenda" that included "the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives."
In December 2003, three months after he was elected chairman, Mr. Tomlinson sent Ms. Mitchell of PBS a letter outlining his concerns. " 'Now With Bill Moyers' does not contain anything approaching the balance the law requires for public broadcasting," he wrote.
Shortly after, Mr. Tomlinson hired a consultant to review Mr. Moyers's program; one three-month contract cost $10,000. The reports Mr. Tomlinson saw placed the program's guests in categories like "anti-Bush," "anti-business" and "anti-Tom DeLay," referring to the House majority leader, corporation officials said. The reports found the guests were overwhelmingly anti-Bush, a conclusion Mr. Moyers disputed.
Mr. Moyers said on Friday that he did not know a content review was undertaken but that he was not surprised. "Tomlinson has waged a surreptitious and relentless campaign against 'Now' and me," he said, dismissing complaints that he is biased. Mr. Moyers left "Now" to write a book but is back on public television as host of the series "Wide Angle."
Mr. Tomlinson said he conducted the content review on his own, without sending the results to the board or making them public, because he wanted to better understand complaints he was hearing without provoking a storm. "If I wanted to be more destructive to public broadcasting but score political points, I would have come out with this study a year and a half ago," he said.
Recently, PBS refused for months to sign its latest contract with the corporation governing federal financing of national programming, holding up the release of $26.5 million. For the first time, the corporation argued that PBS's agreeing to abide by its own journalistic standards was not sufficient, but that it must adhere to the "objectivity and balance" language in the charter. In a January letter to the leaders of the three biggest producing stations, in New York, Boston and Washington, the deputy general counsel of PBS warned that this could give the corporation editorial control, infringing on its First Amendment rights and possibly leading to a demand for balance in each and every show.
The corporation said it had no such plans, and the contract was finally signed about a month ago.
Mr. Tomlinson did help get one program, "The Journal Editorial Report," on the air as a way of balancing "Now." Ms. Mitchell backed the program, but public broadcasting officials said Mr. Tomlinson was instrumental in lining up $5 million in corporate financing and pressing PBS to distribute it.
Public television executives noted that Mr. Gigot's show by design features the members of the conservative editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, while Mr. Moyers's guests included many conservatives, like Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition; Richard Viguerie, a conservative political strategist; and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Mr. Tomlinson said that it was his concerns about "objectivity and balance" that led to the creation of a new office of the ombudsman at the corporation to issue reports about public television and radio broadcasts. But the role of a White House official in setting up the office has raised questions among some public broadcasting executives about its independence. In March, after she had been hired by the corporation but was still at the White House as director of the Office of Global Communications, Mary Catherine Andrews helped draft the office's guiding principles, set up a Web page and prepare a news release about the appointment of the new ombudsmen, officials said.
Ms. Andrews said she undertook the work at the instruction of top officials at the corporation. "I was careful not to work on this project during office hours during my last days at the White House," she said.
Mr. Tomlinson has also occasionally worked with other White House officials on public broadcasting issues. Last year he enlisted the presidential adviser Karl Rove to help kill a legislative proposal that would change the composition of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's board by requiring the president to fill about half the seats with people who had experience in local radio and television. The proposal was dropped after Mr. Rove and the White House criticized it.
Mr. Tomlinson said he understood the need to reassure liberals that the traditions of public broadcasting, including public affairs programs, were not changing, "that we're not trying to put a wet blanket on this type of programming."
But his efforts to sow goodwill have shown that what he says he tries to project is sometimes read in a different way. Last November, members of the Association of Public Television Stations met in Baltimore along with officials from the corporation and PBS. Mr. Tomlinson told them they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate.
Mr. Tomlinson said that his comment was in jest and that he couldn't imagine how remarks at "a fun occasion" were taken the wrong way. Others, though, were not amused.
"I was in that room," said Ms. Mitchell. "I was surprised by the comment. I thought it was inappropriate."
Stephen Labaton reported from Washington for this article, Lorne Manly from New York and Elizabeth Jensen from Columbus, Ohio.
13 April 2005
Stop Bolton!
Please please please for the sake of this world call Senator Chafee (202) 224-2921 and tell him to vote AGAINST Bolton. Here is our chance! There is hope.
Keep this in mind as you consider this option:
Bolton has come out opposing the ICC and the UN, yet we are appointing him as our representative.
When Clinton was president and there was a representative more willing to negotiate with other nations we still used our veto to oppose action in Rwanda. 800,000+ people died.
Bolton will use his veto power more expansively.
As globalization increases we need to have working relationships with other nations. Do something to sustain this! Please, for the sake of the future.
Peace, krissy
Senate Committee Delays Vote on Bolton
By Barry Schweid
The Associated Press
Wednesday 13 April 2005
Washington - President Bush's drive to make John R. Bolton the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations got sidetracked Wednesday as Senate Democrats forced a delay until next week of an important confirmation vote.
In buying time, they hoped to win over a pivotal Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, by amassing evidence that Bolton harassed U.S. officials who challenged his judgment on weapons issues.
Chafee said Wednesday he is leaning toward supporting Bolton, which would all but assure Bolton's confirmation.
Bolton, currently the undersecretary of state, has rejected the accusations.
A committee vote, tentatively planned for Thursday, was scrubbed after Democrats objected, said Andy Fisher, spokesman for the chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
Under Senate rules, at least one Democratic senator has to attend a meeting for a vote to occur.
Democrats want further questioning of Bolton in writing and they are seeking testimony by three U.S. officials on what lawmakers said were Bolton's efforts to remove the dissenting analysts.
Fisher said the three officials already had been interviewed by committee aides and their statements were made public.
"There is no need for an additional hearing," he said.
The postponement was agreed to by Lugar and the committee's senior Democrat, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said Norm Kurz, an aide to Biden.
"A nomination of this importance deserves providing each and every senator with ample time," Kurz said.
Republicans hold a 10-8 committee majority. Unanimous GOP support would send Bolton's nomination to the GOP-controlled Senate, where approval is considered likely.
The committee, in two days of hearings this week, heard from two witnesses, Bolton and Carl Ford Jr., a former chief at the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research.
Ford denounced Bolton as a bully and a "serial abuser" of lower-level officials who challenged his assessments of the weapons potential of Cuba and other nations.
In a letter to Lugar, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., requested an additional hearing in which three officials would testify on Bolton's dealings with intelligence analysts. Dodd described Bolton as "evasive."
The three officials Dodd wants questioned are Thomas Fingar, assistant secretary of state for intelligence; Neil Silver, director of the strategic proliferation office; and Stuart Cohen, a former acting chief of the National Intelligence Council.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took issue with Ford's characterization of Bolton as a bully.
"John Bolton has been a very effective manager and diplomat," she said. She added, "It would be very useful if we could get this nomination done."
Rice said she believed strongly in the "role of debate, the role of the open and free exchange of ideas."
But, she said, when decisions are taken, "I fully expect that people will support those decisions because there is only one president of the United States and that's President Bush."
Keep this in mind as you consider this option:
Bolton has come out opposing the ICC and the UN, yet we are appointing him as our representative.
When Clinton was president and there was a representative more willing to negotiate with other nations we still used our veto to oppose action in Rwanda. 800,000+ people died.
Bolton will use his veto power more expansively.
As globalization increases we need to have working relationships with other nations. Do something to sustain this! Please, for the sake of the future.
Peace, krissy
Senate Committee Delays Vote on Bolton
By Barry Schweid
The Associated Press
Wednesday 13 April 2005
Washington - President Bush's drive to make John R. Bolton the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations got sidetracked Wednesday as Senate Democrats forced a delay until next week of an important confirmation vote.
In buying time, they hoped to win over a pivotal Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, by amassing evidence that Bolton harassed U.S. officials who challenged his judgment on weapons issues.
Chafee said Wednesday he is leaning toward supporting Bolton, which would all but assure Bolton's confirmation.
Bolton, currently the undersecretary of state, has rejected the accusations.
A committee vote, tentatively planned for Thursday, was scrubbed after Democrats objected, said Andy Fisher, spokesman for the chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
Under Senate rules, at least one Democratic senator has to attend a meeting for a vote to occur.
Democrats want further questioning of Bolton in writing and they are seeking testimony by three U.S. officials on what lawmakers said were Bolton's efforts to remove the dissenting analysts.
Fisher said the three officials already had been interviewed by committee aides and their statements were made public.
"There is no need for an additional hearing," he said.
The postponement was agreed to by Lugar and the committee's senior Democrat, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said Norm Kurz, an aide to Biden.
"A nomination of this importance deserves providing each and every senator with ample time," Kurz said.
Republicans hold a 10-8 committee majority. Unanimous GOP support would send Bolton's nomination to the GOP-controlled Senate, where approval is considered likely.
The committee, in two days of hearings this week, heard from two witnesses, Bolton and Carl Ford Jr., a former chief at the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research.
Ford denounced Bolton as a bully and a "serial abuser" of lower-level officials who challenged his assessments of the weapons potential of Cuba and other nations.
In a letter to Lugar, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., requested an additional hearing in which three officials would testify on Bolton's dealings with intelligence analysts. Dodd described Bolton as "evasive."
The three officials Dodd wants questioned are Thomas Fingar, assistant secretary of state for intelligence; Neil Silver, director of the strategic proliferation office; and Stuart Cohen, a former acting chief of the National Intelligence Council.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took issue with Ford's characterization of Bolton as a bully.
"John Bolton has been a very effective manager and diplomat," she said. She added, "It would be very useful if we could get this nomination done."
Rice said she believed strongly in the "role of debate, the role of the open and free exchange of ideas."
But, she said, when decisions are taken, "I fully expect that people will support those decisions because there is only one president of the United States and that's President Bush."
17 March 2005
If you aren't outraged...
…you must not be paying attention.
What are people’s thoughts on the ‘nomination’ of Paul Wolfowitz (who, I’m sorry to tell you Pat and Jill, was raised in Ithica N.Y.) as president of the World Bank right after the appointment of John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN. (He has spent the last several years talking about how much he hated the UN (not to mention the fact that he looks like he walked out of a text book on white colonialism in Africa)). I’m not putting links in here because every paper and news source is covering this in many ways.
And this is happening at the same time that we have decided to drill in Alaska: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17arctic.html?th or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html and yes, if you are wondering, this is the same president who said a few weeks ago he was going to work on using alternative fuels and preserving the environment. Perhaps he forgot.
Also the republican party is attempting to make it so that they can unilaterally appoint judges. What a great, truly democratic idea, eh? What, again, is the point of having more than one party? What again is the reason we even have elections? Seriously… my heart hurts. I can’t find the article I read it in right now, but this one is related… interesting that only 10 of the 214 judges nominated have had problems getting through the Senate yet the Democrats are being blamed for the delay – perhaps these few judges just shouldn’t be nominated! http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16filibuster.html
But, it gets better, because it is also ok for the government to broadcast fake news. I’m sure you have heard about this, but here is the most recent article. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17video.html?th To me this sounds like Nazi propaganda and fascism… but, you can make your own call. Seriously, if you aren’t pissed off by now – you must not be paying attention.
So, what do we do? How can we fix it?
People are still dying in Sudan by the way, in fact the UN left many parts of Darfur last week. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4357021.stm Reminds you a bit about Rwanda. However, there is a bill to do something about this, so call your senator. Here is info on the bill (The Darfur Accountability Act). http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s495.html Call your senators and get them to sign on. There is also a hunger strike (one day between the 16th and 20th) here is info about that: http://talacon.com/rp/PointMapper/USA/MarchStrike/display.cfm (may not change policy, but may help you think about things). I urge everyone in the DC metro area to visit the Holocaust museum. There is an exhibit on Darfur, and an important exhibit on Eugenics and ‘Deadly Medicine’.
Good thing Bono just came out with a new sweatshop free clothing line, or I would think that everyone in this country was nuts. Who knew the ‘rock stars’ would be the one with souls?
Do something.
What are people’s thoughts on the ‘nomination’ of Paul Wolfowitz (who, I’m sorry to tell you Pat and Jill, was raised in Ithica N.Y.) as president of the World Bank right after the appointment of John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN. (He has spent the last several years talking about how much he hated the UN (not to mention the fact that he looks like he walked out of a text book on white colonialism in Africa)). I’m not putting links in here because every paper and news source is covering this in many ways.
And this is happening at the same time that we have decided to drill in Alaska: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17arctic.html?th or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html and yes, if you are wondering, this is the same president who said a few weeks ago he was going to work on using alternative fuels and preserving the environment. Perhaps he forgot.
Also the republican party is attempting to make it so that they can unilaterally appoint judges. What a great, truly democratic idea, eh? What, again, is the point of having more than one party? What again is the reason we even have elections? Seriously… my heart hurts. I can’t find the article I read it in right now, but this one is related… interesting that only 10 of the 214 judges nominated have had problems getting through the Senate yet the Democrats are being blamed for the delay – perhaps these few judges just shouldn’t be nominated! http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16filibuster.html
But, it gets better, because it is also ok for the government to broadcast fake news. I’m sure you have heard about this, but here is the most recent article. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17video.html?th To me this sounds like Nazi propaganda and fascism… but, you can make your own call. Seriously, if you aren’t pissed off by now – you must not be paying attention.
So, what do we do? How can we fix it?
People are still dying in Sudan by the way, in fact the UN left many parts of Darfur last week. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4357021.stm Reminds you a bit about Rwanda. However, there is a bill to do something about this, so call your senator. Here is info on the bill (The Darfur Accountability Act). http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s495.html Call your senators and get them to sign on. There is also a hunger strike (one day between the 16th and 20th) here is info about that: http://talacon.com/rp/PointMapper/USA/MarchStrike/display.cfm (may not change policy, but may help you think about things). I urge everyone in the DC metro area to visit the Holocaust museum. There is an exhibit on Darfur, and an important exhibit on Eugenics and ‘Deadly Medicine’.
Good thing Bono just came out with a new sweatshop free clothing line, or I would think that everyone in this country was nuts. Who knew the ‘rock stars’ would be the one with souls?
Do something.
17 February 2005
News and Comments, 17 Feb 05
This isn’t nearly enough, but perhaps a start on corporate responsibility? “Conn. to Probe Wal-Mart on Child Labor” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31047-2005Feb16.html
“D.C. Has A 'Deal' To Build Hospital Howard U. to Run SE Medical Center” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30281-2005Feb16.html – In regards to this. I heard that the closing of DC General was bogus. There was an article last week talking about how it wasn’t really “taking money from the city” but instead was doing fine. The article alleged that 500,000 had been essentially stolen from the hospital by the city leading to its closing. It was in that new free DC paper, the Examiner. All I know is, it wouldn’t have happened had this hospital been in Northwest.
Borrow Cautiously, Greenspan Advises Bush May Agree to Raise Social Security Tax Ceiling http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27890-2005Feb16.html?referrer=email – so, if they are agreeing to raise the tax ceiling, why couldn’t that extra money be used to maintain the system as it is? Especially if it is the most effective anti-poverty program we have? Why ruin a (mostly) good thing? Are we that masochistic? (also found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/business/17fed.html?th and here: http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/16/news/economy/fed_greenspan_testimony/index.htm)
I’ve been waiting for this. I don’t know about all of the folks who said that Bush was a “fiscal conservative”. That wasn’t the president I saw. Critical Republicans Look to Cut Bush's $82 Billion War Request http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30679-2005Feb16.html
Now, related to that… Secretary On the Offensive “Two dozen members of the House Armed Services Committee had not yet had their turn to question Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at yesterday's hearings when he decided he had had enough.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30800-2005Feb16.html You would think that someone who’s decisions affect not only the lives of thousands of US soldiers, millions of Iraqi citizens, but also all of the rest of the US and really the world wouldn’t be allowed to act like this. Our ‘decision makers’ have no information on which to base their ‘decisions’. (Maybe that’s why corporate lobbying is so successful, does money speak louder than words?)
War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told Intelligence Officials Talk Of Growing Insurgency. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html?referrer=email Who wants to be the first to say ‘duh’?! Throughout history oppressed peoples have reacted to massive brutality in the way that appears most effective. The greater the brutality the greater the resistance. I took a class on terrorism and democracy – the books had interesting insight on this (I can’t say I always agreed). I wrote a paper for it about non-violent ways to resist terrorism… maybe I’ll send it to Rummy.
Sure, act “quickly” two years after this all started (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4268733.stm)… Maybe they went to see Hotel Rwanda. Human Rights Chief Urges U.N. to Act Quickly on Sudan http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?tntget=2005/02/17/international/africa/17nations.html&tntemail0 Speaking of Rwanda, the French are in trouble: Rwanda lawsuit for French troops Six Rwandan citizens have filed a lawsuit in France accusing French soldiers of complicity in genocide. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4272437.stm
And, we’ll end with an op-ed piece. The Gay Child Left Behind http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17savage.html?th
“D.C. Has A 'Deal' To Build Hospital Howard U. to Run SE Medical Center” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30281-2005Feb16.html – In regards to this. I heard that the closing of DC General was bogus. There was an article last week talking about how it wasn’t really “taking money from the city” but instead was doing fine. The article alleged that 500,000 had been essentially stolen from the hospital by the city leading to its closing. It was in that new free DC paper, the Examiner. All I know is, it wouldn’t have happened had this hospital been in Northwest.
Borrow Cautiously, Greenspan Advises Bush May Agree to Raise Social Security Tax Ceiling http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27890-2005Feb16.html?referrer=email – so, if they are agreeing to raise the tax ceiling, why couldn’t that extra money be used to maintain the system as it is? Especially if it is the most effective anti-poverty program we have? Why ruin a (mostly) good thing? Are we that masochistic? (also found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/business/17fed.html?th and here: http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/16/news/economy/fed_greenspan_testimony/index.htm)
I’ve been waiting for this. I don’t know about all of the folks who said that Bush was a “fiscal conservative”. That wasn’t the president I saw. Critical Republicans Look to Cut Bush's $82 Billion War Request http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30679-2005Feb16.html
Now, related to that… Secretary On the Offensive “Two dozen members of the House Armed Services Committee had not yet had their turn to question Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at yesterday's hearings when he decided he had had enough.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30800-2005Feb16.html You would think that someone who’s decisions affect not only the lives of thousands of US soldiers, millions of Iraqi citizens, but also all of the rest of the US and really the world wouldn’t be allowed to act like this. Our ‘decision makers’ have no information on which to base their ‘decisions’. (Maybe that’s why corporate lobbying is so successful, does money speak louder than words?)
War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told Intelligence Officials Talk Of Growing Insurgency. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html?referrer=email Who wants to be the first to say ‘duh’?! Throughout history oppressed peoples have reacted to massive brutality in the way that appears most effective. The greater the brutality the greater the resistance. I took a class on terrorism and democracy – the books had interesting insight on this (I can’t say I always agreed). I wrote a paper for it about non-violent ways to resist terrorism… maybe I’ll send it to Rummy.
Sure, act “quickly” two years after this all started (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4268733.stm)… Maybe they went to see Hotel Rwanda. Human Rights Chief Urges U.N. to Act Quickly on Sudan http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?tntget=2005/02/17/international/africa/17nations.html&tntemail0 Speaking of Rwanda, the French are in trouble: Rwanda lawsuit for French troops Six Rwandan citizens have filed a lawsuit in France accusing French soldiers of complicity in genocide. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4272437.stm
And, we’ll end with an op-ed piece. The Gay Child Left Behind http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17savage.html?th
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)