common ills replies, i remain baffled (updated) (and upperdated)

This morning I received this email from Common Ills.

There are 2531 e-mails in the inbox. We do not have time for pen pals.

Jess responded to your e-mail yesterday.

You didn't grasp that when Jess mentioned Mike and Rebecca he did so for a reason.

This community that C.I. created has many online sites including:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.

The mistake you made is in assuming that we do not all share. As Jess was pointing out to you, he knows (as do I, as does everyone) about your e-mails to Mike and Rebecca.

He had no reason to be nice to you.

As you did with Rebecca and Mike (who never linked to you -- C.I. linked to you in the snapshots, they reposted C.I.'s snapshots), you e-mailed your gripe. You tossed "Thank you" at the front and acted friendly and then did what you did in -- what? 15? -- letters to The New York Times which was to offer how C.I. was wrong. C.I. wasn't wrong. And, as Gina points out, this is a private conversation in a public sphere. As we say at our site, "The Third Estate Sunday Review focuses on politics and culture. We're an online magazine. We don't play nice and we don't kiss butt. In the words of Cher: 'If you can dig it then I'm happy and if you can't then I'm sorry.' We're not really sorry, we just wanted a 'dig it' quote. Don't like it? There are millions of sites online -- move along, you're blocking the view."

One thing that has always ticked off Jim and I, before we even knew C.I. and before we started Third was all the people e-mailing C.I. asking for links, asking that their books be promoted, their broadcasts, their speaking tours and on and on. No one ever gives back shit to The Common Ills. We've seen that over and over.

As you did with Jess, your e-mail presents yourself as a voice for War Resisters Support Campaign. C.I.'s noted them non-stop for years and years. The "thank you for covering Robin Long but . . ." comes off -- intended or not -- as a bit condescending. C.I. was covering Robin Long from the moment he went public. If there's a war resister in Canada who has gone public and not been covered by C.I. it's an oversight.

Heather attempted to explain the problem with coverage to you but you dismissed her. Which means, journalistically (that would be what my undergraduate degree is in and what my grad degree will be in) you're not very aware. C.I. and Ava have screamed and screamed at friends (and family) in the Real Press to get coverage of them in the US. There's a cable channel where they called in every favor they had to get a report. They will offer trades, they will offer anything offline (including a band playing at a kid's birthday in one instance), they will beg, they will scream until they are hoarse. And that's just to get a producer or editor to assign a reporter to look into it. They bust their asses every damn day. And if they're not pressuring the press, they're pressuring Congress.

So when Heather's explaining to you that ____ or ___ or all of Panhandle Media is ignoring the issue of war resisters, dismissing it grandly is not a sign of awareness.

A friend of C.I.'s was interviewed for one hour by Panhandle Media this week and he stated he wanted to talk about Iraq. The interviewer never got around to it -- in an entire hour. Allegedly on 'politics.' Panhandle Media has walked away from Iraq.

When The Myth of the Great Return started in November, C.I. called it from the start. Called friends in the State Dept, at the UN, at the Red Cross to make sure it was a myth and hit on it hard over and over -- even before the UN finally weighed in officially one week later saying it wasn't safe to return to Iraq. C.I. and Ava screamed and yelled and begged and pleaded with friends not to repeat the myth, they were very vocal that the blood of any refugee who came back to Iraq and died would be on the outlet's hands. After a month, finally the myth was exposed. (And C.I. repeatedly gives the outlet that finally stepped up credit for doing so.) During all of that, where was Panhandle Media? Ignoring Iraq. After The Myth of the Great Return started it had its intended result -- to drive up support for the illegal war in domestic polling. That's the only reason the myth was started. And there were the usual rejects of Panhandle Media like Amy Goodman puzzling over the polling numbers. The polls went up because LIES weren't being called out.

Panhandle Media thinks saying "Judy Miller, Judy Miller" over and over is 'covering' Iraq. Judith Miller was pulled from Iraq in 2003. The illegal war didn't end then. Not only that, it was Dexter Filkins who lied about the November 2004 Falluja slaughter and won an award for it. When a major daily finally exposed Dexy as the go-to-guy for the US military, Panhandle Media still ignored that. Despite the fact that Molly Bingham had already revealed how Dexy would kill a story if the US military didn't like it. As early as 2004, C.I. was saying at The Common Ills if people like Judith Miller got the US over there, it's people like Dexter that keep the US over there by lying in their 'reporting.'

I have no idea what you do each day. I know what C.I. does. I know C.I. has put her entire life on hold (and Ava has now as well) to do everything possible to end the illegal war. C.I. has spoken a minimum of two weeks a month since Feb. 2003 against the illegal war to students, women's groups and labor groups. For the last two years, it's been every week of the year. That's despite a health scare. So when your e-mail comes in critizing C.I. when C.I.'s correct, of course Jess is going to be offended. I'm offended by you. As Kat likes to point out, C.I. could be sitting by her pool every day. Instead, she's out on the road and she's been everywhere except Alaska in the US (including Puerto Rico, etc.) speaking out against the illegal war. Currently, C.I., Ava, Wally and Kat arrive home Saturday afternoon. They're up all Saturday night/Sunday morning working on Third. They turn around and hit the road again on Monday morning. There was one week since January when they were here (Bay Area). Even then, they were speaking every day but in their own area. There is no 'break' or 'vacation' for them. (And C.I. was undergoing medical tests that week as well.) .So we really don't need your letters to the editor here.

Jess made it clear that this isn't a pen pal service. If someone writes here they need to be writing for a reason. I'm having to stop and make time to reply to you because I'm on the public account today.

Jess wasn't rude to you. He was indifferent.

He, very business like, went over the realities that you did not know. He, very business like, told you that if you had news of an event or something you wanted to highlight to e-mail.

The public account and the private accounts are worked by Jim, Jess, Eli, Martha, Shirley, Ava and C.I. and sometimes Heather. (I believe you know Heather. She called out your Barack Delusions.) So many because there are so many e-mails. There is no time for pen pals.

Rosa and Reese are in Canada. Rosa is told she does not get immigrant status and has to leave. Rosa doesn't want to. Canadian officials escort her to the airport and she departs for another country. That is deporation. Reese is told that he's not accepted and that he's being 'deported' but is turned over to American authorities. That is extradition.

It's really basic. The fact that, when you read C.I., you didn't grasp that goes to problems on your end. Want to get attention up a notch? Start presenting the extradition of Robin. He wasn't deported. Deported is kicked out of the country. Turned over to the authorities of another country is extradition. Mactavish (who has consistently ruled against war resisters) did an extradition and did it without going through the proper channels. That's news. It was outrageous when Canadian officials took orders from the US and arrested Kyle Snyder. It was outrageous when two US military service members joined a Canadian police officer and all three presented as police officers as they went hunting for Joshua Key. It has now been taken up a notch.

Hopefully Jeremy will not be deported. If he is, he should have a real deportation. Which means choosing where he wants to go and if it's the US he will not be turned over (by Canadian officals) to the US authorities. That would be extradition.

To do an extradition proper would have meant review by a higher authority of Mactavish's actions. It would have delayed Robin's departure and it would have most likely outraged even more Canadians than the deporation did. "We're just kicking him out" was the right-wing defense. No, you were kicking him and handing him over to authorities. You were practicing extradition for a 'crime' not covered in your treaty with the US.

It was a big no-no.

No treaty would have allowed an extradition. Had Robin been stationed by the US military in Canada and then deserted, he would have been covered by existing treaties between the US and Canada. NO SUCH TREATY EXISTS CURRENTLY. Mactavish has created a new 'law.' It is outrageous.

We are all very busy. Myself, I'm in grad school. I work on Third. I read e-mails there and here. I also schedule Ava and C.I. (which Wally, Kat and Rebecca are now going along on) weekly speaking engagements. My plate is full. In the public account, I'm rushing through as many e-mails as I can to find if someone's highlight is worth passing on to C.I. or if it goes in the trash. Is a journalist writing to say they were treated unfairly by C.I.? If so I put it in "MUST READ" a folder C.I. reads. There are several community newsletters and they help cut down on TCI members e-mailing because they provide a forum for other things. But the public account (which you've now written twice) is for official stuff.

Jess explained the issue to you. As a law student, as the child of two attorneys and the grandson of another, he knows what he's talking about. C.I. knows what she's talking about. An extradition took place. Things need to be called what they are.

Dona

My reply:

Didn't think you were a pen pal, didn't think you didn't share, didn't remember any interaction with Rebecca. Don't think the mail from Jess was businesslike. I'd hate to be a part of any business that communicated in that businesslike fashion!

Thanks for the reply. Good luck in all your efforts.

Laura

And some notes, which I'll share here.

As Jess was pointing out to you, he knows (as do I, as does everyone) about your e-mails to Mike and Rebecca.

I wish I knew about my emails to Mike and Rebecca! I couldn't remember anything about Rebecca, but I had the vaguest recollection of an exchange with Mike, and I could have sworn it was positive.

I searched through my Gmail archives, I found this.

Me to Mike, 12/1/07:

Hi, I've seen my blog linked a few times at your sites. I just wanted to say thank you for your ongoing support of US war resisters in Canada. All best to you.

--
Laura K
a/k/ L-girl
www.wmtc.ca

Mike to me, 12/3/07

Laura,

We Move to Canada. I know your site and enjoy it. Keep doing great work.

The links you're seeing are in C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot." I repost the snapshot like every other community member does if they post that day. So C.I.'s the one writing "Iraq snapshot" and that goes up at The Common Ills, the rest of us just grab it when we post in the evening.

War resisters need a lot of support because they're doing something really courageous. I'm thinking you were from NY before you and your husband moved to Canada. I'm in MA and there's so little coverage of war resisters in this area. I think it's really cool that you and your husband went to Canada. I should have gone before the passport requirement went through! :D

Best,
Mike

Me to Mike, 12/07/07

Hi Michael, thanks for your email.

The war resisters are the most courageous people I have ever met. Most of us stand for peace but risk very little to do so. They have risked everything. I feel a real obligation to help them in any little way I can.

Yes, we lived in NYC for 20+ years before moving to Canada. I'm from there originally, my partner is from Vermont. We're both huge Red Sox fans so we might have something in common, at least with your neighbours if not you.

Thanks again for your support. If you haven't already, please write a "Dear Canada" letter through Courage To Resist.

All best,

Laura K

I didn't find anything to or from Rebecca. As far as I know, this is the full extent of my previous interactions with anyone from the group of Common Ills blogs.

One thing that has always ticked off Jim and I, before we even knew C.I. and before we started Third was all the people e-mailing C.I. asking for links, asking that their books be promoted, their broadcasts, their speaking tours and on and on. No one ever gives back shit to The Common Ills. We've seen that over and over.

What does this have to do with me? I never asked for anything. I've never written to any blog to ask for a link or a promotion, ever.

You tossed "Thank you" at the front and acted friendly and then did what you did in -- what? 15? -- letters to The New York Times which was to offer how C.I. was wrong.

I don't know what this means. The last time I wrote a letter to the New York Times, was in 2005, when still living in the US. I've never written to the Times on this issue, only to Canadian newspapers, and only brief letters in support of war resisters.

The "thank you for covering Robin Long but . . ." comes off -- intended or not -- as a bit condescending.

I get emails all the time from people in the peace movement or in military resistance thanking me for my coverage. I've gotten emails from people in the reproductive rights movement thanking me.

I thank anyone who covers the issues that are important to me. I thank people for going to rallies, for tabling, for writing letters to their MPs. I thank people for their activism. I thank people for their efforts, and they do the same for me.

It's a way of cheering each other on, of acknowledging that we are all doing what we can. It's a way of acknowledging each other, period.

Also, please note, I did not write "thank you for covering Robin long but".

Heather attempted to explain the problem with coverage to you but you dismissed her.

I don't know what this means. I don't remember anyone named Heather attempting to explain anything to me. That doesn't mean it didn't happen - my memory for one-time communications is very poor - but I have no recollection of it. Was it in a comment that I didn't reply to? An email? I don't know.

Jess wasn't rude to you. He was indifferent.

He, very business like, went over the realities that you did not know. He, very business like, told you that if you had news of an event or something you wanted to highlight to e-mail.

Read Jess's email here.

Would you use the subject line "And you got your law degree when?" in a businesslike email?

Would you use ALL CAPS if you were indifferent?

And so on.

Want to get attention up a notch? Start presenting the extradition of Robin.

I don't write things about the resisters to get attention. I'm trying to get them attention.

[Update. A commenter pointed out that Dona/CI probably means getting the resisters attention, not wmtc. I see that now.]

As a resister explained yesterday in a comment, his lawyer - and all their lawyers, as far as I am aware - don't use the word extradited. The Campaign doesn't say Robin was extradited. The Campaign uses the word deported. Wmtc is linked on the Campaign's website; I'm trying to be an outlet for Campaign news. So I'm going to go with the language the Campaign uses.

Other people believe differently, and want to do otherwise? That's no problem.

It's no problem to me, certainly.

This whole thing makes me sad. Sharing it with you all makes me feel much better.

Yesterday's discussion over the etiquette of posting this settled it for me. People were nasty and, as Kim put it, high conflict. In my view their meanness towards me was totally unwarranted. I don't owe them privacy. (I'm also not assuming they want privacy. For all I know, this attention may be gratifying to them.) I don't owe courtesy where none was shown to me. I should do what feels right to me, and this is it.

Thanks for your support and feedback, much appreciated.

Update.

After reading James's suggestion (see comments), I double-checked to see if I ever emailed with Rebecca. I didn't find her name, but I did find one email from me to the email address from the blog Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, from November, 2007. The email address doesn't have her name in it, so I didn't recognize or remember it as connected to a person named Rebecca. Here's what I wrote.

I saw your post with the lyrics to one of my favourite songs, A Case Of You.

Don't despair. The Canadian Supreme Court did the wrong thing, but Canadians will do the right thing. We will insist our country gives asylum to US war resisters. And amazingly enough, democracy still works here. We can make it happen.

If you haven't already, join the campaign through Courage to Resist ("Dear Canada") or the War Resisters Support Campaign, www.resisters.ca.

Thanks for your support.

--
Laura K
a/k/ L-girl
www.wmtc.ca

There was no reply.

Now I've posted the full extent of my previous interactions with the Common Ills community.

Upperdate. I just received this email from Jim at Common Ills.

Jim here. You're rude. You were rude to Rebecca. You were rude to Mike. Jess replied to your rude e-mail. Dona's replied to your rude e-mail. Don't write again unless you have an announcement.

We laugh our asses off at the American so scared by who occupied the White House that she ran to Canada.

You're a lousy face for the War Resisters Support Campaign and probably shouldn't try to speak for them in your e-mails.

Don't reply.

Wow.