Next week, Doug Clark reviews the trailer for X3!

This week, Doug reviews the executive summary of the GTRC report. Yes, the summary is more than most people will ever read...but still, the full report has been online since Thursday night.

He's right that the summary has a political flavor to it. So does the big report, and I find the politics the least interesting and useful part of the whole project.

But the politics are hardly the sum of the report, or even of the precis. The column is quick to dismiss an entire body of work, based on items cherry-picked from a summary.

Convenient.

UPDATE: Roch Smith Jr. points out in the comments below that Doug writes:

"The report cites 'Mao Tse-tung's philosophy of targeting poor workers and rural peasants as the most powerful source of revolt.'"

As Roch says, "The report is very clearly ascribing that notion to the Workers Viewpoint Organization, it is not a view endorsed by the report."

He then cites the whole quote from the summary, "Since many poor workers were employed by N.C. textile mills, focusing attention on conditions there made sense both to local organizers and other N.C. organizers with whom they were connected through the African Liberation Support Committee and later through the Workers Viewpoint Organization, a national group that followed Mao Tse-Tung's philosophy of targeting poor workers and rural peasants as the most powerful source of revolt." -- Executive Summary p. 21

Roch says Clark's quotation is "so misleading that it cries out for a formal correction in the paper."

Comments

[Roch101]

I, myself, have only read the executive summary, so I can't say what evidence may or may not exist to support the findings in the executive summary. But isn't it premature of Clark to critisize the findings of the report for lack of evidence when he hasn't yet read the body of evidence?

[jsykes]

Ed:

I'm curious. At what level of examination will you be satisfied that someone actually is putting forth their honest view of the TRC's findings? Will it take a line by line, annotated review of the entire body of work?

Question two: Why can't you accept as valid the view held by many that the TRC's empathy with the aims of the CWP is something most people find reprehensible?

I think most rational people agree that the Klan bears the most responsibility for taking the bait, and that local police in many southern cities were still far too unprofessional in 1979.

But giving legitimacy to communists in the United States is just not something most people find tolerable.

These are my views. I'd like to hear your answers to questions one and two because I want to know what it is you want from others vis a vis criticism of this report.

[Roch101]

Clark is misleading when he writes:

"The report cites 'Mao Tse-tung's philosophy of targeting poor workers and rural peasants as the most powerful source of revolt.'"

That is so misleading that it cries out for a formal correction in the paper. The report is very clearly ascribing that notion to the Workers Viewpoint Organization, it is not a view endorsed by the report as Clarks selective quotation would have his readers believe. Here, read the context Clark conveniently excludes:

"Since many poor workers were employed by N.C. textile mills, focusing attention on conditions there made sense both to local organizers and other N.C. organizers with whom they were connected through the African Liberation Support Committee and later through the Workers Viewpoint Organization, a national group that followed Mao Tse-Tung's philosophy of targeting poor workers and rural peasants as the most powerful source of revolt." -- Executive Summary p. 21

It is Clark who is trying to make this political and he is misleading people in his attempts. Clark warns that the report recommends selecting jurors from "welfare rolls" (nudge, nudge). The report recommends expanding the jury pool by selecting people from "additional lists such as utility bills, welfare rolls and the U.S. Postal Service's database of address changes." But Clark knows it will be more ominous to some of his readers to single out welfare rolls.

Clark is trying to push the right buttons. As for me, I'll ignore the little man behind the curtain.

[Ed Cone]

JSykes,

What level of knowledge must one bring to an intelligent discussion of a document and a project? The standards for that should be higher for a newspaper column written by a senior staffer than for a casual conversation.

The TRC has "empathy with the aims of the CWP"? The aims of the CWP included armed revolution and communism, I don't think the TRC does share those views.

"...giving legitimacy to communists in the United States..."

What does that mean?

Providing them with adequate police protection when they assemble?

Your blithe excuse for the "unprofessional" cops of 1979 looks naive at best to anyone who has read the report, with its extensive documentation of the GPD's use of informants, organizational planning, etc.

Oh yeah, the report. Maybe it does help to read it.

[Doug Clark]

Ed, if the executive summary can't stand as an accurate reflection of the report's contents, it should not have been issued and labeled as such. But, since it was presented in that way, it's fair for anyone to comment about it on its own merits.

[jsykes]

Ed, Ed, can't you just answer a question?
I didn't attack you or insult your intelligence. You just can't refrain, can you?

The TRC has "empathy with the aims of the CWP"? The aims of the CWP included armed revolution and communism, I don't think the TRC does share those views.

As stated elsewhere, the TRC report does appear TO ME (IN MY OPINION) to ask for validation of the aims of the CWP.

"...giving legitimacy to communists in the United States..."

What does that mean?

The entire process has been wrapped up in sympathy and validation of the efforts of the CWP and the report does not disappoint in its gentle thump on the knuckles concerning the share of the blame belonging to the CWP. Doing this, and much more that I don't have the intelligence to dissect on your blog, gives weight to the view that the TRC is legitimizing what the CWP hoped to accomplish. Hence, giving legitimacy to communists.

Your blithe excuse for the "unprofessional" cops of 1979 looks naive at best to anyone who has read the report, with its extensive documentation of the GPD's use of informants, organizational planning, etc.

What is naive is an upper class pundit calling me naive. I'm from the same background as those people CWP was trying to organize. Working class, factory types. That's my heritage. That means I've had the cops to my house, I've seen friends beaten, I've been subjected to the ire of redneck trash with a badge while under the authority of habeas corpus. So I think I know what I am talking about when I say that police departments have come a long way in the last 20 years in terms of training and not being allowed to let their personal hatred of others come through while on the job.

Ed, come on, the KKK can use informants and organize foot soldiers. So can the East Side Crips in Reidsville. That doesn't make them professional.

What does is modern management practices and proactive policing that understands the feelings on the ground and takes steps to prevent crime. That is known as Community Oriented Policing, which came into vogue in the 1990s.

Now, would you please answer my questions? And not with a question, Socrates. Answer with an answer.

I have to go get a hair cut and make three appointments. I can play later this afternoon.

[Ed Cone]

JS, I tried to answer your question about the level of knowledge required to comment intelligently on the report and project, it's not like there's a precise mathematical formula that provides an exact answer.

Your other question is based on a false premise: that the TRC has empathy for the aims of the CWP.

I asked you a question: what do you mean "give legitimacy to communists?"

If you mean, honor their rights to speak and assemble, sure, they deserve that legitimacy. If you mean, take seriously concerns about the problems with our economic and social system, while arguing about the means and scope of any remediation, again, sure. If you mean endorsing armed revolution, well, no; please show me where the TRC has done that.

In terms of the cops, you seem to be making precisely the same point that the TRC does: the GPD did a poor job that day.

I don't see where I was disrespectful to you, or invited such a personal comeback, but I'm sorry you took it that way.

[Doug Clark]

Ed, it should be clear from the context of my column that the passage from which Roch101 lifted the Mao citation was referring to the CWP/WVO.

[sean coon]

doug, these two paragraphs are making my head spin:

"Let me say I agree police were unconscionably negligent for not getting between the antagonists on that terrible day. But their absence was not "the single most important element that contributed to the violent outcome." The critical elements were the men with guns -- Klansmen and Nazis -- who opened fire with murderous intent, and the anti-Klan demonstrators who invited them, in so many words, to bring it on.

Nor do I think an official conspiracy brought this about. While the report states "no evidence" of such a plot has been found, "the majority of commissioners believe there was intentionality" anyway. Wasn't the point of this exercise to support conclusions with facts?

1) the police didn't fail to "get between the antagonists." the police, by hook or crook, didn't show up *at all*. it's akin to leaving a couple of pit bulls, fresh from a scrap, alone in a room.

2) the police department had the detailed march route -- over fifteen block corners and the starting point to the mnarch -- and no one showed up to provide *citizen* protection. their responsibility was to protect and serve *all* greensboro citizens that day, including a few neighbors of the town with negative intent. they failed miserably, and if the evidense that was brought up in the civil case ever saw the light of day in the state and federal trials, we would've had *in the very least* cops behind bars.

if the police provided protection, as with the china grove incident (when there were only 3 cops), there's a good chance that no violence would've occured. but they didn't. and who's to say that the greensboro police didn't strike a deal with the KKK, as harold covington (klan/nazi organizer) boasted of the china grove cops in a letter to the RCP following the china grove incident:

elizabeth wheaton, codename: greenkil, pg 96

...but so far we've never actually had a chance to kill the home grown product (communists), although we've put a few in the hospital and we nearly killed some of your people at China Grove last July -- we had it all worked out with the cops that if you were dumb enough to try to attack the community center we'd waste a couple of you and none of them would see anything...

covington mistook the RCP for the WVO, and we'll never know if his words were true about the cops looking the other way, but 11/3 resembled that picture far more than the GPD doing their jobs to protect and serve.

i'd say the commission showed proper restraint by using the term "intentionality."

the next time you write an op-ed, try to bring some knowledge to the table and not just an apologist's view of well-documented events.

[Jon Lowder]

Ed,

I'm not going to argue the specific points of Doug's column and excerpts, but I'd like to support the general thrust of his column that the tone of the executive summary is political and it does give the impression that the commission somehow feels an affiliation with the CWP. Put simply it does not feel like it is an objective report and in my opinion it undermines the legitimacy of the GTRC.

[Ed Cone]

Actually, Doug, the context makes it look worse.

You begin a paragraph by saying the report shows the "commissioners' solidarity with the CWP." The rest of this paragraph is a quote from the TRC.

The next paragaph begins, "The report cites Mao..."

Context makes it look like the report is quoting Mao as part of its solidarity with the CWP, rather than restating the beliefs of the Maoists.

[Doug Clark]

Ed, I don't agree but I recognize the honesty of your interpretation. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

[Ed Cone]

Thank you, Doug -- I don't mean to imply it was an intentional error, but it reads poorly to me.

And yes, Jon, I agree that the report is compromised by its political slant -- I just filed a long column for Sunday that includes that point of view. A key word, "includes", as in, is not limited to...

[Roch101]

What emerges more strongly is the commissions' solidarity with the Klan.

The report cites "blacks as drunks and sexual predators" and the "Klan as the chivalrous saviors of white honor and tradition." It also cites "support of traditional Southern values, Jim Crowe and states rights" and "hopes for the resurrection of the Jim Crowe South."

[elizabeth wheaton]

Sean, Sean, Sean... Please don't quote my book out of context to validate any police/Klan conspiracy at China Grove. Read the page before that quote and the paragraph following it. The point I was making is that Covington was a media hog. He gloried in saying outrageous things to grab headlines, no matter if there was a shred of truth behind them. For cryin' out loud, the Nazis don't even believe him anymore! Just Google Harold Covington and see for yourself how they trash him.

[Samuel Spagnola]

"Despite the CWP's use of violent rhetoric...we want to affirm the legitimacy of union organizing and the other economic and social justice struggles in which CWP members were engaged." TRC Summary p. 21.

Hardly a neutral position when trying to find the "truth" . This passage appears on the same page as the quote Doug used, and seems to back up his point.

I would also not be suprised if much of this report was written before the TRC process began, with testimony being added as footnotes later on . Just a guess.

It really is too bad, because the not-so-hidden agenda taints the rest of the report which is a useful summary of most of the facts despite its one sided and agenda-driven analysis.

[Joe Guarino]

Ed, I do not dismiss the report. It is possible to write something as an expression of certain values, and that is perfectly legitimate; or it is possible to write making a case based on carefully assembled evidence. When I saw the many recommendations that arose from a single violent incident 27 years ago, it was evident that considerable creativity would need to be employed to lead to those conclusions. And as I skimmed other parts of the report, it confirmed my impression. This was an expression of values-- as Doug Clark suggested and you imply, political values. That's OK. But my professors in the sciences would have thrown the whole thing out based on the problems associated with making recommendations with an insufficient logical, evidentiary basis.

And the city's leaders were extremely wise not to lock themselves into validating these recommendations.

[Ed Cone]

Sam, I used a similar quote in my just-filed column. One can "affirm the legitimacy of union organizing and the other economic and social justice struggles" without becoming an apologist for the CWP. Would that the report had done a better job of it.

Joe, I agree that the recommendations are all over the map. That's in my column, too.

[Chewie]

"I would also not be suprised if much of this report was written before the TRC process began, with testimony being added as footnotes later on . Just a guess."

I would also not be surprised if much of Sam's comment was written before the TRC process began, with the name of the group being added later on. Just a guess.

[Chewie]

"And yes, Jon, I agree that the report is compromised by its political slant -- I just filed a long column for Sunday that includes that point of view... Sam, I used a similar quote in my just-filed column. One can "affirm the legitimacy of union organizing and the other economic and social justice struggles" without becoming an apologist for the CWP. Would that the report had done a better job of it... Joe, I agree that the recommendations are all over the map. That's in my column, too."

Wow. I hope all the good scenes aren't in the trailer.

I hope what's also in your column is an exhortation for everyone to read the report, do their own analysis, and form their own opinions -- not a capstone review like Doug's that hands an assessment down from on high and discourages democratic review by the community.

We don't need any more of those.

I'm only on the fourth chapter of the report, and don't want any spoilers.

[Ed Cone]

I think my column provides a fair overview of a valuable but flawed document, and I hope that it encourages people to read the report and think about the whole process, and the history behind it, and its meaning for the present day.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Ed- I agree with you that the two aren't mutually exclusive, but wouldn't they have been better off being silent on the subject altogether? In other words, they would probably have more credibility if they said nothing on the relative value (as they see it) of the positions of the CWP. It certainly appears that they mentioned these "values" and their affirmation of them to show solidarity with the CWP instead of sticking to the facts of what happened and passing no judgment on the relative merits of the underlying philosophies. That bias jumped right out at me. It's a valid position to have, but should not have been put into a ostensibly neutral report, which leads one to believe the report was/is not neutral (big surprise).

Chewie, 1) I did say many months ago that I thought the TRC was going to be a wasted effort that did nothing but stir up ill feelings- and there would likely be an agenda to get money involved. So yes, if you want to paraphrase my positions, I did write that before the report came out and I feel vindicated.

2) The quote I mentioned in my previous post came straight out of the report, so I could hardly have written it before the report was released and "filled in the blanks" as you suggest.

[Ed Cone]

The overt politics of the report compromise it to some degree, at the very least by making it easier for people who want to ignore it to do so. A shame, and not necessary. Obviously at some point Bob Peters couldn't go along with the politics, but overall, they seem to have decided as a group to embrace a political point of view rather than opting for more straightforward fact and analysis.

[Roch101]

I trust that the people who have reached conslusions about the the report being biased or slanted have read the report and are certain that what they find objecionable does not, in fact, flow from the facts. Me? I can't say. I haven't finished reading it.

[Chewie]

Ed, I recognize the difficulties in submitting a column on Tuesday that doesn't see print 'til Sunday. A lot more discussion is going to take place on this between now and then.

I don't want to place any higher value on your opinion as a report reader than anyone else's -- 'cause there's a real danger in and potential for that -- but you've previewed several points made in your column that, unless you feel transparency would compromise the piece, cry out for further exploration.

Keep in mind that I'm only on Chapter 4 of the report. I'm asking.

What about the report strikes you as "overt politics"?

You've mentioned a bit that has to do with "the legitimacy of union organizing and the other economic and social justice struggles". You also made mention of "becoming an apologist for the CWP."

Is that what the report does?

Would it be possible for a report on Nov. 3, 1979 to not address the issues named above?

Does the report not factually recount events that took place and objectively pass through testimonies of individuals regarding those events?

You also said that the Commission decided to "embrace a political point of view rather than opting for more straightforward fact and analysis."

From what I've read so far, it surprises me to hear someone suggest that the report is shallow in facts and analysis. What I have read has been nothing but those two things. I also haven't found any politicized facts.

Do you find the report lacking in analysis? Is it wrong for the Commission to have arrived by consensus at a point of view about the facts and place them into a context? Do you disagree with the context, or take issue with the facts?

I hope that we can get past the "my fact hates your fact" bickering of today. The facts of this event are knowable, and yet we still, as a community, can't get a handle on them. Witness Emily Harwell's note at John Robinson's blog that Margaret Banks, after reporting on this for a year, still incorrectly stated that the victims refused to testify at the trials, when in fact they testified at two of the three trials. Misinformation has been and still is rampant; that was one of the formative elements at the core of the perceived need for this Commission among some in the community.

Ultimately, though, I believe that the intent of the work was larger than just the report itself; it's the discussion that the report might spark in the community. It's easy for those with their minds already made up to dismiss 400 pages and two years of research in a paragraph or two, as Doug Clark did. It's a missed opportunity to wear such a blindfold and wield such a sledgehammer on something designed to stoke debate, higher thinking, and discernment.

But beyond a critique of the report-writing, or disagreement with the consensus point of view, there is this: the Commission has offered something up to the community that we are neither obligated to engage nor asked to accept at face value. This gift was free of charge, and was undertaken with a commitment to integrity. I've spoken to all seven Commissioners; they're seven very different people who brought seven very different perspectives to this work, and I believe that they took that commitment seriously. They want us to take it on, take it apart, wrestle with it, talk about it.

I want to continue to correct misstatements of fact wherever I find them; as I said, the facts of this are easily knowable, and I believe we should challenge each other in a community to tell the truth.

But I hope that we see past arguing with each other, pulling passages from the report here and there to support our positions, and remember that this report didn't cost us anything, that we're not being asked to join a club, sign a check, render a verdict, or vouch for anyone else. After all this time and all that work, I hope that this doesn't come down to assigning the report a term paper grade, or reviewing it like a book. We have larger roles to play. We get to write the next chapter.

It can be so much more than 400 pages, if we value and respect each other enough to try.

[Samuel Spagnola]

"We get to write the next chapter"- or we can say we've finished the book, and moved on like so many people thought we did many years ago. Nothing new or positive has come out of the TRC process, just a rehash of already known facts and a formal forum for people to voice their opinions on something that happened a long time ago.

Explain to me why we need a police review board now to address an act that occurred 27 years ago? It is this sort of predictable "solution" that illustrates the obvious politics of the TRC. It was simply a tool to push an agenda and get more money to address perceived "social inequity". It is a way to try and fulfill the wishes of the CWP all those years ago (higher wages, etc). That is what compromises it and makes it clear what the true agenda is/was. There is no attempt at reconciliation unless it means agreeing with the TRC recommendations which have nothing to do with the actual shootout and everything to do with bigger government.

Blame the Klan, blame the CWP, but let's put this story away into the history books one final time.

[Ed Cone]

Sam, I notice the History Channel is promoting a new show about George Washington -- should that be put away in the history books, too? History lives, it matters, it informs the present and the future. I disagree that the report and the process have yielded nothing new and positive, but in any case the argument that history is static and stowable is a non-starter.

Chewie, yes, I'm just another reader, although one who has followed this whole process more closely than most. I didn't mean to say the report lack facts and analysis, just that it goes well beyond them to include a definite political point of view. The politics are everywhere in the report. It makes great efforts to explain and to some extent justify the WVO/CWP, yet says much less about other groups that were concerned with social and labor issues without embracing violent rhetoric, and makes no similar attempt to explain in any depth the other key players in the story. Nothing wrong with offering a history and explanation of one group, but it is what it is.

[Roch101]

"makes no similar attempt to explain in any depth the other key players in the story" -- Ed

You've finished reading it?

[Samuel Spagnola]

Ed, I'm not suggesting that we forget about Nov. 3 and act like it never happened. I am suggesting that we have already hashed through what happened on that day, and people have moved on. Why the TRC and why now? Until someone can present new facts that have been previously unknown as opposed to new opinions, I fail to see the value except to those on the commission who are clearly seeking an agenda that is not dissimilar to the CWP.

The recommendations of the TRC have little or nothing to do with what happened on Nov. 3, 1979., so why should we continue to drag out this chapter in history as opposed to leaving it in the history books? Everyone has an opinion about everything, whether it be who killed JFK or Sept. 11, or Nov. 3, 1979. That seems to be what we're all arguing/discussing- opinions, not new revelations.

[Roch101]

Sam, you're making a lot of claims about the report and its findings (people have moved on, no new facts, commissioners with an agenda, recommendations that have nothing to do with Nov. 3, 1979) and you aks for explainations about the report's findings and recommendations. You make these claims and still have these questions after having read the report?

[Samuel Spagnola]

Roch, yes I do. Believe it or not, two people can look at the same set of facts and reach two different conclusions. I'm sorry you appear so stunned that I don't see it your way.

[Ed Cone]

Sam, what is the difference between saying "forget about it" and saying "let's not talk about it?"

I think there is great value in having the story told in a single, detailed report, and I think this report is valuable.

I wish the report spent less time rationalizing the motives of the CWP, and I think some of the recommendations (even ones that might be good ideas) are a stretch, but it is what it is.

Why now? Because enough people cared enough to work like hell for a long time to create this process and the report, and the report is now published.

[Roch101]

Sam, I don't see how someone could read the report and still make the statements you made. "No new facts" and "people have moved on," for example, are simply wrong. Maybe you should read it again.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Roch101 said "I don't see how someone could read the report and still make the statements you made. "No new facts" and "people have moved on". It certainly sounds to me that you have a hard time accepting that someone might have a different viewpoint than yours. Tell me, what is new that we didn't already know other than the recommendations?

Ed, I never said forget about it or don't talk about it. What I have said is that I don't think this process was necessary, because we all know what happened and this long rehashing is not productive unless you have the same agenda as the TRC - which apparently is similar to the goals of the CWP. It is a sham to extort money and other political concessions for a left wing agenda.

I am an avid student of history, and would never suggest that we forget the whole thing happened. I am suggesting this TRC process is not about history, but about politics. I have written before that the report was valuable in terms of it's summary of the events, but I part ways on the predictable conclusions and recommendations that are clearly political. That said, we didn't need the TRC to remind us what happened when it has already been written about. To me, it is apparent that the TRC was not attempting to get an accurate history or "truth" as their goal, but rather they existed solely to justify the recommendations they made. I don't have much dispute with the "facts" presented in the report because they appear to be mostly accurate based on the trial testimony and other previous sources.

Greensboro has a reputation for being a progressive city on civil rights, but this commission and its report seemed determined to report to the world that we are a hotbed of racism, so much that the city itself should apologize for the acts of two groups of criminals 27 years ago. Do we really need to remind the rest of the world what happened here 27 years ago? The TRC wants people to believe that nothing has changed in Greensboro and won't change until we give in to its left wing agenda. Meanwhile, most people have moved on and realize that 2006 is not 1979. That is what I meant.

[Ed Cone]

Sam, your comments strike me as being exactly what you accuse the report as being: politics masquerading as something else.

Your own argument about history is is inconsistent. Much "new" history is not based on a discovery of unknown facts, but on a repackaging of information to meet an interest. Obviously there in an interest in this subject, enough to sustain the project and this conversation, which whether you like it or not is just beginning and will continue well beyond Greensboro for some time to come. People who keep saying "no conversation needed" have every right to do so, but it won't stop the conversation.

I don't see you actually discussing the report, I see you calling it a sham, a trick to extort money, saying it tells you nothing new, and so on. I don't see you reading it with an open mind -- not swallowing it whole, but also not rejecting it for failing to meet some standard of ideological purity and completeness.

Greensboro's reputation for progressivity on civil rights may be well deserved, but that does not mean it cannot be challenged, or nuanced. I'm not an uncritical believer in Chafe's ideas quoted in the report, but they are certainly important and deserve discussion.

My column Sunday deals with the report's relevance and importance, and also with it's overly partisan nature.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Well, Ed, I don't believe my comments are as narrow as you portray them. In any case, I will read your Sunday column with great interest.

[Ed Cone]

Thanks, Sam. My reading of your comments may be too narrow, and I appreciate the continuing discussion. I look forward to your response to the column.

[Doug Clark]

Ed, I've taken a sneak peek at your column and I recommend it to everyone. It's very thoughtful, fair and well-written, and will get you a thrashing by people on both sides of this great T&R divide.

[Roch101]

So we can count on some out-of-context quotations?

[Doug Clark]

Wow, Roch didn't even have to read ANY of it to start thrashing.

[Roch101]

Did I mention Doug Clark? Does somebody have a guilty concience?

[anon]

Ed,
Your comment that "Obviously at some point Bob Peters couldn't go along with the politics" suggests you think his opinion is apolitical. I suggest you read the opinion more closely. And I hope you asked both Peters and the other commissioners (whose opinions you suggested people "scroll down" past) directly about this if you intend to speculate about it in your Sunday column. Peters opinion contains a different kind of politics, not the lack of them. It is impossible to interpret what facts mean and weigh their differing importance without injecting "politics" of some sort. I am noticing the neo-(or paleo-)cons are crying "political!" while the liberals don't seem to see anything at all. If the politics are close to your own, it seems that they become invisible to you. It looks to me that is what happened when you read Peters' opinion. What do you think?

[Ed Cone]

Anon, I agree that we all see things through our own lenses, but I do think Peters is trying to be apolitical -- he's looking at evidence as an attorney, not as a community activist. Is that itself political? Some might say yes.

But not everything is political. For example, I tell people to scroll down to Peters' statement merely to let them know how to find the statement, which is not permalinked but located on a scrollable page. Note also that the opinions of the other commissioners on this subject are included in the main report -- I'm not urging people to skip their opinions, just telling them how to locate Peters' parallel work.

I don't think the political nature of the report is noticable or problematic only to neocons or paleocons (neither term applies easily to me, for instance), or to people who fail to sympathize with some or all of the politics. I think a less partisan point of view was certainly possible, and even in places where I might agree with the politics of the report I don't necessarily think it is always appropriate or useful in this context.

DC: thanks. I wish I had 2,500 words -- I may write about it again next week.

[Cara Michele]

Hi Ed. Just dropping in on you to say that although I've already shared some of my frustrations, I am planning to make it to the end of the report (hopefully soon!!) and that my heart's desire is for good to come from the GTRC process. And I want to contribute to the good and not just be a negative voice. So I apologize to you (and all) if it's sounded that way.

Peace & blessings, Michele

[Ed Cone]

Thanks, Michele. Reconciliation is a process, and I remain hopeful that some reconciliation will come out of the conversations that have already begun around the report.