doesn't it seem like the roller coaster never ends?

last weekend, hillary was giving the great speech that still left me sad. that was saturday.

it seems so very long ago.

we live in exciting times.

to bad it's bad excitement.

sunday you've got a veteran, matthis chiroux ordered to deploy to iraq and saying that he will not. he's taking a brave stand and the military's ready to prosecute him. he already finished his service contract, was discharged honorably and now they want to send him to iraq.

july 10th, canada's saying that corey glass will be deported if he hasn't already left the country. he would be the 1st u.s. war resister to be deported.
and then there's lt. Ehren Watada who finished his contract in december of 2006 but the military refuses to discharge him even after they screwed up their court-martial of him.

that's just some of what's going on in the world of war resistance.

and if you thought war resisters just weren't getting attention from crap ass 'independent' media because they were so determined to destroy hillary and install barack, uh, what's their excuse now?

where are they? doing nothing.

as always.

in other news, next week, same-sex couples can finally get married ... in california. but 2 counties are so offended by the idea of marrying 2 people who are actually in love that they've decided to stop issuing marriage licenses all together. they are kern county and butte county. the san francisco business news has the best story on that nonsense response:

"The idea that they don't have the resources is absurd," Newsom said. "It's ridiculous -- raise your fees to cover your costs and get volunteers."
He urged officials in the two counties to "be more honest and say we can't stand the idea of gay people getting married so we're going to break the law."
Newsom also quipped that he doesn't anticipate an onslaught of gay nuptials in Butte County.
"How many gay couples are going into Butte County to get married?" he asked.

gavin newsom is hot. and he's got a sense of humor.

and along with efforts to deny american citizens equal rights due to sexual orientation, we had rampant sexism called out by katie couric and a media that didn't want to discuss it. hats off to katie. t and i were talking on the phone yesterday about it and noting how there was no 'up' for katie in this. she knew she'd be slammed. she spoke up because some 1 had to and i am very grateful she did. that took courage. we don't see a lot of courage these days.

sexist republican and kooky 'religion' member arianna naturally provides 'equal time' to let a sexist respond that his calling hillary's voice 'shrill' wasn't sexist.

what would the world do without the socialite's cat litter box?

isn't it time progressives stopped considering arianna progressive?

what's the life lesson there?

position yourself as a right-wing crazy and then become a crazy for the other side when you can't hack it on the right anymore?

or maybe it's marry a gay man and grab half the money?

arianna, my 1st husband was gay. when i grasped that, we divorced. we are still friends and i've never told him he can't talk about me.

i also didn't stay married to him after i knew. or use gay porn videos to get him aroused so we could have a child.

your life's pretty pathetic only because you refuse to discuss it.

but i really don't think there's a life lesson in your example.

i really don't think you have anything to offer.

except cloaking hate in an accent and dubbing it 'progressive.'

jossip gets it right. and c.i.'s hitting the roof. ms. magazine has apparently done something even worse than before. (a friend at ms. is on the phone with c.i.). here's jossip:

Let’s not kid ourselves: As a whole, the mainstream media was biased against Clinton’s womanhood, whether they’ll own it or not. Perhaps they didn’t go out of their way to make stereotypical references when covering her campaign, but the most egregious moments in front of the camera – Chris Matthews calling her a “she-devil” – were only evidence of the underlying slant against her. Pundits, as they so often do, will hide behind the excuse that they don’t feel this way; they’re just communicating some of America’s sentiments about the candidate. And this is a farce. We would know: It’s the same line of reasoning Jossip uses daily. What better means to voice your true feelings about something than by claiming to be a voice of the under-represented? We’d love to call it a nasty little secret, but it’s not — secret, that is.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

sherry e-mailed to ask why i couldn't post the video on my own?

none of us can for the most part. we put the code in and then it either vanishes immediately (if we're in compose) or it vanished after we switch from "edit" to "compose." c.i. knows tricks around it and other things.

so the increasingly pathetic and limp keith olbermann needed to get it up last night (it must be tiring to have a girlfriend 1/2 his age) and just knew attacking a woman was the way to go. it's worked so well for him, hasn' t it? largely because the pathetic 'fair' and others have refused to call him out. so he went after katie couric for her editorial comment on wednesday's broadcast of the cbs evening news and also on a speech where she spoke of an unnamed commentator who couldn't be objective - by his own confession - on barack.

keith thinks she means lee cowan. from ava and c.i.'s 'TV: The Surreal Life stages comeback!' back in janurary of this year:

As many laughs as Gibson provided, it was more shocking what was going on at NBC/MSNBC. Correspondent Lee Cowan confessed on air to Brian Williams that it was "hard" for him to be objective about Barack Obama, whom Cowan was assigned to cover. Now in the world of a functioning mainstream press, Cowan would have immediately been reassigned. And should have been. Reporters are supposed to be objective and just the hint that you aren't, forget confessing on air that you find it "hard," is enough to damage the credibility of the news organization. At NPR, Michelle Norris has a set list of things she can do and cannot do in election cycles due to her husband's work. It's not that Norris couldn't be objective, most assume she could be, but it's that they don't want even the appearance that they're not being objective. Brian Williams, who bragged of his desire to censor the news before he took over as anchor (bragged on air to Jay Leno -- which is where all the really great news anchors go, right?), embarrassed himself by posting to his blog, "Lee was talking about the swirl of excitement that has hit the Obama campaign after Iowa -- the crowds, the hoopla -- all of it. Today we learned that rival political efforts were spinning this as some kind of 'bias' on the part of either Lee, or me, or this News Division, and that's just ridiculous. My response is as it always is in these situations: look at it again, listen to what's being said, and judge us by the quality and fairness of our journalism." Guess what, in a functioning news organization, you're biggest complaints wouldn't be coming from candidates, it would be coming internally. The fact that NBC didn't grasp the problem, didn't immediately pull Cowan off the beat and reassign him, goes a long way towards explaining the destruction of news standards in the MSM.

"Lee was talking . . ." only follows an announcement that, "To avoid the appearance of conflict, Lee Cowan will now be covering the Mitt Romney campaign after having stated on air that he found objectivity 'hard' when covering Obama." But we don't have a functioning press, do we?

if you ever doubted that, look at keith olbermann, proof positive that we don't have a functioning press or, for that matter, a functioning media critic set.

oh, i'm laughing now. i thought i would try to be fair and check out feminist wire daily. if they had something on keith olbermann's sexist attack on katie couric, i was going to highlight. no surprise, they didn't have anything on it. they've got nothing period. they have nothing on katie receiving the alice paul award tuesday - despite alice paul being a ground breaking feminist. what they do have this week (posted yesterday) is a news story on the womens media center's campaign against sexism. if you remember, we posted that video community wide over 2 weeks ago. but ms. magazine's feminist wire daily just learned of it.

how pathetic can you get?

( read 'Ms.went from playing dumb to outright insulting' for more on how pathetic that magazine can get.)

and i'm sure i'll be accused by some 1 in an e-mail that i was lazy but actually the roundtable for gina & krista's round-robin went a little over 2 hours and i have to give the baby a bath because i meant to do that this evening but there wasn't time. so that's going to be it for me tonight.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'



Thursday, June 12, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, today was the day Corey Glass was deported from Canada, what agreement did Iran and Iraq work out, Katie Couric stands up against sexism and Pig Olbermann attacks, and more.

Starting with war resistance. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Glass is an Iraq War vet and a US war resister in Canada. He was to be deported today. Now he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. And people and organizations are fighting very hard for Glass and other war resisters to be welcomed in Canada, not deported. Sault This Week carries the following:

FROM LEE ZASLOSKY, coordinator, War Resisters Support Campaign: The Opposition parties in the House of Commons joined together to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would make it possible for U.S. Iraq War resisters to obtain permanent resident status in Canada. The recommendation was adopted by a majority of Members of Parliament from the Liberal, Bloc Quebecois, and New Democratic Parties. The Conservatives voted against the motion. The motion, which originated in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in December 2007, calls on the government to "immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members...to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and...the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions...against such individuals." Corey Glass, 25, a war resister who came to Canada in 2006 and was recently told to leave Canada by June 12 or face removal to the United States, welcomed the vote. "I'm thankful that the MPs voted to let me and the other war resisters stay in Canada. I'm also thankful to all the Canadians who urged their MPs to support us."This is a great victory for the courageous men and women who have come to Canada because they refuse to take part in the illegal, immoral Iraq War, and for the many organizations and individuals who have supported this campaign over the past four years. The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on the Conservative government to respect the democratic decision of the Canadian Parliament and immediately implement the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other war resisters. Lee Zaslofsky, coordinator of the War Resisters Support Campaign, is a Vietnam War deserter who came to Canada in 1970.


To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).



Turning to prisoners. The Supreme Court issued a landmark decision today in Boumediene et al v. Bush, President of the United States, et al [PDF format warning, click here for opinion]. CCR announces: "In one of the most important human rights cases of the decade, the Supreme Court of the United States held today, in a 5-4 decision, that the men imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay have the constitutional right to habeas corpus. One of the oldest and most basic legal protections, habeas corpus affords the incarcerated the right to stand before a judge and confront the charges presented against him or her. The Center for Constitutional Rights has been sending habeas counsel to represent the prisoners at the base since winning the first Guantánamo case, Rasul v. Bush, in 2004, and applauds today's decision." Ari Shapiro (NPR and link has text as well as audio from Shapiro and Ninan Totenberg) observes, "This is the third times the justices have told President Bush that his paln for handling foreign terrorists violates the Constitution." But there's more to today's news than that one aspect. James Oliphant (Baltimore Sun) points out, "In a decision related to its landmark holding Thursday granting Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus rights, the Supreme Court held that American citizens held prisoner in Iraq can also challenge their detentions in federal court. The court's ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, was unanimous in holding that two American Muslims who traveled to Iraq to fight coalition forces there have access to U.S. federal courts to object to their continued detention in Iraq." The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is acknowledging that any American citizen held by American forces has a right to appeal that to the US court system; however, the opinion then offers that the two men (Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Omar) are held in Iraq and that the US courts cannot prevent them from being handed over to the Iraqi government. So it was a victory in terms of affirming that US citizens around the world do have access to the federal courts to appeal imprisonment by the US military but it will not prevent Munaf and Omar from being turned over to the puppet government in Iraq.


On Tuesday, Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reported that prisoners "were likely to be held for longer periods as security risks than those prisoners taken when the U.S. troop buildup first began last year, according to Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone Jr., the former head of the Iraq detention program." Earlier this year, the US military [PDF format, CRC.OPAC.USA.Q1] noted: "Approximately 50 percent of those initially detained in Iraq are determined not to be inperative security threat, and these individuals are released at the unit location. Those assessed to be a threat are transferred to the TIF. At the TIF, the detaining command Magistrate Cell, consisting of judge adocates, conducts a thorough review of each individual's case. Based on this review, the Magistrate Cell either recommends the detainee be expeditiously released or retained as an imperative security threat." "TIF" refers to "Theater Internment Facility." Those claims, presented to the United Nations, just got tossed out the window via Stone's press conference this week. Felicity Arbuthnot (UN Observer) provides some reality on US prisons in Iraq:

However, "quis custodiat ipsos custodes?" "Who guards the guards?" Suppose the abusers are the United States military and the abused children are in their custody in Iraq. Neither Save the Children, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch (HRW) or other agencies have been allowed in to facilities where Iraqi children as young as ten are incarcerated in Iraq, under the oversight of Major General Douglas Stone, Deputy Commanding General Detainee Operations, Multi National Force-Iraq.
The US army has detained 2,400 children as young as ten years old since March 2003, according to a 21st May 2008 Human Rights Watch statement (some estimates are highter). Stone, who took over the position in May 2007, has named one correctional facility "The House of Wisdom", after the famous 9th to 13th century Bayt al Hikmah (House of Wisdom) at which scholars from around the globe studied and where Plato, Hippocrates, Euclid and Pythagoras were translated from the Greek and where Algebra was born.
In its 21st May statement, HRW said detention rates for children had risen drastically in 2007 to an average of 100 new cases a month from 25 a month in 2006. As of 12 May this year, the US military authorities were holding 513 Iraqi children classified as "imperative threats to security", HRW said in a statement.
Stone has said he is now fighting a "battlefield of the mind", introducing education and "religious enlightenment" to detainees. Amongst his charges of all ages are: "rotton eggs, you know, hiding in the Easter basket". Psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors and interrogators help identify these 'miscreants.' Juveniles are allowed no outside legal representation, according to the UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, Radhika Coomaraswarmy and there are allegations that, as with women, they are often held to force an adult family male to give himself up. Human rights abuses plummet little lower, apart from rape and child abuse.

Today the ACLU announced they had "filed a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit today for documents related to an investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the abuse and torture of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. Last month, the OIG released a report on the investigation, which was launched after internal government documents -- uncovered by another ACUL lawsuit -- revealed that FBI agents at Guantanamo raised concerns about abusive techniques used by military interrogators." The Bully Boy of the Unites States, in Rome making nice with Berlusconi, had his own announcement, "First of all, it's a Supreme Court decision; we'll abide by the Court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."

And NPR doesn't have to agree with reality. Monday they aired a report on Iraq that's no longer up at their website. "The improved security situation in Baghdad has allowed government officials to reclaim abandoned government property. Displaced Iraqis had been living in the buildings after they were forced to flee their homes because of fighting. Now, they are finding themselves homeless again." Sound familiar? It aired Monday on Morning Edition. It's no longer part of the broadcast. But it was aired and it was disgusting. It was also offensive news re-pimped. If you paid attention, you heard that assertion in 2006. If you paid attention in 2003, you heard how the buildings ended up occupied and why. Edward Wong (New York Times) reported that "American military officials say that although they have allowed squatters to remain in public buildings throughout the city, the Iraqi transitional government that will take power on July 1 will almost certainly want the buildings back for their own use, or at least will want to charge rent. . . . But the transitional government will probably try to sell much of the city's public property, since there is no need to hold on to it, Colonel [Paul L.] Aswell said." The tag sale the White House was lusting for. So, to go by what's known, there is talk (again) that Iraqis squatting in government buildings may be forced out. But, as Anna Badkhen (Salon) reports, there's really nowhere go. Badkhen notes al-Maliki's announcement that refugees need to return and return to their homes; however "in a twist that exemplifies the difficulty of restoring normalcy in Iraq, many of the Iraqis who do decide to return home will face a new obstacle that is a byproduct of American and Iraqi efforts to quell sectarian violence. It is a new law called the National Policy for Displacement, and it states that no displaced Iraqis can be forcibly removed from the place where they found refuge. . . . Many Iraqis who fled their homes found refuge in homes that belong to other people, who had run away from the fighting to go someplace else. Now, as the owners return home, encouraged by their government, they are finding their homes occupied by squatters who are protected by the new rules."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad grenade attack that left six Iraqi soldiers injured, a Baghdad roadside bomb which "targeted the Shaab's mayor in Shaab neighborhood" and resulted in five people being injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing which "targeted the major general's convoy Sameer Al-Waeli, the head of the social attention in the ministry of interior" and left six injured, three more Baghdad roadside bombing which resulted in nine Iraqi soldiers being wounded, a Baghdad home bombing that claimed the lives of 3 people and left fifteen injured.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Yesterday at the US State Dept, Gonzalo R. Gallegos (Press Relations Dir) held a media conference and was asked about Nouri al-Maliki's visit to Iran and he replied that he didn't "have an assessment in terms of that" and stated they were "neighbors" and his "hope that the Iranians can engage with the Iraqi Government in a positive manner." But did the Iraqi leader (or 'leader') and the Iranian government come to an agreement? At a time when the White House and the puppet are having so many problems over the treaty disguised as a SOFA? Reuters reported this week that there was an agreement (according to IRNA news agency) that papers were signed (Mostafa Mohammad Najjar and Abdul Qader Jassim -- Iran and Iraq's Defence Ministers respectively) on defense, on "[m]ine clearance and the search for soldiers missing in action" and who knows what else. How would Gallegos or anyone at the State Dept asses that?

Turning to US politics. Yesterday on The CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric delivered one of her Notebook pieces. The piece addressed the fact that sexism was rampant in the media coverage.

Katie Couric: Over the last week it's been almost impossible to pick up a newspaper or turn on a cable show and avoid the endless post-mortems on Hillary Clinton's campaign. Senator Clinton has received her fair share of the blame and so has her political team. But, like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life -- particularly in the media. Many women have made the point that if Senator Obama had to confront the racist equivalent of an "Iron My Shirt!" poster at campaign rallies or a Hillary nutcracker sold at airports or mainstream pundints saying they instictively cross their legs at the mention of her name, the outrage would not be a footnote, it would be front page news. It isn't just Hillary Clinton who needs to learn a lesson from this primary season, it's all the people who crossed the line -- and all the women and men who let them get away with it. That's a page from my Notebook, I'm Katie Couric, CBS News.

As Peggy Simpson (WMC) noted earlier this week, Couric was just awarded an Alice award (named after the groundbreaking Alice Paul) by the Sewell-Belmont House. At the ceremony, she gave a speech where she noted that the media's job was to be objective. Some are seeing this as reference to Lee Cowan's on air confession to Brian Williams that it's "hard" for him to be objective about Barack Obama. If it was a reference to Cowan specifically, Couric was correct and media critics would be quick to agree. When you confess on air that you have a "hard" time being objective about someone you're covering, in a real news world, your ass is pulled from that beat because it's not only an issue of whether you can or cannot be objective, it's also an issue of how you are perceived. Couric was 100% correct. And FAIR and other outlets -- all strangely silent today -- have long made that point. What gives with the silence? As Jake Tapper (ABC News) points out, Keith Olbermann -- supreme PIG -- elected to 'award' Katie Couric the "Worst Person in the World" 'award' last night in yet another of his foaming at the mouth attacks on women which MSNBC so loves to broadcast. Couric's media criticism in her speech accepting the Alice was correct and there's not an ombudsperson that can beg to differ with her (and NPR and Washington Post ombudspersons in the past have made the exact same call on the need to avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest). Katie Couric's real 'crime' was daring to think that sexism was worth calling out because, as we have all seen for months and months, media 'critics' have stayed silent. They've treated sexism as a non-issue. Or, as Mike noted, when forced to deal with it, the way Howard Dean was, they toss out a word or two and then rush off to the topic of racism -- implying that sexism doesn't qualify as a topic in and of itself, certainly not an important one. Katie Couric was correct in her criticism and Keith Olbermann has attacked another woman for the 'crime' of expressing of an opinion. On the plus side, some seem to have received the message and we're not seeing non-trashing of Couric; however, some need to stand up and call Olbermann out. They egged him or gave their approval by refusing to call him out. Couric's comments are not out of bounds. They 'dare' to treat sexism as an offensive issue and 'dare' to say, yes, women matter in this world. For that, Pig Olbermann labels her the "Worst Person of the Week." Will FAIR stay silent? Will The Nation? We saw them stay silent for months as Olbermann foamed at the mouth and ripped apart women. Ava and I will be picking up this topic Sunday.


Team Nader notes the following:

If you haven't donated to Nader/Gonzalez yet, please give five dollars now.
Here's why: despite what you've heard, we're making a difference in the here and now.
According to an article in today's Politico, two words explain the reason Obama and the Democrats are sounding more populist: Ralph Nader.
The author, Jeremy Lott, writes this:
"Nader's challenge convinced the powers that be in the party that they simply cannot afford to let a serious challenger get to the left of the party's presidential candidate. That helps explain why Dean was given the DNC chairmanship over a Clinton loyalist and why concerns about electability were brushed aside to make way for the junior Illinois senator's nomination."
We don't buy Lott's conclusion that the Democratic Party is now Nader's party.
Most of the Democrats' populism is mere posturing.
They talk national health insurance, but reject single payer public health insurance.
They talk about peace in the Middle East, but bow down to the right wing Israel lobby.
They talk about change, but want to increase the bloated wasteful military budget.
So, yes, Ralph Nader has had an effect.
The Democrats are now talking a more progressive game.
But it's mostly talk, talk, talk, no action.
Nader, on the other hand, is the real deal.
The mainstream media, like Politico, is starting to take note of our grassroots, independent campaign.
Nader is at six percent in national polls.
We're moving aggressively nationwide to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot.
And to get Nader and Gonzalez into the debates.
But now, more than ever, we need your help.
Today, we ask each of you to donate $5 to Nader/Gonzalez.
Of course, the more the merrier.
But $5 is what we're asking from each and every one of you - our loyal supporters.
So do it now.
Hit the button.
And put five dollars on the real deal.
Thank you in advance.
Together, we are making a difference.


iraqcorey glasswalter pincusthe washington post
center for constitutional rightsnina totenberg
npr
katie couricthe cbs evening newsanna badkhen
mcclatchy newspapers
jake tapper
peggy simpson

here's katie couric on last night's cbs evening news talking about the sexism in the 2008 primary season

Barack Obama's promise to deliver a "new kind of politics" took a knock yesterday with the departure of the man hired to check out potential vice-presidential running mates.
Jim Johnson, quit as unpaid head of a three-person search team after facing criticism from Republicans for the sweetheart loans he received from a sub-prime mortgage company.

that's from the independent of london and they're so in the tank for barack that the byline doesn't really matter. poor pond scum (that didn't report on the downing street memos), their crush isn't all that.

a george vandervoort writes the chicago tribune about 'reporter' zorn:


From reading Mr. Zorn's article, one might get the impression that this house purchase was Sen. Obama's only contact with the currently imprisoned Mr. Rezko. In reality, Tony Rezko has been a social friend and mentor of Barack Obama's for about 15 years. Rezko offered Obama a job in the early 1990s, while Obama as at Harvard Law School. Obama did not take them, but the two stayed in touch over the years. Obama and Rezko used to socialize over breakfast or lunch. Mr. and Mrs. Obama visited Rezko's home in Lake Geneva, Wisc. Rezko raised $250,000 for Obama's Senate campaign.


the reality (and george probably knows this) is that zorn is in the tank for obama and has been since barack's senate run. zorn was actively swallowing every thing the campaign fed him and was instrumental in launching attacks against jack ryan (obama's 1-time republican opponent) as well as earlier at the more popular candidate in the democratic primary (who was smeared with domestic abuses charges). zorn has been allowed to do this because the libertarian minders at the tribune think barack's a good right-leaner. a real paper would have removed zorn from covering obama about 4-years ago due to intense conflicts of interest. but the chicago tribune isn't a real newspaper.

or, as robert t. johnson puts it:

Over the years, we loyal Tribune readers have come to expect one-sided columns from Eric Zorn which seem designed to either smear or whitewash people and/or events. His recent piece on the Tony Rezko-Sen. Obama real estate deal does not disappoint. In his effort to absolve Sen. Obama of any wrongdoing, Mr. Zorn concentrates on trivia such as the price paid by Mr. Rezko for the lot adjoining the Senator's house, and the prices offered by competing bidders.

zorn doesn't know how to report. he only knows how to run a fan club.

go watch katie couric talking about sexism in the primary race.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, June 11, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, issues fall by the wayside for the 'issues' (smears and distortions) and more.

Starting with war resistance. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. He's no longer threatened with deporation on the 12th (Thursday) but has been 'extended' to July 10th. Will the Stephen Harper government really attempt to deport him? That will depend upon how much support Corey Glass has. Over the weekend Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) issued "NUPGE urges Harper to let Iraq war resisters stay in Canada:"James Clancy calls on minority Conservative government to respect the will of Parliament and stop the deportation of Corey Glass on June 12 Ottawa (9 June 2008) - The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is asking the Harper government to honour a House of Commons motion that clears U.S. Iraq war resisters and their families to live permanently in Canada.The non-binding parliamentary motion was approved June 3 with support from all three opposition parties by a margin of 137 to 110. Conservative MPs opposed the motion and the minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated it will ignore parliament on the issue. The War Resisters Support Campaign, based in Toronto, estimates that as many as 200 American soldiers have come to Canada to avoid serving in Iraq. Many of those active in the campaign are resisters who were granted refuge in Canada during the Vietnam war in the 1960s and 1970s. In a letter to Harper, NUPGE president James Clancy urged Harper to intervene in the case of Corey Glass, who has been in Canada for the past two years. His application for citizenship on "humanitarian and compassionate" grounds was denied on May 21 and the Canadian Border Services Agency has ordered him to be deported on June 12. "From all indications, your government is planning to ignore the democratic will of the House of Commons," Clancy wrote. "I am urging you and your government to reconsider this position. This is a matter of some urgency. The war resisters have taken a principled stand against participating in an illegal and disastrous war in Iraq. Their reasons echo those that Canada used when it, too, refused to participate in this war," Clancy said. "Canada must continue to act to honour its own principles and maintain our status in the world community as a peace-building nation. We should quickly welcome the young men and women and their families who have come here to live in peace and who are already starting to contribute to our country's future," he said.Clancy urged Harper to "act now to make it possible" for the resisters to stay in Canada by: �œ Stopping the deportation of people of conscience who have resisted an illegal war; and �œ Supporting the democratic decision of the House of Commons and the will of the Canadian people. NUPGE More information: �œ War Resisters Support Campaign

That's their statement in full and it's very important. A huge cross-section of people ensured that war resisters could stay in Canada during Vietnam -- students, labor, churches. NUPGE's stepping up is important. To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


Turning to US catty-claws. Senator John McCain made a statement that was clear and one that this community disagrees with. Appearing on NBC's Today Show, he was asked about withdrawal from Iraq. And stated he wasn't worried about withdrawal estimates ("that's not too important") and somehow it was time for Democrats to embarrass themsleves. What's McCain talking about? His position is that troops should stay in Iraq. He would argue he's not talking about a continued war, he would state that (as he said on Today this morning), troops should remain there as they do in Japan, South Korea, etc.

Anyone truly opposed to the illegal war has an opening to go after McCain. Sadly, we don't have a lot of elected officials really opposed to the illegal war. So instead it was time for hypocrisy and catty natures. Susan Rice -- a long time War Hawk and monger working for the Obama camapign -- repeated talking points of how McCain was "confused," "confusing," etc. As Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times) wonders, "Is that a code for suggesting McCain is too old to understand what is going on?" Rice denies it but the Catty Obama Crew has already attempted that nonsense before. They are the cattiest campaign. Senator John Kerry tried to rescue Rice. As usual, he failed (and needs to stop worrying about Obama's campaign and start worrying about the Democratic challenger to his own seat). US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi saw an opening and immediately issued her own statement: "Senator McCain's statement that it is 'not too important' when U.S. troops are redeployed from Iraq is yeat another indication how out of touch he is with the effect the war in Iraq is having on the readiness of our military. Addressing the national security implications . . ." blah, blah, blah. No one cares, Nancy. Everyone knows you're the Speaker of the House. Everyone knows you took power in January 2007. Everyone knows the illegal war drags on. Before you hop on your high horse you need to grasp just how disliked you are around the country. (Visit some campuses, Nancy.) Your self-serving statements only reflect poorly on you and Democratic leadership.

And that's the real revelation here, how Iraq is now a non-issue for Democrats. They can't even showboat convincingly because they've had nearly two years in which they controlled both houses of Congress and they didn't do a damn thing to end the illegal war. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, uses a lot of words as well. He only makes himself sound like a hypocrite. Too many to name embarrass themselves deliberately twisting McCain's meaning. Of all the people in the world who make sense on McCain's remarks, it's Senator Joe Lieberman. (Whom I personally loathe.) Lieberman labels the organized hit "reflexive attacks" and notes, "It's very obvious what John McCain is saying, and it's consistent with what he's said along the way." [Click here for the Baltimore Sun's Mark Silva's write up which includes text but also includes video of McCain on Today.] Lieberman also notes what Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Kerry and Rice don't, John McCain actually has a child DEPLOYED to Iraq.

We're not getting issues, we're getting smears. McCain firmly believes the US needs to remain in Iraq and he's not arguing for the illegal war to be continued, he thinks the illegal war (which he doesn't think is illegal) can be tranferred to a smaller US presence which would include many decades on Iraqi soil. That is his position.

It's a position the Democrats should love because it should provide them with the ability to present a strong contrast between McCain and themselves. Today we get smears, catty remarks (that were intended to be about McCain's age or mental well being), we get hypocrisy and so much more. The country (US) would be better off if we could address the issue. The issue isn't "Is McCain senile?" (he's not) nor is it "McCain disrespects the military!" (he doesn't). The issue is McCain has a viewpoint on how he sees the US presence in Iraq. Why can't the Democrats take that issue and run with it?

Partly because for all the nonsense of 'hope' and 'change,' Barack's advanced via character assassinations on his opponents and that's what's going on when McCain's sanity or his support for the military is questioned. It's catty, it's embarrassing and it doesn't help Barack appear mature. But there's no real difference Barack's calling for. June 5th he told Candy Crowley (CNN, link has text and video) that his Iraq 'policy' on withdrawal (his 'promise' throughout the campaign that US troops would be out of Iraq within 10 months of his becoming president -- in a speech in Houston, Texas, he dropped from 16 months down to 10), "Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind." Really? Because in your speeches you don't include that qualifier. He added, "Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq. And our troops, and Gen. Petraeus, deserve enormous credit for that. I have to look at this issue from a broader perspective, though." He has to look at it from a broader perspective? Does anyone remember his stump speech that included that 'applause' line? No, because he didn't include it in his speeches.

Barack Obama is not promising to end the illegal war. He is not promising anything. That's the point Samantha Power was making to the BBC in April and why she explained that these 'pledges' he makes on the campaign trail mean nothing, that he'd decide what to do about Iraq if he got into the White House. Not before then.

And that's why this mock outrage is being created by various Democrats [on the very day that Michael Scherer (Time magazine) points out how faux outrage bit Barack in the butt]. It's a way to create the appearance of a difference between Barack Obama and John McCain. Heaven forbid we have a real difference.

When Barack is asked hard questions or hit with real criticism, his response is to whine that he wants to focus on the issues, that he wishes he could focus on the issues (and his waffles) but instead . . . His campaign launched a smear job on John McCain today. They didn't have to do that. They could have taken the issue of Iraq and presented an actual difference. Instead, it was John McCain's too old, he's senile, he doesn't appreciate military service, blah, blah, blah. Not an ounce of truth in any of those charges.

It didn't have to be that way. If Iraq's going to be an issue, let's have it be one, a real one. Let's see Barack stop the character assassinations and start having that always postponed conversation about the issues he keeps insisting he wants.

And anyone considering themselves part of the peace movement better start hollering. If this is what's going to pass for "Iraq discussions" ('McCain's old and crazy and he hates the military!'), don't even pretend that the illegal war is ending in the next four years. We should all be appalled and saying, "ENOUGH!" Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) explains, "Four years ago, as the sentiment against George W. Bush's administration mounted, the entire left-wing spectrum hung on tight to the coattails of John Kerry, grasping for dear life. Critics called it the 'Anybody but Bush' syndrome, but it should have been more aptly coined 'Nobody but Kerry.' Virtually every progressive cause, from labor to environment, had been co-opted by a mindset that would have ensured more of the same. There was no pressure put on Kerry to change, and he didn't." Naomi Klein called that nonsense out in real time and has repeatedly warned since then that the peace movement does not need to go silent for the 'good' of an election.

The peace movement can get co-opted again, it can buy into the Iraq War 'really doesn't matter,' or any other nonsense it wants but as someone who was on campuses after that crap, 'leaders' who think they can pull the wool over the young people again better grasp there will be fallout. The peace movement should call out any candidate who refuses to address Iraq. When Team Obama has the perfect opportunity to draw a real distinction and instead results to smears, it's an indication that Barack's not overly concerned about Iraq. The Iraq War is an ongoing, illegal war that will hit the six year mark next year. Any candidate who thinks character attacks are addressing it really isn't fit to run for the presidency. And anyone thinking "We just have to be silent until November" better accept the illegal war isn't ending via silence. As Joshua Frank notes, despite Democrats being given control of both houses in the November 2006 elections, "Two years later, we have nothing to show for it. The Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, yet have rubber stamped virtually ever Iraq war spending bill that has come down the pipeline -- ensuring the bloodbath for years to come."

Let's go straight into some of today's reported violence because the refusal to address Iraq allows the dying to continue.

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left seven more wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 5 lives with ten more people wounded, a third Baghdad roadside bombing that injured two, a Kirkuk roadside bombing that wounded six people and a Wasit bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer with four more wounded.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 4 in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 5 corpses discovered in Falluja ("shot and tortured").

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Corps -- Iraq Soldier died of non-battle related causes in Baghdad, June 11. An investigation into the cause of death is under way." 4095 is the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war, 11 is the number for the month thus far.

As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer points out, "It doesn't matter that people of two nations -- the U.S. and Iraq -- are dead set against an agreement, or treaty -- for permanent, er, long-term military bases in Iraq. And never mind what having such a presence in Iraq would do to that nation's relationship with Iran (a major player on the ground), where leaders suspect that the bases in the 'enslaved' Iraq might be used as launching points to attack their country. The Bush administration is hellbent on banging out the much-denied treaty by the end of July." Leila Fadel and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report that the White Hous insists the negotiations on the treaty "can be completed by a July 31 target date" but the White House "is apparently scaling back some of its demands, including backing off one that particularly incenses Iraqis, blanket immunity for private security contractors." They also report that in the US Congress objections are coming from both sides of the aisle as well as from the chairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Joe Biden) and the Senate Armed Services Committee (Carl Levin). Amit R. Paley and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) explore objections to the treaty in Iraq and quote Sami al-Askari ("senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki") stating, "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq. If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you hear anymore.'" Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) also quotes al-Askari, "There is the camp who still believe that we need the Americans to stay and the other camp that says we don't need them anymore. . . . If I'm from the group that believes in the need for the Americans to stay, and then they face me with such a draft, then I'll say, look, I'd rather go with the others." As was noted (and objected to) throughout The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Show that played Congress in April, the Iraqi Parliament will get a vote on the treaty (disguised as a "Status Of Forces Agreement" by the White House) but the US Senate will not. Apparently, Bully Boy needed to wipe his rear on the US Constitution at least one more time before leaving office so that Constitutional mandate that all treaties be approved by the Senate got tossed out the window. M.D. Nalapat (UPI Asia) argues that if SOFA goes through, the puppet of the occupation (al-Maliki) will fall and "other moderate politicians in Iraq could soon become history. From then onwards, public opinion in Iraq will almost certainly turn in favor of those Shia and Sunni politicians opposed to the pact, creating more followers of Moqtada al-Sadr and the former Baathists." Ghida Fakhry (Al Jazeera) asserts, "If the original deadline is missed, it could mean that major obstacles have emerged and that the plan to rush through a deal before George Bush steps down as president might also be in jeopardy." As Dan Eggen (Washington Post) observes, speaking from Germany, Bully Boy referred to Iraq opposition as "noise".

The Bully Boy of the United States: "First of all, I think we'll end up with a strategic agreement with Iraq. You know, it's all kinds of noise in their system and our system. What eventually will win out is the truth. For example, you read stories perhaps in your newspaper that the U.S. is planning all kinds of permanent bases in Iraq. That's an erroneous story. [58 bases.] The Iraqis know -- will learn it's erroneous, too. We're there at the invitation of the sovereign [puppet] government of Iraq. And I strongly support the agreement because I think it helps send a clear message to the people of Iraq that, you know, that security you're now seeing will continue. And one of the lessons of Iraq is, is that in order for a democracy to develop or in order for an economy to develop, there has to be a measure of security, which is now happening. So I think we'll get the agreement done."

Bully Boy went on to declare, "You know, as to -- look, Eggen, you can find any voice you want in the Iraqi political scene and quote them, which is interesting, isn't it, because in the past you could only find one voice, and now you can find a myriad of voices. It's a vibrant democracy; people are debating." Yes, it appears that one thing the America has transferred to Iraq is relief that the reign of the Bully Boy will end in a few months.

On the US political front, Team Nader breaks down the Lehman Brothers scandal whose Richard S. Fuld announced "a staggering $2.8 billion loss in the second quarter, exceeding the most dire forecasts" and yet nothing changes on Wall Street or, for that matter in Congress: "Still, there is no regulatory action in Washington which doesn't even move on behalf of consumers to regulate the New York Mercantile Exchange where rampant speculation, not supply and demand, decides what you are paying for gasoline and heating oil. With the politicians sleepwalking in Washington, while their campaign pockets are filled by Wall Street cash, isn't it time for the people of America to rouse themselves civically and politically? Act before the financial sector, using your money, shreds itself under the weight of its own top-heavy greed and cliff-hanging mismanagement." Ralph Nader is running for the White House. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Team Nader also addresses the NBA today by noting an objection Nader raised in 2000. Steve Powell (The Olympian), writing today of the criminal activity of "former referee Tim Donaghy" who has entered guilty pleas to multiple felony charges, points out: "Donaghy claims it happened in a playoff game in 2002. And looking at the Los Angeles Lakers-Sacramento Kings series, he makes a good case. Even at the time, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, a presidential candidate this year, sent a letter to Stern complaining about the officiating. The Lakers won the game after shooting 27 free throws in the fourth quarter.".


iraqcorey glasswarren p. strobel
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
the los angeles timesned parker
the washington postamit r. paleykaren deyoung

1st off, no, there was no plan on last night's post. kat's 'carly' is magnificient but she and i did not compare notes and both decide to write about music last night. we laughed on the phone about it today. we were both just attempting to find something to write about that interested us and hopefully would interest people who visit our sites.

we will both be voting ralph nader in november if barack is the democratic nominee and neither of us was in the mood to talk about the election.

now elaine has a post tonight (not up yet, so no link to the post) where she's mentioning me. she called to make sure that was okay. i never call. i just tell whatever i want about elaine or c.i. and don't worry. but it was sweet of her to call.

i thought i'd talk briefly about that.

in her post she mentions c.i. and c.i.'s incredible instincts. she specifically tells the enron story.

i had either retired or was in the process of it. i'd made my money and was getting out of the rat race. fly boy and i had either just gotten married (the 1st time) or were about to. c.i. was very happy for us both.

i wasn't raised with money and was given a tip by my broker about a hot stock. i was sold on the thing and told it was the stock to have. so i sunk a huge portion of my money into it.

c.i. was visiting and i was so proud of myself so, of course i bragged. c.i. immediately told me you never put that much of a percentage of your cash in 1 stock, regardless of what it was. i probably rolled my eyes. i had a big stock broker. i'd worked my way up over the years. and i trusted my broker with my life. so c.i. asks what i bought stock in.

i say 'enron.'

have you seen the episode of will & grace when karen and rosario come back to the country and the authorities put rosario in jail for stuff karen was smuggling into the country? every time rosario's name is mentioned, karen clutches her stomach?

it was just like that. 'enron.' at 1st, flyboy and i were playing around and would say every few minutes. but when it became obvious that it wasn't just happening (the stomach cramps and our use of the word), we stopped and were honestly worried about c.i. flyboy was saying we needed to get to a hospital.

finally, i was freaking out, i said, 'fine, fine, i'll sell.' and i did and unloaded as much as i could then with more to come over the next few days. as soon as i did, c.i.'s stomach cramps stopped.

if it weren't for those stomach cramps, i would have lost so much money. i can laugh about it because i didn't. if i was 1 of those people who lost their entire savings, i wouldn't be laughing.

but elaine's mentioning that in some context (i'm not sure what) so i'll just note that there are stocks that c.i. just has a sense of. strongly positive or strongly negative. it doesn't work on every 1. but there are stocks that c.i. just gets a gut feeling on.

c.i. saved my ass on that 1 and flyboy just came in a second ago (he was putting the baby down for the night) and reminded me that we both (flyboy and i) had put money into enron on the advice of 'your idiot broker.'

flyboy also points out that when enron was going way up there, we both (he and i) complained about selling. but we would have stayed on for the full ride and lost what we put in. when it crashed, we were 'thank you, thank you' to c.i. and, as my husband points out, c.i. was all 'no big deal. it just didn't feel good. i'm wrong more than i'm right.'

it's why i always love to drag c.i. to a casino. c.i. hates gambling but if you can drag c.i. to a table, you can usually come out okay. craps, black jack, roulette, you name it. (c.i. will be very upset if i do not point out that c.i. is not psychic, doesn't think otherwise. but c.i. has some amazing instincts. especially when money is involved.) (like all of us, those instincts go right out the window when love walks in the door. however, c.i.'s had less messy love affairs than i have. but so have 99% of the world's population.)

whenever i was expanding the business, i would involve c.i. i'd be 'let's go see this new space i'm thinking about leasing' or whatever. and if there was any 'i don't feel good about this,' i'd mark it right off my options list.

but the enron moment will always stand out because just the name made c.i. ill. it wasn't 'i don't have a good feeling about this.' it was physically ill from the sound of the word. and, like i said, at first flyboy and i were playing around thinking it was something else and just a coincidence that everytime we said 'enron' c.i. had stomach cramps.

(c.i. always minimizes that and says, 'i'm sure my response was to the amount of money you had put into 1 company.' but i'm talking with flyboy right now and we both remember c.i. objecting to the amount of money but not being ill until we started saying 'enron.' and, i'm sure, c.i. will point out to me, 'if i was psychic, it wouldn't have taken 3 hours of stomach cramps to convince you to sell.' true.)

okay, that's the post for tonight. i was planning on talking about news but flyboy came back from putting the baby down and we got stuck talking about enron and then i'd write a bit more so i've spent way too long on this post. we've got a dvd a friend said we have to watch you. ('you'll love it!!!!' in case we don't, i won't mention the title. if we do 'love it,' i'll give the name tomorrow.)

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, June 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Canadian Jonathan Kay needs a history tutor to explain war resistance to him, a guilty plea is entered in a US court, and more.

Starting with war resistance, the BBC had US war resister Corey Glass and Jonathan Kay of Canada's National Post debate and have posted it today. The winner of the debate? Corey Glass. In fact, Glass didn't have to say one word to win. Not when conservative Jonathan Kay doesn't think a debate requires knowing facts. Kay argues: "There's no draft in the United States -- as there was in the Vietnam era: No one forced him to put on a uniform. Why should Canadians help this deserter go back on his freely given word?" Why did Canada do it during Vietnam? See, Jonathan Kay is only the latest in a long line of Dumb Asses who wants to hop on a soapbox without ever knowing what the hell he's talking about. Let's toss out some basics for everyone. January 1969 was an important month for Canada. Why? The issue of deserters.

Not the issue of draft dodgers, the issue of deserters. The US wanted Canada to refuse to give them asylum. At that time, pay attention Dumb Ass Jonathan Kay, both groups (deserters and draft dodgers) qualified to become Canadian citizens or permanent immigrants. Canada's Dept of Manpower and Immigration informed the world on January 30, 1969 that Canada was considering refusing deserters. In July of of 1968, the Canadian government had already encouraged immigration workers to begin refusing applications from anyone who was active duty meaning deserters could be refused. By January 1969, it was so bad that deserters in Canada (who had not already been granted either citizenship or permanent immigrant status) were being encouraged to apply in areas far from the borders because applying at the border could result in a "no" and being escorted back to the US side of the border (where an arrest would take place). Prior to that, Canada -- much to the LBJ administration's displeasure -- was regularly granting citizenship and permanent immigrant status to deserters and draft dodgers. As a result of the above, it became harder for deserters (but not for draft resisters).

That's why the new policy, explained May 22, 1969 by Allan J. MacEachen (Canada's Minister of Immigration) was so significant: "If a serviceman from another country meets our immigration criteria, he will not be turned down because his is still in the active service of his country. The selection criteria and requirements applying to him will be the same as those that apply to other applicants." Get it? There was a tiny move in July of 1968. January of 1969 there was a move to make it policy that deserters would be rejected/ejected. By May of 1969, that was no more. The draft was never the issue for granting war resisters asylum in Canada during Vietnam.

We can go as deep into this as we need to but, possibly, Jonathan Kay and other Canadians might just be so ashamed at this point -- that an American knows more about this aspect of their own country's history than they do -- that they decide it's past time for them to try brushing up on the facts?

Here's Corey Glass speaking from the BBC:

Last week I was in Ottawa, when the House of Commons passed a motion saying that the Canadian government should make it possible for conscientious objectors to get permanent residence in Canada. The motion also said that all deportation proceedings against us should be stopped.
But I may be deported anyway. On 21 May I was told that my last chance to stay in Canada had failed, and I must leave by 12 June (since extended to 10 July). I know that if I return to the US I will face imprisonment and possibly a criminal record.
I don't think it is fair that I should be returned to the United States to face unjust punishment for doing what I felt morally obligated to do. I am hoping that Canada, which stayed out of the Iraq War for reasons similar to my own, will reverse the deportation order and let me stay, as parliament has urged.


To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Iraq. Treaties. April 10th, US Senator Joe Biden outlined the basics:

We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the "vision" -- his phrase -- of our bilateral relationship with Iraq. One agreement is a "strategic framework agreement" that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled "What the United States will do for Iraq," because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction -- promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country. We're told that the reason why we're not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don't want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is. The second agreement is what Administration officials call a "standard" Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces -- for the purposes of Iraqi law -- to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don't know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.

On the Status Of Force Agreement, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that "member of the two ruling Shiite parties" in the Iraqi Parliament are stating "the United States is demanding 58 bases" and quotes Jalal al Din al Saghir explaining, "The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abdominable that occupation. We were occupied by the order of the Security Counil. But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far." Rob Corbidge (The Scotsman) cites the bases as "the most obvious physical legacy". The Status Of Force Agreement is to replace the 2004 UN authorization which neither the White House or the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, wants to renew. (al-Maliki ignored the Parliament and the Constitution twice to renew it previously.) That authorization ends at the end of this year. Were it not renewed, there would be no cover for the US to remain in Iraq. As Nazila Fathi and Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) point out that the SOFA has "become a major political issue, further splitting Shiite allies of Mr. Maliki and the political movement of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric." al-Sadr has made clear his opposition to the SOFA and is calling for demonstrations every Friday to show objections to it. AP reports, "The Bush administartion is conceding for the first time that the United States might not finish a complex security agreement with Iraq before President Bush leaves office. Faced with stiff Iraqi opposition, it is 'very possible' the United States might have to extend an existing U.N. mandate, said a senior administration official close to the talks. That would mean major decisions about how U.S. forces operate in Iraq could be left to the next president, including how much authority the United States must give Iraqis over military operations and how quickly the handover takes place." Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) maintains that a big obstacle is the "growing economic and political relationship" Iraq has "with Tehran" that's become the obstacle. As Ashraf Khali (Los Angeles Times) points out, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki concluded a three-day visit to Iran after meeting Monday with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who warned that the continued presence of U.S. troops was 'the main obstacle on the way to progress and prosperity in Iraq'."

Dropping back to the August 28, 2007 snapshot:

Today James Glanz and Eric Schmitt (New York Times) report . . . "federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchasing and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other materiel to Iraqi and American forces" -- "the largest ring of fruad and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here". Among those under investigation is "a senior American officer [Lt. Com. Levonda Joey Selph] who worked closely with Gen. David H. Petraeus in setting up the logistics operation to supply the Iraqi forces when General Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping those forces in 2004 and 2005". The reporters cite an August 18th interview with Petraeus where he explained "he made a decision not to wait for formal tracking systems to be put in place before distributing weapons". There is no tracking system for the tax payer dollars and no tracking system within Iraq where the weapons were apparently passed around like candy. (US arms already glut the blackmarket in Iraq.) Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted that the "investigation includes the Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Department of Justice, the FBI and others. The senior officer, Lt. Col. Levonda Joey Selph, worked closely with General Petraeus to set up logistic services for Iraqi forces." And in response to that, Pauline Jelinek (AP) reports, "The Pentagon is sending a team of investigators to Iraq because of the growing number of cases of fraud and other irregularities in contracts involving weapons and supplies for Iraqi forces."

November 11th, Eric Schmitt, Ginger Thompson, Margot Williams and James Glanz (New York Times) reported on the latest when Levonda Joey Selph's was visited by the paper at her Virginia hom and "Selph would say only that she was not guilty of any wrongdoing, and she said she was under orders not to speak to the press." AP reports Selph entered guilty pleas "to bribery and conspiracy in U.S. District Court" today and that "Selph admitted she leaked confidential government information about the contract to the head of the winning contracting company and helped him submit phony bid packages on behalf of six separate companies he controlled 'to create the appearance of competition, when, in fact, no competition existed.' In return, she was paid $4,000 by the contractor and took a trip with his wife to Thailand during which he paid $5,000 for Selph's airfare and accommodations." Everyone lives high on the hog except the Iraqi people. As Naomi Klein has documented, the Iraq War, for the White House, has been very much about""Baghdad Year Zero" -- where they would take an existing system, reduce it to rubble and rebuild it into their neocon, economic wet dream. [Also see Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism.] One of the non-stop efforts on the part of the US has been attacks on the rations system. Prior to the illegal war, Iraqis had ratiions card that the guaranteed the people basic necessities. Attempts to do away with them weren't working out so it's been a process of chip away bit by bit. Dropping back to the December 4th snapshot for the most recent attack: "The United Nations' IRIN reports that Abid Falah al-Soodani (Trade Minister) announced yesterday that, starting next month, 'the quantity of national food rations delivered freely to all Iraqi families will be futher reduced -- from 10 to five items.' Now let's be clear, this isn't just halfing the food supplies. He told the Iraqi Parliament that the five items provided will be provided in lower numbers. Here's what's getting cut out: tea, beans, children's milk, soap detergent and tomato paste. Here's what's getting reduced: rice, sugar, cooking oil, flour and milk for adults. What a way to say, "Welcome Home!" And to be clear, despite the lies, this has nothing to do with a government 'shortfall.' This is about ending the subsidies which Paul Bremer already tried once. The Iraqi government has more money than they spend at this point (though a great deal ends up in personal pockets) and this claim that they can't afford to supply children with milk is nothing but a lie." Today IRIN reports that Iraq's Ministry of Trade is floting a new plan that will mean more cuts but just of "those with high incomes". In the midst of an ongoing, illegal war and in a country with unemployment rates in excess of 60% since 2006?

Turning to readily acknowledged violence . . .
Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded four police officres, while another wounded two civilians and a Salahuddin Province roadside bombing claimed the life of "[t]he tribal leader of the AIBu Nasir clan" and wounded the leader's driver and two bodyguards. Reuters notes a grenade bombing on a home that left four family members injured and a Suq al-Shiyukh roadside bombing that claimed the life "of a member of the provincial council" and left four bodyguards injured.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants attacked an accountant in Salahuddin Province and stole $60,000. Reuters notes 2 people shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Turning to US politics. This morning (no links to trash) Taylor Marsh declared that Senator Hillary Clinton had released her delegates -- no release took place -- and instead of saying, "Oops! My bad!" she wants to insist this afternoon it doesn't matter. The word "release" has a particular meaning in this context and if Marsh isn't smart enough to grasp that or how to say "My bad!", she really needs to find a topic other than electoral politics to cover. She also has taken it upon herself to act as if she's speaking for the Hillary campaign and for Hillary herself. Taylor Marsh is not speaking for the campaign or for Hillary. Elaine addressed Taylor Marsh last night and, as Elaine points out, Marsh is no feminist. No delegates have been "released." The convention is in August. A candidate would be very foolish to release delegates. In 2004, Dennis Kucinich gave a lot of promises and kept none of them at the convention. If he'd had a significant number of delegates, he could have made a difference. Any candidate would hold on to their delegates if only to ensure that issues will be addressed.

Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports) points out: "The Democratic National Committee either doesn't get it or refuses to admit it. Nothing short of a lengthy, detailed mea culpa by the DNC and by Obama himself, directed to Clinton supporters for the sexist name-calling and personal, nasty characterizations Clinton was alone forced to endure, will do. Even that may not persuade these voters to consider supporting the party this fall. The DNC, Democratic Party leaders in Congress, and Obama should have been at her side, calling her treatment by the media (and even by some Obama supporters) unacceptable." Erbe points out that Barack misses the point appearing on CNN and also note the rush on the part of the media to say that it's all water under the bridge. And she points out the obvious: No one knows what Hillary supporters will do this fall if she is not on the ticket.

Though the media and the Obama campaign want to pretend this is over, there's no reason to hold that belief. Hillary gave a great speech Saturday. That helped Hillary. Her supporters waited to see some positive feedback from Barack and the DNC 'leaders' . . . and waited . . . and waited. This went beyond Hillary a long time ago. Probably around the time the thugs (Robert Scheer, Robert Parry, et al) went after Gloria Steinem and then thought they could turn Robin Morgan into part of the circus as well. Around that time it became 'acceptable' for White Males to show up with columns lecturing women that they shouldn't vote for Hillary -- as the PIGS assumed women would only vote for Hillary because she was a woman. And, strangely, the same White males, so quick to write "Don't vote on gender!" columns, never wrote "Don't vote on race!" columns. Get it? They were afraid to go that far but they were more than comfortable trying to shove women around in the public square. Next was the Obama's campaign's embrace of homophobia because what's more 'hopeful' than spreading lies that the LGBT community 'recruits' and children must be protected from them? It's confusing to faux feminists, but real feminists don't condone that b.s. And it is not going away. The LGBT factor especially is boiling right now and will continue to do so. It's Gay Pride Month. Poor little Sharon Smith, she can't write about that. Laura Flanders and Betsy Reed wanted to talk about homophobia . . . in terms of how it hurt John Edwards (a straight male). They're hypocrites but people catch on. These things are not going away and the DNC and Barack seem to think they'll just vanish. I'd love to know what they're basing that on because it's not based on any real world event. And on women, Bonnie Erbe isn't making predictions. One reason for that, as people who watch PBS' To The Contrary know, Erbe speaks to a vareity of women -- far, far from any echo chamber.

Ralph Nader is running for the presidency. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. As Team Nader points out, Friday's AP polling showed Nader at 6%: "And that's Nader at six percent with virtually no mainstream national press coverage." It should be added, that's Nader at six percent when the campaign's main focus right now is ballot access (meaning Nader has to raise his candidacy and ballot access while Dems and Repubes only have to get the word out on their campaigns). Brian Montopoli (CBS News) notes a CNN - Opinion Research Corporation poll that also found Nader at 6%. Ann Marie Somma (Hartford Courtant) reports on Nader's stop in Middletown, Conn where he spoke to "about 60 supporters at First Church of Christ" and told them, "Corporations have hijacked our government, turned Washington, D.C., into a corporate-occupied territory." Bill Coleman (Burlington Free Press) maintains, "In reality, the worthiest of candidates, namely Ralph Nader, is disregarded from the outset because the election of someone such as Mr. Nader would bring about a true day of reckoning for American corporations. . . . Yes, Ralph Nader supports an end to corporate personhood in contrast to Barack Obama or John McCain, whose campaigns are awash in contributions from corporate America. The differences between Mr. Nader and the candidates that you are permitted to read about or see on television each day are very far reaching and vast. For well over 30 years Mr. Nader has been actively supporting major cuts in military spending while Mr. Obama says that he wants to 'strengthen the military' and McCain also supports the extension of the U.S. oil empire." Patti Smith is doing her part for the Nader campaign and click here for a video of her at a campaign event at Cooper Union last month. Nader was in Cambridge over the weekend and Michael Horan (No Supper Tonight) posts the video and takes on the nonsense of a Nation editorial: "My initial reaction: somebody's not paying attention. Because I can answer that question without qualification, having watched Ralph Nader get up in front of a small crowd at First Parish Church in Cambridge Friday night and discuss each and every one of these issues. Head-on. (Along with tax reform, electoral reform, Palestine, the voting age, single payor healthcare, and etcetera). Issues that neither Obama or Hillary are going to acknowledge, much less address . The question isn't 'who is willing to point out the veritable herd of elephants in the room, and, great, stinking beshitted angry elephants at that?'; the question is why on earth The Nation and its readership, since they apparently share precisely the same ideals, refuse to acknowledge the obvious answer. Of course, what The Nation is really asking is, 'what magnificently-funded Democratic candidate bearing the corporate nihil obstat and the Wall Street imprimatur is raising these issues?' To which the answer is, such a beast does not, cannot exist in nature, and the absurdity of of asking this basilisk beast to bite the hand that feeds it-or rather, to devour its keeper whole--is patently obvious."

Today, Team Nader notes: "They say it's a foregone conclusion that either Obama or McCain will win the November election. After all, Obama and McCain are the odds on favorites to win. On the other hand. If you believe in betting against the crumbling corporate controlled two-party system. Then you have a choice. The long shot independent - Nader/Gonzalez. (Of course, if you bet and win, all that you will get is a shift of power from the big corporations back to the people. Not bad for politics.)"

iraqcorey glass
liam lahey
walter pincusthe washington post
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadelrob corbidgehoward lafranchinazila fathirichard a. oppel jr.the new york timesashraf khalilthe los angeles times

sherry e-mailed me an article and i'm going to quote some of it at the top. it's geoff boucher's 'SoCal Songbook: "California Dreamin'" by the Mamas and Papas' (los angeles times) and mama michelle phillips is speaking:

"He had the lyrics for those first eight bars that night," said Michelle Phillips, the only surviving member of the Mamas & the Papas. "I added the next few lines about the church. He hated it. Just hated it. But he didn't have anything better." That portion of the song -- " Stopped in to church / I passed along the way / Well, I got down on my knees / And I began to pray" -- has an interesting history.
Not everyone hears the same lyrics, and that includes the people who sang it."We were on the road after the song was a hit and I was a doing a sound check with Cass [Elliot], and I sang the lyric. She looked at me and said, 'Wait, what did you say? I thought the lyric was 'I pretend to pray.' That's how she had been singing it all along!"
The Phillipses divorced in 1970. Michelle would become a successful television actress and used "California Dreamin' " as the title of her 1986 autobiography. She was shocked when, shortly before his death in 2001, her ex-husband publicly said she didn't deserve to share the songwriting credit with him on the classic. "I was hurt," she said. "It didn't make sense to me."

i don't like john phillips and i met him repeatedly throughout his life. i think he got worse when he got clean (or maybe just more calculating). he seemed (my opinion) to get clean and realize he'd wasted the 70s and a portion of the 80s and had nothing to show for his life except the mamas and the papas. at that point, it was time to steal credit like crazy.

he tried to steal from michelle and cass.

with michelle, it was just hateful and i always thought he felt he could get away with that. (due to their divorce. the way some men always think they can trash their ex-wives.) with cass, he was a little more clever. you wouldn't realize he'd just insulted in until a few minutes after unless you knew how he was. cass was an artist and, if you paid attention, john would try to strip her of that earned credit.

the last time i saw him was before he got sick (and every 1 says that didn't make him kinder). i was visiting c.i. and we were eating dinner somewhere, i don't even remember where.

i looked over and said, 'don't look but i think john phillips is walking over.'

he was.

he said hello to c.i. and managed to remember me (sometimes he didn't). he was not invited to sit down but seated himself and was on semi-good behavior for about 10 minutes. then the pleasantries were exchanged and it was time to go down memory lane which was never a happy time with john.

he starts putting down denny and c.i. rolled the eyes but that was just 2 sentences. then he went to town on cass and c.i. said, 'you know, i'm really not going to listen to you belittle her. thank you for dropping by the table.'

he slid his tongue over his lower lip, starting with the left side of his mouth and pulling it in a little after the half-way point. he was looking at c.i. and you could tell he was trying to figure out what he was going to do next. c.i. made it easy for him, 'john, you can leave now.'

he was just evil.

i liked him better as a drug addict.

he was irresponsible and prone to depression (and yelling at times) then but he was a person. when he went clean, he had this really dark presence, this menacing presence.

so i always will believe, he got clean and realized how many years he'd wasted.

nothing could make him happy because the gifts he had writing songs with michelle or denny or by himself were so far in the past. he wasn't a singer. he didn't have a bad voice it just wasn't unique by itself. and his fame was always on his writing because his voice was so no big deal.

cass, michelle and denny you can pick out the mix - unless cass and michelle are really blending. but john was just the other voice in there.

michelle (solo and with the group) always acted the song. i don't mean the lyric. i mean she always had an idea of what the song was and her voice captured that. and that's always why i thought she and cass were so great together because cass acted the song as well. it was never (solo or group), 'oh let me hit this and this and this and this' and always more of a 'how do i serve this song?'

denny was 1 of kind and very sweet. i met him less than i did john but he was a very talented singer. but john. ugh. denny & michelle always seemed aware what year it was and weren't living in the past. (were because denny passed away last year.) and that's really what john should have done but he was just so bitter. when denny or michelle talked (still talks for michelle) about that time, it was with joy, a sense that it was a good time. they could remember the bad times in that period but that wasn't the focus. and they went on with their lives and had things to share after the band ended.

i always felt (my opinion) john orchestrated a lot of the drama in the group and was never called on it. i don't think his bitterness was just over 'those days are gone.' i think it was over the fact that he thought he could be a solo and he couldn't. and there was no way he could manipulate people the way he had during the mamas & the papas. he only invited michelle back in the group (after firing her) because it wasn't working without her. (as he himself admitted over and over in the 80s.) but even then, he'd brag a bit about how he got her back in the band and back in his life. he seemed very aware, in his bitter years, just how he had played the group.

when he cleaned up and i bumped into the 1st time, i was so depressed/offended, i had to stop listening to the music. it took me about a year or 2 before i could. (and i love them. i have their albums on vinyl as well as the boxed set from england with all the tracks on it.)

so that's my musical memory for the night.

and i'm not endorsing drug use or saying stay away. i am noting that when he was heavily self-medicated, it kept him from facing a lot of truths. when he cleaned up, he couldn't avoid them.

if you're new, i've talked about michelle before. i think she's wonderful. and think i've covered that (such as when she was on npr last year). but in case any 1 drives by and thinks, 'what about michelle?' she's wonderful. i have victim of love on vinyl and cd. (her solo album.)

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, June 9, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, justice in England (if not in the US), Corey Glass is told he does not have to leave Canada June 12th, the US military pumps service members full of drugs, and more.

Starting with Corey Glass. May 21st, US war resisters and Iraq War veteran Glass was informed that he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported. He will not be deported Thursday (the 12th). Torstar News Service reports: "Initially ordered to leave the country by June 12, Glass' departure date has been extended to July 10, after a month-long appeal process by his lawyer was finally approved last week." So he has a month to appeal. Dan Robson (Toronto Star) explains, "The former American soldier was set to become the first Iraq-war resister to be deported from Canada, after his application for refugee status was rejected more than two weeks ago. Glass said his lawyer put forward the appeal so he would have sufficient time to properly settle his accounts and allow him to leave his job in a professional manner." Friday, Amnesty issued their statement, "USA: James Corey Glass has right not to serve in Iraq," which noted, "Amnesty International believes James Corey Glass to have a genuine conscientious objection to serving as a combatant in the US forces in Iraq, and would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience if imprisoned on his return to the USA."

And last Tuesday, the House of Commons in Canada voted to let war resisters stay in the country. Krystalline Kraus (Rabble News) reports, "Liberal, NDP and Bloc MPs (137 in total) stood in favour -- literally stood up to vote as procedure dictates, though for a second the line of MPs could be confused for a makeshift honour guard of sorts -- of the 'war resister' motiong. From the ranks of the Conservative Party, 110 MPs stood against" and quotes US war resister Robin Long explaining, "I feel a small but growing and powerful group of people have woken up and are taking a stand . . . and these people are going to wake everyone else up, leading the people back to power and away from the corporate agenda Bush." October 1, 2007, Robin Long was arrested and told he would be deported.
The New Democratic Party of Canada issued a statement "calling on the [prime minister Stephen] Harper government to reexamine their decision to deport Long and allow him to stay in Canada." By October 4, 2007 the threat volume was lowered. Last week, Dianne Mathiowetz and Jaimeson Champion (Workers World) reported, "The motion to halt the deportations is a strong step against a series of recent reactionary rulings issued by the Canadian Supreme Court. The court's refusals to hear the appeals for refugee status filed by numerous GI resisters have paved the way for the possible deportation of dozens, if not hundreds, of conscientious objectors. The vote in the Canadian Parliament comes on the heels of a deportation order given to GI resister Corey Glass. Glass, an Indiana resident, signed up for the National Guard in 2002. He was deployed to Iraq in 2005 and served five months as a military intelligence sergeant before going AWOL to protest what he deemed an 'illegal and immoral' war. Glass moved to Toronto, Canada, in August 2006." Kevin Brooker (Calgary Herald) argues, "There are many outward reasons why granting sanctuary to an estimated 200 former soldiers should be an automatic gesture for Canada. Foremost is the simple fact that the United Nations itself, not to mention enlightened voices around the world, declared the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to be a violation of the UN charter. It also would support the Nuremberg Principles, which compel a soldier to withdraw from military acts, like this one, which are patently illegal." And Jan Heynen writes to the Ottawa Citizen to support war resisters:

Let them stay Last Tuesday, the Opposition parties in the House of Commons joined together to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would require the Canadian government to allow permanent resident status to U.S. war resistors and their families and to cease all deportation and removal proceedings against the war resisters. Canada refused to join the war in Iraq. It is consistent with that decision to accept people into the country who don't agree either with the legality of that war.The illegality of that war has been demonstrated many times. It has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives, both Iraqi and U.S. Our own government should follow the parliamentary directive, which many people agree with. It can restore some of the shine to our reputation in the world as a peacemaker. Jan Heynen, Ottawa

To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to England where gender discrimation and harasment appears to be taken much more seriously than in the US. Caroline Gammel (Telegraph of London) reports that Rabia Siddique ("female major who helped rescue two SAS Soldiers" and also "a lawyer who worked for the Army Legal Services") went public about being being "victimised by senior officers and subjected to months of religious, racial and sex discrimination and quotes her stating, "For the last several years I have very much enjoyed and been honoured to serve my country as a legal officer in the armed forces. Unfortunately I have been treated unfavourably because I am a Muslim, Asian woman. As a result of this treatment my career, which I was fully committed to, has suffered which has caused me great distress. Because of this I have felt compelled to bring a claim to this employment tribunal." In the US, Rabia Siddique might next pop up in the news a year and a half from now. Instead, Caroline Gammel later reported that Siddique's case had been resolved and "an undisclosed settlement was agreed. Her lawyer Joanna Wade said Major Siddique had been 'very happy' with the agreement, but refused to divulge details. Part of the deal was the latter from Gen Sir Richard" and quotes Siddique declaring, "I am also pleased to hear what the Chief of the General Staff has said about lessons that may be learnt, which is primarily what I was seeking by bringing these claims." Tom Kelley and Michael Seamark (The Daily Mail) report, "Military chiefs have vowed to learn lessons from the treatment of a female Muslim Army lawyer who was 'given a hug instead of a medal' for her part in trying to free soldiers kidnapped in Iraq. , , , A last-minute settlement was agreed yesterday as her case was due to be heard by Central London employment tribunal." The kidnapping case referred to was the two British military personnel caught in Basra with bombs, guns, etc. in a civlian car, wearing wigs and disguises to appear "Iraqi". Robert F. Worth (New York Times) noted in real time, "The arrest and detention of the British officers, who were in Arab dress, was handled appropriately, said the spokesman, who agreed to discuss the episode on the condition of anonymity. A judge issued an arrest warrant and informed both the Basra governor and the city council about the case, he said." Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) observed then, "The fight broke out when British forces attacked a police station after the detention of two British soldiers apparently disguised in local dress." Solo, Tavernise reported, "The official said that the soldiers were undercover officers dressed as Iraqis and that Iraqi police officers had arrested them after the men fired at a traffic police officer." Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) first reported on Rabia Siddique's case at the first of this month. Military service member or civilian contractor, think of all the US women who wait and wait for something resembling justice. Which usually never arrives.

Meanwhile Mark Thompson (Time magazine) reports on 'treatment,' "For the first time in history, a sizable and growing number of U.S. combat troops are taking daily doses of antidepressants to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The medicaines are intended not only to help troops keep their cool but also to enable the already strapped Army to preserve its most precious resources: soldiers on the front lines." Yeah, I think Louis Mayer used to trot a line like that out years ago at Metro and we all know it did wonders for Judy Garland. Remember, when everything falls apart (as it does), the defense is always that it's never the organization's fault, only the individuals. While US service members are pumped with drugs, AP reported on puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki visiting Iraq and insisting to Iran that the treaty and he the White House are trying to force through will not allow Iraq to be used as a stage to launch a US war with Iran. The question of course is does the puppet tell the White House the truth or does he tell Iran the truth? AP notes: "Iran fiercely opposes the deal, fearing it will lead to permanent US bases on its doorstep amid fears of an eventual American attack. Iran has led a vocal campaign against the deal, with powerful former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani vowing last week that people in Iraq and the region won't allow it. That has led to US accusations that Tehran is actively trying to scuttle the agreement - putting al-Maliki's government in a tight spot between its two rival allies." Asraf Khalil (Los Angeles Times) reports that while the talks went on, "a public affairs program broadcast on Iranian television" featured "one panelist" who "compared American bases in Iraq to the installation of Russian missiles in Cuba during the Cold War betwen the United States and the Soviet Union." Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) reports that while the meetings were going on, the US military in Iraq was yet again trumpeting the capture of a supect that they insisted was linked to Iran but, as Kramer noted, "The United States military regularly announces the detention of militia fighters it says are operating with Iranian support. Iranian authorities deny they have a hand in the fighting."

Kramer also notes 2 US service members died from bombings Sunday (one in Baghad, the otehr in Kirkuk). The number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war currently stands at 4094. Also on Sunday, Reuters reports, the Turkish military and the PKK again fought on the border and "an operation against the rebels" PKK "continued on Monday." CBS and AP notes, "U.S. soldiers under heavy fire during a raid Monday in northwestern Iraq called in airstrikes and killed five suspected al Qaeda in Iraq militants, the military said." The airstrike comes as Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports Iraqi officials are saying they want the US service members "confined to their bases" and off the streets. In other Iraq news, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) also reports on the diplomatic front: "The Turkish Prime Minister is preparing to make his first trip to Iraq since the invasion, while Jordan will soon send an ambassador to Baghdad, in the latest signs of a desire in the region to work with the US-backed Iraqi Government. Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, and Jalal Talabani, the President, during his forthcoming stay, according to Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi Government spokesman." Who would Jordan be sending? The post has not been filled.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .


Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded five people, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 3 lives and left twelve injured, a Baghdad grenade attack that left two police officers wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded five people, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded two police officers, a Zanjili grenade attack that wounded two Iraqi police officers, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded one police officer, an Al-Muradiyah roadside bombing that injured four women who "were doing farming in one of the orachards," an Al Wahihiya mortar attack that claimed 1 life and left two injured and a Dali Abbas roadside bombing injured one person.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants shot up a Baghdad jewelry store resulting in 3 deaths and two police officers wounded, unknown assailants shot dead "two prominent Sheikhs in Mosul," a woman was shot dead in Balad Ruz, a "retired officer" was shot dead in Hibhib and a shooting in Muqdadiyah left two "seriously wounded". Reuters notes a Mosul home invasion where two residents were murdered and a police officer shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 25 corpses (unidentified) at the Baquba morgue were buried after 40 days without being claimed.

iraqcorey glass
kevin brookerdan robsondianne mathiowetzjaimeson champion
robin longamnesty
the new york timessabrina tavernise
andrew e. kramermcclatchy newspapers
richard a. oppel jr.
robert f. worth
ashraf khalilthe los angeles times
deborah haynes

An Article 32 -- the military's equivalent of a preliminary hearing -- may be held as early as next week at Camp Pendleton. Winnick is a sniper attached to the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.
In 2004, while also serving with the Three-One, his quick thinking and aggressiveness during the battle for Fallouja were extolled by author Bing West in his book "No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah."

that's from tony parry's 'IRAQ: Marine hero now accused of crimes' (los angeles times) and that's some iraq news for you. now let's dive into e-mails.

why, oh, why, oh, why can't i find it in me to support cynthia mckinney?

that's a jerk named steven's question. he doesn't think it's fair to blame greens for 'refusing to call out sexism'. excuse me, steven, greens like medea benjamin and kimberly wilder actively contributed to the sexist attacks on hillary clinton. they didn't just stay silent, they contributed. so did ted glick and all the other ridiculous pieces of trash.

now that we've cleared that up, cynthia had my support. she lost it because i'm not interested in voting for a presidential candidate that's not trying to win the white house.

that and the fact that she surrounded herself with sexists like glick, that she allowed a piece of trash/scum who loathes all feminists (and wrote two pieces attacking all feminists - of all races - that were published at counterpunch) means she doesn't know how to discipline her rag-tag campaign.

it also would have cost cynthia nothing to stand up and say, 'excuse me? nutcrackers being sold by msnbc at airports? with hillary on them? these vile words? as a woman i'm offended.'

cynthia never did.

she lost my vote. it's gone.

if hillary's out of the race (which appears likely barring a barack scandal), i vote for ralph nader gladly.

tpd wanted me to know that yes, 'kimberly wilder is nuts, but she doesn't speak for all greens.' so where's the green critique on the sexism in this campaign?

you can rush off and write something after the fact but, when it mattered, you gleefully stood back and enjoyed it. you may pretend to be opposed to sexism but you HATE hillary so much that you didn't care what tactics were used against her and when your own party used the same tactics against her and propped up barack, you found it delightful.

kiss my ass. as a national party, you're a joke. you'll always be a joke.

it's because you refuse to act like a political party. and members refuse to demand that the party stop fretting over what's best for the democratic party.

you're pathetic and you have no real issues, just a bunch of blah, blah, blah talking points that your candidates appear unable or unwilling to develop. you're running for something, you just can't figure out what.

don't like what i'm saying?

you stayed silent while women were attacked. not only did you stay silent a large number of you contributed to the attacks.

kiss my ass about your vast concern for social justice.

LIE.

if you gave a damn about social justice you would have called out misogny. you didn't. you exposed yourselves as frauds and fakes.

you can lie to yourself from here to tomorrow. you're obviously very good at lying to yourself because you continue to believe that the leaders of your 'party' really want the white house. year after year they wuss out and betray the grass roots. you should have started expelling those liars a long time ago.

as c.i. notes in today's snapshot, barack's now saying if he gets into the white house he's not sure troops can withdrawn. medea benjamin, where's your pathetic ass?

huh, medea?

now that's not really new because it's what samantha power said in the spring.

but pathetic medea benjamin - who supposedly wants to end the illegal war - hasn't protested barack.

that's because she's really about trashing women.

go trash yourself, medea. looking at the area around your eyes, it appears you've already started.

a good e-mail came in from community member keesha. she knew what blog ripped off c.i. and e-mailed with a copy and paste of the comment she left there today:

As a Hillary supporter, I come here to see women supporting other women. This is my final visit. ----- didn't discover the link she's elading us to. Another blogger, a pro-Hillary one, steered people to it on Tuesday afternoon. At least nine other blogs then noted it and gave credit to the woman. ----- wants me to believe that she just happened to discover her link on Thursday? Her link to a May 14 blog post? I don't like stealing, I don't like women who refuse to credit other women. I'm sure my comment will disappear but I'm done with TGW and maybe for a second or too people can know why. It is not feminist to stab other women in the back and steal their work.
Keesha 06.06.08 - 3:49 pm #

i've put '-----' in place of the name of the blogger. otherwise, that's the unedited comment keesha left and, she's right, it probably will be removed.


and i have run out of time.

okay, let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, June 6, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Barack isn't 'pledging' to do anything on Iraq, the VA computer systems lack all security, Nader qualifies for Arizona ballot, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Teviah Moro (The Orillia Packet & Times) reports that the Quakers in Orillia will demonstrate tomorrow in an attempt to register their support for war resisters in Canada. Ottawa, Nelson, B.C., Victoria, B.C., Port Dover, Sarnia and Strathory will also hold demonstrations. Moro notes: "Organizers of the Orillia rally, to be held outside the Opera House from 12:30 to 1:30 p. m., aim to explain the underlying issues of the pending deportations and will have petitions on hand."The rallies will be taking place to underscore the recent action in Canada's Parliament. Tuesday Canada's House of Commons passed a motion granting war resisters safe harbor. The motion is non-binding but it is hoped that the country's prime minister, Stephen Harper, will honor it. It is especially important with regards to US war resister Corey Glass. May 21st, US war resisters and Iraq War veteran Glass was informed that he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported. That is six days from now. Will the non-binding motion prevent the conservative Harper from ordering Glass' deportation? Rick Salutin (Toronto Globe & Mail) doesn't seem optimistic noting that from an AIDS conference (global conference) to any other issue, Harper loves to say no to the people: "Lately, it's been no to a safe-injection site in Vancouver; provincial climate plans; Ontario's budget; an inquiry into the Bernier case; letting U.S. war resisters stay. For a government, the Conservatives are uniquely, bizarrely litigious, the sign of a mentality that loves to fight."With more on that, this is from Michael Werbowski (OhmyNews International) reports that the vote on the motion "comes just in time for US army recruit Corey Glass, 25, a war resister who came to Canada in 2006 and was recently told to leave Canada by June 12 or face removal to the United States, welcomed the vote. Upon hearing the news of the motion passed by the lower house, Glass expressed his appreciation for the parliamentarians, "I'm thankful that the MPs voted to let me and the other war resisters stay in Canada. I'm also thankful to all the Canadians who urged their MPs to support us."

Meanwhile, It was two years ago today, as Austin Jenkins (OPB News) notes, that Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq in June 2006. In August 2006, he faced and Article 32 hearing. In February, he faced a kanagroo court-martial. Judge Toilet (aka John Head) declared a mistrial over defense objection as Watada was about to take the stand (after which the defense would have rested and the military jury would have reached a decision). Judge Toilet forgot a lot that day. He announced that a new court-martial would take place in March but that was really beyond his call (and why no court-martial took place then). He also forgot about the US Constitution, popularly known as "the law of the land," and it's provision against double-jeopardy. In November of last year, as Judge Toilet repeatedly tried to force another court-martial, US District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled that no action could take place until the double-jeopardy was resolved. Watada has been in limbo since. William Cole (Honolulu Advertiser) speaks to Ehren's father, Bob Watada who has "suggested to his son's attorneys that they somehow force a conclusion to the issue" and whom Cole quotes stating, "The attorneys are talking to the Army. They aren't telling me what they are saying, but they are talking to them." Austin Jenkins (OPB News) quotes one of Watada's two civilian attorneys, Ken Kagan, declaring, "It's conceivable that the appeals process in the 9th Circuit could consume anywhere from 18 months to three years. So that is a limbo that is very hard for Lt. Watada to imagine but he's prepared to do what he needs to do."


There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


Shhhh. Listen? It's the sound of hundreds of computers in Panhandle Media booting up over their sobs as they force determination to yet again sell their political crush as someone who will end the illegal war. Media anointed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is not 'anti-war' and is not seriously opposed to the illegal war. But if you didn't have Tommy Hayden, Laura Flanders and the gang lying for him non-stop, people wouldn't think otherwise, now would they? (Those two named because they have both -- in February -- talked about how Barack's feet need to be held to the fire and yet they've never done so. Someday I suppose, as the Mighty Bosstones once sang.)

The Press Trust of India reports that Barack told CNN he would "not tule out the possibility that conditions on the ground could alter his policy of immediately beginning a troop withdrawal and that Barack insisted of his 'pledge' to end the illegal war, "Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind."
Confronted with his statements on withdrawal policy, Obama replied, "Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind". He spoke of "broader perspective"s and offered praise for Gen David Petraeus. It's shocking only if you've trusted the liars of Panhandle Media. Barack has changed his position on the Iraq War repeatedly. While running for the US Senate, he told Elaine and I at a big money, private fundraiser that he didn't favor withdrawal. His attitude was that the US was in Iraq now and had to win. (Neither Elaine nor I contributed to his run. We both immediately walked out of the fundraiser.) At that point he was a myth of the radical left, an "anti-war" candidate. The press picked up on that and he became the "anti-war" Senator which required ignoring not only his public statements (his many public statements) but his continued voting for the illegal war once he got into the US Senate. Throughout the campaign, he has signaled (and sometimes stated) to the mainstream press that his stance is far from it's portrayed. "Hopelessly Devoted To Barack" Tom Hayden made a real ass out of himself doing a quickie write up of an NYT article co-written by Michael Gordon. The reality of what was what was in the transcript of the interview which the paper posted online. In February, after his advertsiments where he robotically declared that his mother died of cancer, the campaign went into overtime with an advertisement that played like the Pepsi Generation (truly, it was the late 60s and early seventies Pepsi generation commercials). To a bad 'rock' guitar, the commercial opened and featured quick shots of Barack barking out sentences while groupies swooned. "We want . . ." he barked over and over, a laundry list of demands. The Iraq War was on it. But Barack wasn't running to be "we," he was running to become the nominee of the Democratic Party and then the president. There were no "I will end the Iraq War." All he did was offer what "we" wanted. It got the psychos in Panhandle Media excited. Of course, were he serious about ending the illegal war, his campaign would have stolen not the Pepsi commercials of that period, but the Coke commericals: I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony . . .

There was no "pledge" or "promise" made to end the illegal war, despite the groupies like Tom Hayden going bug-eyed crazy in their efforts to pretend otherwise (a fleeting sentence delivered in Houston, TX, as ginned up by Hayden into a new plan for Iraq). Then came the crash and burn of his advisor (a counter-insurgency supporter and War Hawk) Samantha Power. The pathetics in Panhandle Media made themselves laughable -- and include John Nichols, Davey D and BuzzFlash at the top of that list. Poor Samantha "fired" (Power resigned) for calling Hillary Clinton a "monster." Poor sweet Sammy. No, she resigned because of the damage she did with the press in England. The "monster" insult was the trivia the MSM pumped out. On that same trip, she insulted Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK and presumed ally of the next US administration regardless of who becomes president, and she gave an interview (that Panhandle Media refused to cover) to the BBC where she explained that Barack would be not be held accountable, if elected president, to any 'pledges' about Iraq he's making on the campaign trail. She explained, as an advisor to Barack and a campaign insider, that any plans about what to do in Iraq would be decided only after he entered the White House. Had that interview gotten the attention it should have, Barack would have faced tough questions. That didn't happen. It wasn't of interest to the corporate media (which still wants the illegal war) to give it much traction and the rejects of Panhandle Media are in love with Barack because of his 'connections' (his using of) Saul, Bernardine and Bill. They deluded themselves into believing he was a Socialist when he is just a user who will use anyone regardless of political ideology in his efforts to climb to the top.

The Queen of the Beggars, Amy Goodman, wanted credit for a few minutes (two?) she aired of her speaking with Barack. In it, he basically repeated what Samantha Power had said. Goody never pursued that in panel discussions (all panel discussions accepted the lie that he was against the illegal war and would immediately end it). Goody never connected it with the Samantha Power BBC interview (though Barack was making the same points Power had months prior) and she never wrote one of her bad columns, where she recycles some segment of her show, on the topic. It was lie, lie, lie, denial, denial. They worked overtime not to include Eli Lake (New York Sun) report in the narrative. Lake reported that the "day-to-day coordinator" of Barack's campaign had just written a paper which argued for 60,000 to 80,000 US troops to remain in Iraq "as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office."

Among the very few who have tried to maintain perspective and stick to reality about War Hawk Barack are Phyllis Bennis, John Pilger, Doug Henwood and Juan Gonzalez. It's a very small list. By contrast, most have offered 'reasons' of support for Barack like the insane Dave Lindorff who believes Barack should be supported because Barak is "a black candiate who has risked jail by doing drugs."

The violence continues every day in Iraq and Barack, not even having the nomination, already signals it's a-okay with him. In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a home bombing in Sulaiman Beck, a Jalwla roadside bombing that wounded one person. Reuters notes a woman blew herself in at a Ramadi police station claiming the life of 1 police officer and injuring four more and, dropping back to Thursday, that 4 people were killed in Sadr City from a US air strike.

Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 suspects shot dead in Al Anbar Province, 1 police officer shot twice in Al Anbar Province and wounded and 1 civilian shot in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 3 police officers were shot dead in Dour.

Kidnappings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person kidnapped in Kirkuk.

Yesterday CNN's Jamie McIntyre broke the latest Department of Defense news on CNN Newsroom:


JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Asked to resign, which is code for firing, is the top civilian in charge of the Air Force, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and the top military general in charge of the Air Force, Air Force Chief of Staff General Mike Moseley. The two top leaders of the Air Force are being replaced because Secretary Gates has received a highly critical report of how the Air Force has reacted to an embarrassing incident last year which a B-52 bomber flew across country with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that nobody knew were live nuclear weapons until the plane landed in Barksdale , Louisiana .There were supposed to be big changes made from that. But a recent inspection of the base was less than satisfactory, and Secretary Gates just got a report on his desk from an independent investigator, a Navy admiral who has been in charge of reviewing what the Air Force has done to take care of this. It's not just this issue though. There have been a number of leadership issues in the Air Force including questions about a conflict of interest around a high-profile public relations contract that was left from the Air Force. And all of that together led Secretary Gates to decide that he was going to take decisive action.It's not unlike what he did when he heard about the shortcomings at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital . In that case, he fired the Army secretary and head of the hospital there, as well -- Brianna.

There have been a number of issues with the Veterans Administration Dept as well but no heads are rolling. At the start of the week, Mary Mosquera (FCW) reported, "Sensitive data on about 1,000 patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military hospitals might have been compromised, Walter Reed spokesman Chuck Dasey said. The names of the patients, who are enrolled in the Military Health System, their Social Security numbers and birth dates were among the personally identifiable information in a computer file that was shared without authorization, officials said June 2." AP broke this news about the May 2006 breach at Walter Reed. The key point of the reports is how the Office of Management and Budget issued orders, in 2006, for increased securit on the part of the VA. But they broke it with the government explaining this week about the 2006 computer breach. We (Ava and C.I.) revealed earlier this week that there's a VA breach that took place after the breach the government is now admitting to. This breach has nothing to do with Walter Reed. The basics are that an over-forty-years-old male (who name rhymes with "Los Lobos" and who is a veteran) used a civilian computer to access veterans records. The government is not only aware of the breach, they investigated it. They didn't do a very good job. The government does not know what the person viewed or changed. They know that, from the basement of a non-federal government building, he used a PC to enter the VA's computer database without permission or authorization. Present when he did this was a woman (also a civilian and one who has never served in the military) whom the government never questioned. What the government did do was call together the suspect's superiors at his place of employment -- a four story building whose fourth floor is not used for anything (the basement counted as a floor makes for five floors) -- on the second floor in what passed for an investigation. Those civlians 'assisting' in the investigation of the breach that happened at their place of business were known as "administration." (E.g., they spoke with "administration.") The investigation could not figure out whether the supsect was telling the truth about why he entered the VA system without permission and, certainly, to know about that they should have spoken with the woman present when the breach occurred. The suspect offered two versions of his story and that may be what confused the investigators (though it was very simple for us to track down the particulars). They do know, due to the suspect admitting to it, that the records of someone who served during Vietnam (and only during Vietnam) were accessed. (Hint to reporters, that leads to your human interest angle). The suspect briefly told government investigators a story regarding that Vietnam era veteran that the investigators did not buy; however, it was easily checked out had they bothered to speak to the Vietnam veteran (which they never did). There is fear that the suspect altered the Vietnam veteran's record (we are told by civilian sources that no alteration of that record took place). Why does the government think that? It goes to the human interest angle. In terms of hard news, the angle is the "how." The "how" of it goes to a huge flaw that was supposed to have been addressed and was never addressed. It goes to lack of oversight at the VA.

We're not here to spoonfeed news outlets, get off your lazy asses and don't expect two media critics to do all your work. (It's as if today's Woodward & Bernsteins expect you not only to spill the beans, but also type up their reports and then wipe their asses.) The federal goverment made a big deal this week about honesty and 'fessed up to problems in May of 2006. The 2007 breach is more serious not because of the suspect or what he may or may not have done but how he got into the system without authorization. The breach should never happened and were basic guidelines followed (guidelines that any civilian computer system would follow), it never would have happened. The big story is the "how" of the breach, not the "who." And it goes to the OMB's orders not being followed. The first three digits of the civilian location where the breach took place are "312." The street has "East" in it. And the street's name was also the name of a long running TV show but in singular not plural. We're done spoonfeeding the press except to advise NYT that Ralph should have had this story.

This is our third (here's the second) and last spoonfeeding. After the "how," the "who" still isn't the next big story. The big story then is how the federal government attempted to bury the breach. That wasn't just by still not telling the public about it. It also included a rush to wrap up the investigation before it was complete (the orders for the wrap up came from high up). That's why the woman who witnessed the breach was never interviewed. It was that woman's computer that was used to breach the VA system. There's no reason not to interview her. All this time later, she's still not been interviewed by the government. When the investigation was ongoing, a family emergy meant she was "unaccessible" (to her place of employment but nothing prevented the investigators from seeking her out away from her place of her work) and the rush to wrap up the investigation and keep the entire matter on the down low meant she was never interviewed. The big story is the "how" and goes to the lack of security. The next angle is the rush to keep the story as quiet as possible which includes rushing through an investigation. The suspect himself is really not a huge part of the hard news story. (And the suspect, for the record, is the only person we have not spoken to.) (There are feature articles to be found throughout.)

In other news, the UN Rights of the Child Committee is calling out the US government for (a) the imprisonment of juvelines in Iraq, Afghanstan and Guantamo and for (b) military recruitment of under-18-year-olds in the US.

Turning to US political news, Team Nader reports that US presidential candidate Ralph Nader needed nearly 22,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Arizona and that over 65,000 were collected. Ralph Nader and his running mate Matt Gonzalez should now be on the ballot in Arizona -- barring any dirty tricks on the part of the DNC. Despite Nader's strong polling when his name included in the polling, there is an effort on the part of the MSM and Panhandle Media to ignore his campaign. Today, Team Nader points to another example of how the independent candidate is shut out of the discussions and argues the case for Nader-Gonzalez as the only agents of change:

"How do you get people to vote against their own self interest? That's the trick.
One way is to make people believe in a dream. That's what all of the mainstream politicians are doing - feeding that dream. Obama is feeding a dream - a dream of change and renewal. He's feeding a dream that the conditions that surround us - Iraq, the economy, the racial divide, the class divide in this country - that they are magically going to go away by voting for this centrist Democrat. That is nonsense, of course. Obama is not proposing any structural changes. McCain is feeding us the dream, the fantasy of power and control. That somehow the military might of the U.S. will prevail across the globe. These are fantasies that are being fed by the politicians. They are not so much lies, as delusions. But we will have brought it on ourselves by supporting these politicians.
By ignoring any candidate or any ideas that might conflict with those dreams. The Obama moment is a feel good moment. It makes us feel good. But the programs Obama is proposing - up and down and all around - are the same centrist Democratic positions.
The same people are going to be running the show. All of the corporations are rapidly switching their contributions to the Democrats."
These are the words of the American novelist Russell Banks.
We heard Banks the other day interviewed by Chris Lydon on Radio Open Source. (Listen to the interview here.) What wasn't mentioned was Nader/Gonzalez. So, let us say it loud and clear. Nader/Gonzalez. Shift the power from the few to the many. Free our government of corporate domination. Restore the sovereignty of an engaged people. Don't fall for the trick. Help us put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot. We're on our way to give the American people a choice in November. But we need your help. And we need it now.
You can give up to $4,600. But please, give whatever you can. Shift the power.
Feed the living, breathing people-powered alternative. Support Nader/Gonzalez.


iraqcorey glassteviah moroehren watadaaustin jenkinsrick salutinmichael werbowskiwilliam cole
cnn newsroomjamie mcintyrejohn walcott

how about that roundtable? be sure to read the gina & krista round-robin tomorrow morning and you'll know just what i'm talking about.

1 thing i need to put in is from 1 of my sisters. she took a vacation and stayed at a nice hotel. but, get this, she and her husband had to put up with some asshole next to them. he made noise but they didn't have to get up any specific time (it was a vacation) so they just ignored it. then, after his party breaks up, he's banging on their wall. she asked, 'is he banging at us?' they weren't even talking, let alone have the t.v. or radio on.

every few minutes he'd slam a fist into the wall. finally, my sister's husband gets off the couch (they were in a suite), walks over to the wall and bangs back. this leads to non-stop pounding on the other side. they called down to the front desk to complain and that stopped the banging for about 15 minutes but then it started up again. (my sister was reading a book and my brother-in-law was going over maps for their boating the next day, they were not talking to each other - not that talking should have caused a problem.) this time, her husband (my brother-in-law) wants to go over and kick the man's ass. but my sister calls the front desk and it becomes this big thing with the police.

the man gets taken away (he'd broken furniture during his party, among other things).

apparently the people below him had complained about the noise from his party which was why it broke up and he went around banging on the walls assuming it was some 1 on either side of him. now get this, he never should have had a room. he was under 18 and his parents who spoil him rented him the suite. the police could only take him down to the station and call the parents. apparently, he couldn't be legally responsible for the room because his parents signed for it and he was a minor (16). what kind of parents put their child up in a hotel room to party?

they knew he was going to have a party.

what got broken? the couch, the coffee table, there was a hole in the bedroom wall (which wasn't a shared wall for my sister so fortunately they didn't hear that noise), the drapes had been pulled down and ripped. the tv was trashed.

2 grown ups put their 16-year-old son in a hotel room to let him party and he trashed the place.
now i'm a new mother, granted, and won't have to worry about the 16 year old stage for some time (though i don't believe that's normal 16 year old behavior) but what were those parents thinking?

you don't put a 16 y.o. in a hotel to party. they're lucky no 1 got hurt. (there was intense drinking. it was the talk of the hotel the next day as various parents of children who showed up at the party staggered home drunk.)

they're on a 3 week vacation and already there's another horror story but my sister said she'll tell me about that on the next phone call.

it also involves under 18 y.o.s in a suite.

i can remember my prom (i wasn't raised rich, i have money now) and how it was a big deal for kids to borrow their parents car to drive to it. (the incident above was not a prom party for any 1 wondering.) then it became you had to rent a limo, then you had to do that. i guess those who spoil their kids are now renting hotel suites for them to party unsupervised.

please read elaine's 'Who's standing up for Iraqi women?' and mike's ' Day 13 Goodman still won't say 'Corey Glass'' and especially ava and c.i.'s 'TV: Grime & Grit TV.' on the latter, that was secondary topic of the roundtable for several reasons. 1st it is a great article by ava and c.i. 2nd, there was a lot of anger from members. why weren't we linking to it? mike had.

but the rest of us? really hadn't. that wasn't a slam on ava and c.i. and was actually due to the fact that we are all exhausted. you have to understand that we have spent all of may getting out the vote for hillary and some go back to april on that.

but we were called out on that by a member and gina said it was the biggest community complaint that she and krista had heard all week. ava and c.i. said it was no big deal and that every 1 was tired. (which we all are.) but it turned out there was another reason for the anger.

c.i. was ripped off repeatedly this week. i didn't know (nor did others). but it went through the community in e-mails the way it always does.

in 1 instance, c.i.'s very strong feminist statements about hillary appeared word for word for 4 sentences at another blog with the woman presenting them as her own. in another, c.i. linked to something this week.

i can get away with talking about this because c.i. and i go so far back (we're friends since college) so let me do that but do it in a way that c.i. won't be upset.

there's a feminist - and offline feminist. c.i. knows her and they share a common friend. c.i. was noting (all week) women's reactions to the attempts to install barack as the nominee. the common friend said, 'you need to note ___.' c.i. said, 'i didn't know she had a blog.' c.i. said no problem.

it turned out to be a problem because c.i. couldn't find it. the woman writes for (may do more than just write for) a feminist print periodical. so c.i. finally went there. flipping through various pages online, c.i. found a page that listed the woman's blog. c.i. went there and found the hillary commentary. c.i. included it.

last night or this morning (days after c.i. highlighted it) another blog's highlighting it.

i said 'so' in the roundtable and the member loudly said 'so?' back. c.i. stepped in and explained what i didn't know, what c.i. didn't know at the time the feminist was included in the iraq snapshot. that's not the woman's blog. it was the woman's blog. the woman's moved her blog.

point, any 1 wanting to highlight the feminist because she just stumbled upon it by accident would have highlighted the new blog (and c.i. explained 'i didn't realize the blog had switched, i am planning to highlight the new blog as soon as i can' - c.i. heard from the common friend that it was the old blog address after the feminist was quoted in the snapshot).

so the point that the member (and others knew - before c.i. did) was that c.i. had highlighted the old blog when the blog's been moved. any 1 stumbling upon the website today by accident would automatically be taken to the new blog. meaning that, yes, a woman online obviously saw c.i.'s snapshot quoting the feminist and decided to play like (her own words portray it this way), she just happened to find it all on her own.

now it takes 2 seconds to say 'via __, i found __'

and if i'm not being clear, you had to go ass backwards to find the old web address. c.i. did because c.i. couldn't find the feminist's blog. so c.i. went to the feminist periodical and flipped through various webpages to find the site (which gave the old address). the post c.i. was highlighting was from the middle of the may. the feminist later moved her site (to word press or from word press, i don't know that for sure) and there's no way that this 1 post - from the middle of may - was highlighted by another blog (over 24 hours after c.i. had highlighted it) without the blogger having seen c.i.'s snapshot.

why is it an issue?

because c.i.'s too kind with links and c.i. has in fact linked several times in the last 3 weeks to the blog that ripped c.i. off.

it's a very big issue to the community.

it's an issue that people show up asking for highlights and never give anything back. it's an issue when c.i.'s steering traffic to other sites and those sites never do anything back. members know not to complain about that to c.i. c.i. doesn't care. but when 1 of those sites is turning around and ripping off c.i. it is an issue and even c.i. has to hear about it.

okay, i made some notes for myself when this came up. ___ highlighted it this morning and made it their morning post. it is their big post.

the feminist blogging about hillary wrote her post may 14th.

c.i. linked to it in tuesday's snapshot and, in fact, mislinked because it is the old site (the new site has moved all the old stuff over). so this morning, a woman suddenly finds a may 14th blog post on her own? and finds it at the old site?

no.

that woman ripped off c.i. she saw the tuesday snapshot and decided she better link to it as well. that's fine. but pretending like you stumbled upon something written on may 14th when you didn't? refusing to say, 'as c.i. linked to tuesday ...' or some such thing?

'via c.i.' two words. it wouldn't have killed the woman.

now the woman can forget about her site ever being highlighted community wide.

members are outraged.

8 different members have been posting at that woman's site since c.i. linked to her starting 3 weeks ago. and their comments have included highlighting c.i. or ava & c.i.'s writing.

not only has the woman refused to provide any link to c.i., she's now raiding c.i.'s snapshots?

let me explain to the thief, you are outraged that hillary did not receive her just due and you turn around and rip off another woman? you're asking for people paying attention to be outraged.

no 1 in the world believes you found the may 14th post all by yourself. it's not a democratic site and the woman's not a democrat (she's a left feminist). she posts pretty much every day, the feminist, and you want people to believe that on your own you found a may 14th post? that you paged back through the archives (by chance!) on june 5th and found it?

or that you just happened to make the same mistake c.i. did of linking to the old site?

c.i. is always gracious and explained to the member during the roundtable, 'the important thing is that' the feminist got highlighted somewhere else as well.

and that is good.

but good is also giving credit where it's due.

i'm going to return to this topic tomorrow night. but this does piss of the community as a number of websites have learned recently.

in april and may, to show that, yes, blogs are blogging about hillary, c.i. was very free with the links. that's because there was this myth that the hillary community was a tiny 1 and c.i.'s snapshots are read by the media (by friends in it as well as non-friends) so it was a way to refute the msm meme that hillary had no online support.

and what we saw was that c.i. got ripped off by those same blogs. there's 1 that links to me and i'll be ripping into it in the near future. (i'm waiting for a reason that has nothing to do with me being linked to on their blogroll - and to be clear, i'm not talking about susan of random thoughts, she may be the only other 1 that links to me and i don't want people thinking i'm talking about her when i'm talking about a group blog. i will rip into it when the titty baby who hates hillary returns with her 1st post. she's refused to blog while the blog's site has been pro-hillary. played titty baby because she loves barack. so i'm waiting for her big return to cover both topics at the same time.)

and here's the thing about ripping off c.i., the traffic c.i. supplies stops visiting. they see the rip offs and they get sick of it.

the 1st time they see a rip off, their reaction is 'well maybe it's an accident.' then they see the second 1. they note the fact that while c.i.'s being free with the links, these losers are do nothing for the common ills community. so then a member will post something and see what happens. usually a link to c.i. in the comments. sometimes a link and a comment like 'yeah, i love that point. i loved it when it appeared at the common ills.'

on that, we're talking about things like what's in today's snapshot.

did you know ed koch visited war resisters in canada during vietnam? that he was in congress at the time and he introduced 4 bills to give them amnesty?

i vaguely remembered that when i read the snapshot. (i should more than vaguely remember it because i remember c.i. and elaine working on that in real time.) now nobody's writing about that because, frankly, no 1 remembers it that lived through it and those who didn't live through it don't know because it's part of the 'hidden history.'

today c.i. writes about it (via that incredible memory that c.i. has). and it's the sort of thing that no 1 can claim they also just thought of because no 1 else is going to remember it. so when you see that pop up online elsewhere, you immediately know 'oh, s/he read what c.i. wrote and, look, they aren't giving credit.'

we see this happen over and over (we because i am a member of this community) and it is just so shocking.

c.i. has done incredible work over the last 4 years and if the people ripping c.i. off had given even 1/2 the credit owed, the entire blogosphere would know that. but they don't give credit. they grab c.i.'s work and pass it off as their own over and over.

'they' includes 'independent' media journalists.

it's appalling. it's disgusting.

and it happens over and over.

now c.i.'s attitude is always 'i don't need credit.' because c.i. was raised to be modest. but it's getting real old, all this raiding and stealing from c.i.

i give credit here to c.i. when i'm using something c.i.'s written and i could get away without doing so. every 1 knows c.i., elaine and i went to college together. every 1 who comes here knows that and knows that we are best friends. i could rip off c.i. and know 1 would bat an eye because it would be 'oh, they're friends.' but i don't do that. (i so don't do that that c.i. is always telling me, 'rebecca, you don't have to credit me.' or 'becky, we were both talking about that. it as much your point as it is mine.')

now if i'm not trading on my friendship to steal, there's no reason for strangers to think they can get away with theft.

but they do it and then wonder why their readership wanders off? because they know you stole.

and then, after a few weeks or months, these people who never credited c.i. while ripping off, show up at the public account of the common ills begging for links.

but, of course, they never heard of the common ills.

that's always their 'excuse'/lie when they get confronted on their theft. 'i don't even know that site!'

it was especially funny when a man tried that lie and apparently forgot that not only did his site link to c.i. but when his site changed their web address, he e-mailed c.i. to notify about the new address. but we're all supposed to believe that 2 days after c.i. wrote about something, he just found out about it on his own and that he's never heard of the common ills even though he's got it on the blogroll and even though he's repeatedly written asking for links from c.i.

c.i.'s attitude also includes 'maybe i'm too controversial.' i don't buy that excuse.

i'll give an example here. jess pulled the link c.i. had for make them accountable. carolyn whomever wrote to c.i. asking for a link. jess was the 1 who replied to that e-mail to the public account. he told her he would tell c.i. about her site. he told her he was sure c.i. would put on her on the permalinks on the left side of the site. c.i. did that.

that was over 3 months ago. c.i. has highlighted her site since in snapshots and other things. but carolyn, who sent a 152K e-mail to the public account of the common ills today, highlights everything under the sun including some things that are surely 'controversial'. but she never could find time in 3 months to work in even 1 link for the common ills?

brandon brought that to jess' attention and jess pulled the link last friday. i'll quote jess here, 'you've got a lot of nerve asking for links, then getting them and never returning the favor.' i agree with jess. c.i. put her on the permalinks (blogroll but c.i. calls them permalinks) and carolyn never did the same for c.i. carolyn e-mails non-stop asking for links in things c.i.'s writing and c.i. has given them. but to go to make them accountable, you'd never know the common ills even exists.

it's not right. c.i. has never begged for a link (and has, in fact, begged msm friends not to link). but for those who beg for links, the fair thing, the honorable thing, is when you get a link to show some appreciation.

c.i. wrote about gloria steinem and noted there would be no rude comments about gloria. c.i. said gloria campaigns every 4 year for whomever the democratic nominee is and that she would this time as well. c.i. said gloria's just a sweet person (and then quickly noted gloria was strong as well, lest some 1 misread that). gloria is a sweet person but she's got nothing on c.i. and i think both of them would benefit from being less sweet.

they both take an attitude of 'oh well, that's okay.' and it's never okay. it's not okay when gloria gets smeared and slammed. it's not okay when c.i. gets smeared and slammed. they both think 'big picture' and that's great of them. but it pisses off those of us who know them when they're attacked.

gloria's written about her own self-esteem and i think it's safe to surmise that she puts others ahead of herself. i'm not insulting her for that. (i would never insult gloria and if i made the mistake of even sounding like i was, it would be the only thing that would piss c.i. off. i can write anything here and c.i. doesn't care but if i did that, i would get an angry phone call. to be clear, i never would because i like gloria and think she's one of our modern heroines.) read revolution from within (a great book) to find out why gloria's that way.

but c.i.'s that way as well and it's for different reasons. for c.i., it was about 'the big head.' that's what we would have called it in my family. don't get the big head. but modesty was so important in c.i.'s family. c.i. is not false modest. c.i. really doesn't see anything to be proud of.

when i met c.i.'s mother (who was a great woman), i probably pissed her off many times because she'd tell me these stories and i would recoil. there was 1 where c.i. was probably six and she and her friends (c.i.'s mother and her friends) were having an afternoon get together. and 1 of the women, when c.i. walked through the room and came over to say hello, remarked that c.i. had the most beautiful hair. 'no!' was c.i.'s mother's immediate response. (my mother-in-law was at that tea party and still remembers that moment.)

c.i. never got a compliment from any 1 (except a grandfather) growing up. it's not false modesty on c.i.'s part. c.i. and siblings were raised not to be vain. i remember in college when 1 of c.i.'s grandparents was sick, c.i. had to leave immediately. i come from a tight family and i said, 'let me go with.' so we flew out together, went straight to the hospital.

an aunt of c.i.'s whispered, didn't say it to c.i. directly, that c.i. could be a model. c.i. heard it (most people did) and immediately whisked down the hall. that was embarrassing to c.i. they didn't get compliments. (c.i. goes out of the way to be supportive and give compliments. c.i. was like that with her children, always praising them. she didn't repeat the cycle.) but c.i. knew it would be a point raised and sure enough it was. a point of contention with the parents. resulting in, 'you're no better looking than any 1 else.'

and that was in part because, due to the money and the profession, the parents didn't want their children to expect the world and wanted them to now your job is to give back.

but when people hear 9or read) c.i. say something about not being any big deal or not being this good thing or that and they think, 'oh come on.' it's not false modesty. it is the mantra that was instilled growing up and c.i. honestly believes it.

elaine grew up immensely wealthy as well. she lost her parents before she was a teenager but she'll tell you they complimented her on her looks and on her achivements. and my husband got non-stop ego stroking growing up. so it's not a rich thing.

i have no idea what happened to c.i.'s parents (who were very nice and i'm not saying anything against them) but something must have happened with vanity when they were children because they were bound and determined that their children would have no vanity or self-pride.

so when you're dealing with some 1 like that, like c.i., and you see other people ripping her off, it is outrageous. she is the last person to ever rip any 1 off. she gives credit generously (and often gives credit when it's not deserved). she is the last person to ever grab credit for herself.

and when she's ripped off, you have to remember she was raised to believe it's to be expected and you don't toot your own horn. so there's no point in getting angry at c.i. for this.

but those of who know and love c.i. do get outraged by the rip offs and i have no problem calling the rip off artists out. when it gets really bad, elaine will always point out, 'at the end of the day, c.i. can go home to the mansion, can pick up the phone and speak to any 1 in the world. you really think she gives it a second thought that some website ripped her off?'

and that's true but, also true, elaine will be outraged anytime she hears about some 1 ripping off c.i.

now if we get ripped off, if any of us gets ripped off, c.i. is a like a mother bear. c.i. will call them out and do so publicly (like when mike got ripped off by the hack writer who stole his 1st blog post). and when third gets ripped off, the best way to convince c.i. to pull a link or stop linking is to say, 'they ripped off ava, dona, jim, ty and jess.' if you say, 'they ripped you off,' you've lost c.i. c.i. doesn't care. but if you make the argument about dona, jim, etc., c.i. will get outraged.

it's that way offline as well. if any 1 ever speaks meanly about me, there is hell to pay. the same person can call c.i. the worst names in the world and when it gets back, if c.i. even mentions it it's either to explore why that was (assuming blame for some 1's anger) or to laugh at it.

c.i. really has no ego. it just rolls off the back.

on gloria, c.i. has told people before, 'don't talk bad about her to me.' if they have persisted, they get a warning that if it continues, they will no longer be friends. if it does continue, c.i. cuts them off cold. you do not say a word against gloria. that was betty friedan's big mistake and how betty ended up on c.i.'s s**t list and stayed there until she died. (she's probably still on it.) and, as betty friedan learned slowly, you get on c.i.'s s**t list and doors start closing on you.

so when community members or c.i.'s friends like elaine and i defend c.i. so strongly it's because (a) it's the right thing to do, (b) we know c.i. would do the same for us and (c) we also know that c.i.'s never going to acknowledge (even privately) that some 1 c.i. was kind enough to link to turned around and put a knife in her back.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, June 5, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a death, the Senate releases a report and more.

Starting with war resistance. On Tuesday, Canada's House of Commons passed a motion to grant safe harbor status to US war resisters in Canada. Aaron Wherry (Macleans.ca) observes, "Liberal Jim Karygiannis and New Democrat Olivia Chow put together a motion and got it to a vote." Ontario Now notes that the Tory party was against the motiong but they "were outvoted by the other three opposition parties, 1137-110 in the vote" and quotes MP Olivia Chow explaining, "There is a lot of support by ordinary citizens to allow U.S. war deserters the right to stay in Canada." Travis Lupik (The Straight) speaks with US war resister Brad McCall: "Reacting to the news, McCall told the Straight that he planned to celebrate, and then field interviews and prepare for the next battle. McCall said that he was hopeful that the Conservative government will abide by the House's recommendation, but cautioned that the war resisters had not won yet. 'I think they [the Conservatives] will probably just ignore it and see if anybody notices,' he said." [For previous coverage of McCall from The Straight click here and here.] Elliot Robins (Kootenay Western Star) speaks with US war resister Ryan Johnson who states, "We're pretty excited. It's a big step for war resisters here in Canada. We have a direct show of support from Parliament and it could be a very important thing to help end this [Iraq] war. . . . It's pretty hard to start your life based on the hope that a country that you've never been to before will suddenly decide to change its entire law around something to allow me to stay here. My life has been dramatically changed by our [Johnson and his wife, Jenna] decision to come to Canada, but even if I was deported, I wouldn't take back my decision to have come here."

Meanwhile Chris Cook (Pacific Free Press) takes a look at media in Canada (such as the CBC) and finds it lacking as it works hard to ignore the news about Tuesday's vote. What of so-called 'independent' media in the US? What's Panhandle Media in the US doing? As usual, not a damn thing. The Nation hasn't done a story on it or even a blog post (they have at least nine blogs supposedly updated regularly). It's not news to our 'friends' at The Nation. (Ask Katrina what happened on Wife Swap last night and she'll write you an essay.) The Progressive? Matty Rothschild and company are far too busy. CounterPunch -- the allegedly non-electoral hokum Counterpunch? At least 20 articles published today and yesterday. Number on war resisters? Zero. Cost of publicly pretending to give a damn about ending the illegal war? Priceless. Amy Goodman, apparently putting down her copy of Hu**ler magazine for a moment or two, surfaced yesterday morning with four sentences on the ruling. And still managed to do severe damages. "As many as 200 U.S. war resisters are currently living in Canada," she gushed. As many as? 200 was surpassed in 2006. But Goody hasn't sat down with one since November of 2006 so we can't expect up to date info from her. Mike addressed trashy Amy Goodman last night (including linking to the piece on Hu**ler that we can't here due to being 'work safe' for all readers). 14 days and she still hasn't found it worth informing her listeners that US war resister Corey Glass was ordered to leave Canada. May 21st, US war resisters and Iraq War veteran Glass was informed that he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported. Apparently that's not news and not important to Panhandle Media.

Laughably, a Panhandle Media 'conference' takes place this weekend to talk up the importance of a . . . useless echo chamber? We're supposed to strengthen something that already refuses to deliver the news we need? We're supposed to give a damn about Panhandle Media? It's really past time to stop rewarding bad behavior. Now if we didn't have so many in Panhandle Media who were stupid, uncaring or damaged from intensive drug use, we might be able to end the illegal war. We might have ended it some time ago. But to do that, we'd need to be informed of two things (1) what is actually happening and (2) our own history.

Panhandle Media will never save one person, let alone the world. So let's save ourselves while they stay useless. In 1969, a member of the US Congress went to Canada to speak with war resisters. His name? Ed Koch. Better known today as the former mayor of NYC. Between then and the end of 1974, Kokch introduced how many amnesty bills in the US House of Representatives? Four. Now if we know that, we can ask why none of our 'friends' in Congress have yet to make that trip? Dennis Kucinich, Canada is calling. Where are our bills in Congress calling for amnesty for war resisters? Forget "laws" -- which are bills that have been passed -- where are our bills arguing for amnesty. By the end of 1974, because of the work by people like Koch, a Republican would step forward in the Senate with a bill for war resisters (only one group of them). Who was that Republican? Ask Panhandle Media. Remember they care sooo much and they are soooo informed and they have all the information to give you . . . right after the never ending pledge drive cycles.

In the real world, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").


There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

In today's New York Times, Andrew E. Kramer reports, "American airstrikes in Hilla, the city once known as Babylon, wounded five people on Wednesday, according to the local police, who said the Americans were responding to a mortar attack on the American Consulate." So five people wounded in another 'precision' air strike. File it under 'helping' along with the topic Elaine examined last night (Iraqi women). Also in today's papers is Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) stating that the White House and the puppet of the occupation (Nouri al-Maliki) are putting together "[a] secret deal" which would allow permanent US bases, the US to "conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for the unending conflict in their country." Cockburn was off the mark when attempting to predict US reaction (he thought it would be explosive, Amy Goodman buried the news in a fleeting headline today). What else was he right or wrong about? Sue Pleming (Reuters) quotes Ryan Crocker, the US Amabassador to Iraq, declaring that the White House doesn't want permanent bases and were not putting together anything that would extend in the "long-term." So Cockburn was way off the mark?

No. These statements were repeated in April as well and, to any watching, weren't at all believable. Dropping back to the April 9th snapshot, US House Rep Susan Davis was asking about and echoing US Senator Hillary Clinton's April 8th questions (to Crocker and Petraeus) as to why the US Congress was being cut out of the process. Davis: "That strikes people in our districts as strange. I wonder if you could talk on that" and how such an agreement might or might not "be used as leverage?"

From the statement Senator Hillary Clinton released April 9th:

"I also asked Ambassador Crocker if the United States Congress would have the same opportunity as the Iraqi Parliament will have to review any agreement or long-term security pact that President Bush is negotiating with the Iraqis. Ambassador Crocker said that the Congress, your representatives, would not have that chance. I have two requests of President Bush for his speech on Thursday. First, I call on the President to answer the question that General Petraeus did not. What is our end game in Iraq given the failure of surge to achieve the objective that the president outlined for it? Second, I call on President Bush to pledge to the American people, who have sacrificed greatly for this effort that the United States Congress will have the chance to review and vote on any long-term security agreement he has negotiated with the Iraqis."

It was also an issue in Congress April 10th when the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations heard testimony from the State Dept's David Satterfield and the Defense Dept's Mary Beth Long. The chair of the committee outlined the topics of interest in his opening statements.

Senator Joe Biden: We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the "vision" -- his phrase -- of our bilateral relationship with Iraq. One agreement is a "strategic framework agreement" that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled "What the United States will do for Iraq," because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction -- promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country. We're told that the reason why we're not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don't want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is. The second agreement is what Administration officials call a "standard" Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces -- for the purposes of Iraqi law -- to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don't know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.

Meanwhile in the White House today, spokesperson Dana Perino faced some semi-tough questioning and se danced away from every one of them with statements such as "I would say that the issue of pre-war intelligence on Iraq has been thoroughly reviewed over the years by the Congress, as well as by the independent WMD Commission." What was Perino avoiding? The latest report on Iraq from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The chair, Senator Jay Rockefeller, stated today, "Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by intelligence. In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe the threat from Iraq was much greater than actuall existed."

Key points from the report summarized by Rockefeller include:

* Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
* Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
* Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
* Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
* The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
* The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

In a press conference today (here for audio or video), Rockefeller declared, "It has often been said that truth is the first casualty of war and today the Senate Intelligence Committee reports in detail that this was the case in the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq. You don't get to tell the truth just some of the time when going to war. The American people expect their government to tell the truth all the time, that being 100% of the time. Let's be clear as far too many of our own country men and their families know this is a very deadly serious matter Making the case for war is categorically different than any other approach to public policy. There is nothing more serious in public life than the decision to go to war. There is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberatly painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully supported by intelligence. The bottom line is this, we owed it to the troops and the American people to tell the truth about how we got there. These reports are about holding our government accountable and making sure that these mistakes never happen again." PDF format warning, the first report is on public statements (and runs 171 pages), also PDF, the second report focuses on the Counterrorism Evaluation Group and Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (and is 56 pages).

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing killed 1 Iraqi soldier and a Kirkuk roadside bombing wounded seven people.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad today.

Today the US military announced: "A Coalition force Soldier was killed by small arms fire June 4 during a patrol south of Baghdad."

Meanwhile John Stauber (PR Watch) observes, "Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008." Stauber explains that "every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audience."

May 22nd we noted Lavena Johnson who died while serving Iraq and whose parents do not buy the official 'explanation' of Lavena's death. As KMOV reported (link has text and video) last year, "Lavena was apparently abused" and it was impossible for her to have used the gun she's said to have killed herself with. Veterans For Peace notes "After viewing the black and white copies of crime scene photos, viewing multiple bruises on her body, and speaking to different military personnel as they prepared for her burial, her father and uncles realized that LeVena had been murdered. Eight days before her twenthieth birthday, LaVena was beaten, raped, set on fire, shot, and left in a contractor's tent in Iraq. Her family has been fighting for justice for LaVena for over two years now." They are asking you to help Dr. John Johnson (LaVena's father) find out what really happened to his daughter in Iraq by calling 202.225.2876 which is Ike Skelton's number, Skelton is the chair of the House Armed Service Committee. This will be picked up tomorrow and be a regular part of the snapshots.

Turning to the US political race, Allison Stevens (Women's eNews) reports on Hillary Clinton's primary campaign: "And Clinton's candidacy shined a high beam on stubborn strains of sexism, said Clare Giesen, executive director of the National Women's Political Caucus, a group in Washington, D.C., that works to elect pro-choice women to office. 'This campaign has unveiled sexism as none of us thought existed," she said. "It's like some feral object; it's just out of control.' The depth of sexist attitudes became apparent in national news media coverage of Clinton, Giesen said. A Feb. 1 media study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., showed that from Dec. 16 through Jan. 27, five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama were favorable but only half of Clinton were.
Giesen said sexist comments in the media serve as a rallying cry for women's rights advocates. 'There is a definite second act that comes after this election. Even if she got the nomination, what we have looked at is a real resistance to women in power, and a fear. And we've got to do a lot to educate people'." Froma Harrop (Rasmussen Reports) observes, "What's dangerous for the Democratic Party is that, for many women, the eye of the storm has moved beyond Hillary or anything she does at this point. The offense has turned personal. They are now in their own orbit, having abandoned popular Democratic Websites that reveled in crude anti-Hillary outpourings -- and established new ones on which they trade stories of the Obama people's nastiness. But worse than the online malice has been the affronts to their faces." Rev. Renita J. Weems (Something Within) compiles a list of what the campaign season taught her: "Fourth, now I know what I always suspected, namely that while racism is a sin, sexism is perfectly acceptable and tolerated in this country. Women are the worst culprits. The outright woman-hating jibes, the prejudice against Clinton as a middle-age woman, the physical mockery, and the anti-white woman rage have not been easy to witness. Clinton has not run a faultless campaign-- far from it. (Her surrogates need to be fired!) But Hillary Clinton the woman and the politician did not deserve the venom, the acrimony, the hatred, and the name-calling commentators and the public heaped on her throughout this race."

aaron wherrytravis lupickbrad mccallchris cookryan johnsonelliot robins
patrick cockburnandrew e. kramerthe new york times
john stauber

okay, i have 3 topics tonight.

1) hillary.

my wish is for hillary to take the battle to denver. i am not the 1 who has to take the non-stop attacks, around the clock, from big and small media. and, as c.i. will point out, hillary can take those. it's the attacks on bill and chelsea that hurt. so hillary's going to make the decision that's right for her. if it's go to denver, i am there. if it's to drop out, i will be sad but i will understand.
i thank her for the battle she fought for america, for americans, and for women.

she gave everything she had and some 1 without her strength would never have made it this far. she is a winner, she is a fighter and she would be the best president the country could ever have.

i have met hillary many times over the years and, as i've noted here many times, never been impressed. i would tag along with c.i. to the white house or whatever (martha's vineyard, for example, which is only a hop from my own house - i live on tim russert island).

what i saw on the campaign trail, what i saw her do, made me 1 of the biggest hillary supporters.
she is every good thing her supporters have always said.

2) cynthia mckinney.

i have been on the road (working to get the vote out on hillary) and for some insane reason, i have had non-stop e-mails on poor cynthia mckinney.

sell that crap to some 1 else.

for those just showing up, cynthia was my choice. but i thought cynthia was a fighter.

cynthia's campaign is that of a whiner.

if that's not representing her, she should have fixed it a long time ago.

she allowed a supporter to say she wasn't running to win, she only wanted 5% of the vote.

not only did she not challenge it, at her campaign site, it was linked to with a 'he speaks for cynthia.'

i don't have time for vanity runs or fake campaigns.

my support for cynthia was conditional upon her pulling out all stops to win.

some whiny ass types keep showing up telling me that 'so what, the green party needs this. you don't understand!'

i damn well do. ralph nader, in 2000, gave them a spot on the ballots. in 2004, they chose to play 527 for the democratic party.

they need cynthia to rebuild now.

tough crap.

they should have run a real campaign in 2004. if cynthia does deliver 5% of the vote, what do the greens (nationally) plan to do?

waste 2012 because they don't want to upset the democratic party?

tough crap on them nationally. i don't give a damn about them and they need to remove people like medea benjamin who claim to be greens and then turn around and support democratic presidential candidates.

they're back to 2000, trying to rebuild. that's no 1s fault but their own.

they need to ditch most of the surrogates and they need to ditch most of their national board.

they are, as a nation party, nothing but a vanity campaign.

until they are willing to go for broke, they are nothing but a vanity party.

cynthia was talking about running a real campaign and going for broke.

does that mean she would have won? maybe, maybe not. but i don't waste my time on people in presidential races who - and this is before she's got the nomination - are saying they're just running for 5% of the vote.

how sweet. what a suck up campaign to the democratic party.

i have no interest in that crap, find someone who does.

i honestly wish cynthia would give a speech at the green party convention in july announcing she was not accepting the nomination and then denouncing the national party as nothing but a faux party.

i would have more respect for her if she did. (and i used to have huge respect for her.)

i've got better things to do than waste my time on some 1 who wants to be in a presidential race but doesn't want to upset the apple cart by actually running to become president.

3) kimberly wilder.

can some 1 explain to her how badly she hurts her own party?

her little slams at hillary have gotten extreme.

she's just trashy.

and her husband is part of the green party machinary so she's not blogging as a green party member, she's blogging as part of the party structure.

she runs off more votes for cynthia than she could possibly know.

of course, she kicked cynthia to the curb when ralph was a possibility.

then she did that post where she was furious with ralph.

why the hell should ralph run on your crap-ass party's nomination?

ralph wants to win. the national green party isn't about winning.

there are some green party candidates i will support (i know elaine already is) for congress. but i'm not interested in the national party which doesn't do a damn thing but suck up to the democratic party.

for the record, no 1 called kimberly a sexist at her site. but i will: sexist.

kimberly wilder never weighed in about the sexism against hillary.

in fact, kimberly wilder contributed to it.

c.i. tried to do that little jerk a favor.

kimberly wilder e-mailed with another press release.

c.i. posted it tuesday in full at the common ills.

now there was no thanks. there never is.

kimberly expects to get her videos, her press releases, her everything highlighted whenever she wants.

she never says 'thank you' to c.i. for any of that.

she never highlights anything c.i. writes at her own site.

she's just an ungrateful, ill mannered taker. she takes and she expects.

she never gives back.

but what she did this week was to spit on the community. she argues with 2 members and insults them.

she is a sexist - and neither member called her that but i will.

she had time to justify jeremiah wright and to blog about how she's not a democrat, but if she were, obama's looking pretty good.

see, that's why the green party is a loser on the national scale.

they butt their ugly noses into a democratic party primary.

they try to say 'we are our own party!' but they butt in.

they try to tip the scales.

and then they want to play like they didn't do it.

people like kimberly wilder are a disgrace to the green party. the party can either deal with them or enjoy national life on the fringes for many years to come.

they aren't trying to build a 3rd party, they're trying to build an off shoot of the democratic party. they're nothing but puppets for the democratic party.

jess, who is a green, avoids people like her like the plauge and they better watch out because when he gets his law degree, he may take on some of the nonsense they pull via lawsuits.

ty is the 1 who has been nicer to her than any 1. and what does white kimberly wilder do? try to lecture him about the plight of black people in this country. uh, white kimmy, ty is black. he doesn't need your white momma ass tell him what it's like to be black in america.

at some point those radicals need to take a good, long look at themselves in the mirror and grasp how pathetic they are and what cartoons they've become.

the green party's 2nd step is going to be kicking out non-greens. the pathetics who burned their bridges with the c.p.u.s.a. don't need to be allowed to pretend they're greens. but that's another story. and i believe i already mentioned i-need-attention benjamin.

4) sylvia e-mailed to ask if marcia knew she still had marjorie cohn linked to on her blog roll?
no, she didn't. i just called her and she's removed it. she said to tell sylvia thank you.

i mentioned:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
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,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.

you didn't! well, let me rectify that. mike and elaine are doing real posts tonight and be sure to check them out (the rest of us are pretty disgusted and ticked off with the media's continued assault on hillary). wally and cedric were off last night. marcia was depressed and decided to rent a car and drive back home (from south dakota!). wally knew she was too tired to make that trip safely by herself and they really bonded on the road (they worked to get out the hillary vote in indiana, south dakota, puerto rico, west virginia and kentucky together and they really are tight today). the primary contest ended yesterday and wally's attitude was 'i can't think of any 1 i would rather end it with.' so they drove to marcia's together and wally flew back after (he's on the road with c.i., kat and ava right now.)

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, June 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, a Baghdad bombing results in mass deaths, the war resisters in Canada score a historic victory but work remains, and more.

Starting with war resistance. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Canada's House of Commons voted on the motion to grant safe harbor to war resisters and it passed (137 in favor, 110 against). The motion was first proposed in December of 2007. It took Corey Glass and other war resisters to make it happen as much as it took any political party. May 21st, US war resisters and Iraq War veteran Glass was informed that he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported. Maggie Farley (Los Angeles Times) notes of Glass, "he became the first deserter to receive orders to leave the country -- and ended up a symbol of Canada's conflicted sentiments about the war. On Tuesday, Canada's House of Commons passed a motion urging the government to allow deserters to stay. The measure, though nonbinding, could lead to a last-minute reprieve for Glass and nearly 40 others who have asked for refugee statues." UPI files a brief and quotes NDP's Olivia Chow stating, "Ordinary people want the Iraq war resisters to stay. The Harper Conservatives must respect this and immediately implement this motion." Joanna Smith (Toronto Star) explains how US war resisters Megan and Chris Bean (husband and wife) went to Ottawa to observe the House of Commons Vote. Megan Bean explains of their decision to come to Canada, "We were over there to maintain the peace and we were trying to hand it over to the Iraqis. This is what we always heard. You don't sign up for (the U.S. Navy) to see a bunch of people kill for no reason." Paige Aarhus (London Free Press) quotes war resister Rich Droste on the vote, "I almost wanted to cry when I heard, it was amazing. This just shows that support is growing and Canada can still be a refuge against militarism." He wasn't the only one excited by the verdict. "We are very happy that we won. We're hopeful that the government wll respect the democratic process," Phil McDowell tells John Ward (Canadian Press via Nova Scotia News) who also quotes Joshua Key: "We've had one hand tied behind our back because we can't argue the illegality of the Iraq war, which we all know is illegal. But, with that we just take it one step at a time. I just hope it continues going forward." Janice Tibbetts (CanWest News Service) offers an overview of the resistance today explaining how Canada's Federal Court of Appeals refused to grant the first two public war resisters in Canada, Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, who went on to appeal that decision to Canada's Supreme Court and were denied on November 15, 2007. Vietnam era war resister Gerry Condon (writing at Courage to Resist) notes the "historic vote" and how "all the opposition parties -- the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party" came together to vote in favor the motion. Condon outlines a number of steps to take here. In addition, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a truck bombing that claimed 5 lives (add in another for the driver of the truck) and left ten wounded, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed the lives of 3 police officers and left three police officers and "three civilians" wounded and an Al Anbar Province roadside bombing claimed the lives of 3 police officers with four more wounded. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports "Up to 18 people were killed and many more wounded today when a truck exploded near the house of a police commander in Baghdad" while CBS and AP note over 50 individuals are injured from the blast "near the northeast Baghdad home of a top Inetrior Ministry official".

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "Col. Dhafir Al-Ani of the general inspector office in the interior ministry" was shot dead in Baghdad (his brother was wounded in the assassination) and a jewelry shop owner and his son were shot dead in Zubair.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad. CBS and AP report 13 corpses discovered in Latifiyah (and that 10 were discovered Tuesday in Baghdad).

Kadhim also notes the continued attacks on journalists which includes a TV crew filming a special entitled "The Death Road" in Al Anbar Province and were targeted in a roadside bombing that may have been aimed at the Iraqi military (the military was with the TV crew) while a camer operator for an Iraqi TV station was wounding in a Basra roadside bombing.

Today the US military announced: "Three Multi-National Division -- North Soldiers were killed as a result of a small-arms fire attack in Al Hawijah near Kirkuk June 4." As Haynes (Times of London) notes, this brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4090.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to US political news. Two primaries were held last night, the last two in the contest: South Dakota and Montana. The press told the country Barack Obama was a winner. While he did win Montana, he lost South Dakota. The Christ-child lost South Dakota to Hillary by over 10% -- 55.35% for Hillary, 44.65% for Barack. The same media that told you all day yesterday that Hillary would conceed (see Bob Somerby's piece today) spends today asking when she will drop out of the race? Hillary Is 44 observes, "Obama is unelectable and not qualified to be president. On the night Obama lost South Dakota (Obama's own projections had him winning South Dakota by 15 percent) he spoke in the same hall in which Mondale conceded to the Reagan landslide. Obama will either concede now or in November. Obama won't win Democrats he needs to win (like the Democrats on this very website). In state after state many Democrats clearly state they will either NOT vote, vote for the unacceptable John McCain, or write in Hillary's name. That Democrats, many who have never voted for a Republican or nightmared about voting for a Republican, to say they will vote for a Republican is shocking and foreshadows doom for the Democratic? Party in November - if Superdelegates actually vote for Rezko/Ayres/Pfleger/Wright/Farrakhan's friend - Obama." Actually, some will vote for Ralph Nader if Barack's the nominee. Yesterday, CBS Evening News offered a roundtable (link has transcript and video) featuring some Hillary supporters in Penn.

Sandra Miller, former county commissioner: I think from the very beginning she's been mistreated. I know -- I watched a lot of interviews and so forth where Sen. Clinton was referred to as "Mrs. Clinton" whereas Sen. Obama was "Sen. Obama." Meredith Ciambrello, teacher: It bothers me to think with the kind of coverage that we've had, that we're speaking of, that it's influencing the voters. And when I talk to young men or other young women and they say, "I hate Hillary" and just the venom that comes out of them. And I wonder where is that coming from. Kathleen O'Dell, sales manager: I think we have a little different standard with sexism than we do with, say, racism. I mean there have been people who go to their rallies and stand up - the guy who stood up and said, "hey, iron my shirt." Now consider that if somebody had showed up at an Obama campaign and had a banner saying something about his race or about somebody's religion, we'd be up in arms. Everybody would be like, "how disgusting."

An idiot ("fuzkida") posting at CBS states, "Any so-called Hillary supporter who votes for McCain is not a true progressive. NO progressive wuould [sic] be that spiteful as to screw up the country for another 4 years just bc. they are sore losers." No true "progressive" (unless that's The Idiot Lakoff's 'framing' for "closted Communist") could support a candidate who used homophobia in South Carolina to scare up votes, who demonized gays and lesbians because it could help him recover momentum after losing New Hampshire. So spare us the lectures "fuzkida."

No feminist could support Barack in the primaries. Any who said she was a feminist and did was either uninformed (and didn't know about the use of homophobia) or she's not a feminist because she elected to ignore it. There's no middle ground on this. Some may come around to Barack. But the reality is a number of 'feminists' exposed themselves as not by refusing to call out the use of homophobia as a campaign strategy. "fuzkida" is not a feminist, obviously. And women don't need to hear you lecture. I believe the idiot Mark Karlin of BuzzFlash tried that after Hillary won New Hampshire. It certainly was cute to see those pieces throughout the campaign, where men lectured women telling them over and over that they shouldn't vote based on gender (naturally, they assumed that only by voting based on gender could a woman support Hillary -- working from the sexist premise that no woman could be worthy of the nomination). But, thing is, did they ever lecture any group supporting Barack? Nope. It was only women they thought they felt comfortable trying to boss around. Why was that?

Ellen Willis ("Up from Radicalism: A Feminist Journal") explaining it in 1969:

A genuine alliance with male radicals will not be possible until sexism sickens them as much as racism. This will not be accomplished through persuasion, conciliation, or love, but through independence and solidarity; radical men will stop oppressing us and make our fight their own when they can't get us to join them on any other terms.

True then, true today. But no one was supposed to notice and it was easy not to as Panhandle Media worked overtime not just to smear Hillary Clinton with lies but also to ignore the sexism in the MSM (while contributing their own sexism). Take CounterSpin, the weekly radio program by 'media watchdog' FAIR, which ignored the sexism non-stop and finally, when called out loudly and, repeating, I never asked for that, those were unsolicited e-mails from FAIR) and repeatedly, managed to include Hillary being called a bitch in their May 24th broadcast. Here is CounterSpin's criticism of sexism in the 2008 race in full: "CNN viewers were treated to one pundit explanation that people might call Hillary Clinton a bitch because well isn't that just what some women are." You'll note they don't identify the program or the gas bag speaking. That's a funny sort of 'media criticism,' isn't it? And sadly, that's all the weekly radio program CounterSpin can point to. How very proud they must be. Then there's Free Speech TV's laughable Grit TV ("with Laura Flanders!") which not only brought on sexists who had slammed Hillary to say there was no problem but also got off a joke that Latinos and Latinas in California can't speak English. I guess that was supposed to pass for 'progressive' as well? It was especially hilarious to see Laura Flanders and Betsy Reed move away from Hillary to actually fret over sexism and homophobia (!) as 'applied' to John Edwards who is neither a woman nor gay.

"Now there were days when I had the strength enough to fight for all of us," declared Hillary last night, "and on the days that I didn't, I leaned on you, the soldier on his third tour of duty in Iraq who told his wife, an Iraqi veteran herself, to take his spending money and donate it to our campaign instead. The 11-year-old boy in Kentucky who sold his bike and video games to raise money for our campaign. The woman who came to a rally hours early, waited and waited to give me a rosary. And all those who whispered to me, simply to say I am praying for you."

Peggy Simpson (Womens Media Center) reports:

Hillary Clinton preempted the morning-after critics. She asked the question herslef in a Tuesday night speech after the delegate count from South Dakota and Montana pushed Barack Obama over the top as the Democrats' probably nominee for president.
"I understand that a lot of people are asking: 'What does Hillarywant? What does she WANT?"
Ignoring mounting speculation that she had told the New York congressional delegation that she'd be open to the vice presidential position, which some cynics said was the start of overt lobbying for that post, she said instead:
"Well, what I want is what I have always fought for in this whole campaign. I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to turn this economy around. I want health care for every American. I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential."
And then she added significantly: "And I want the nearly eighteen million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard, and no longer to be invisible."
The Hillary skeptics who bemoaned her ambition should read that and absorb the message. It means far more than being on a national ticket.

Hillary's a fighter and as long as she wants to be in the race, she will be. She won the popular vote. (My own personal feelings -- and those of the community -- are that she should carry this to the convention.) It's cute how the goons and loons want to lecture. They pull that nonsense every four years and whine between about how a message should be sent. The difference for all Hillary supporters is that we saw the pass Barack was given over and over and we found him vapid and lacking. The difference for women especially is that we're not Spastic Keith Olbermann spewing his 'thoughts' instantly. As with Anita Hill earlier, the treatment of Hillary was about all women and it's not about 'sore losers.' The 'unity' talk ignores that (a) there's nothing in the Obama campaign for voters and (b) why would women want to 'unify' with their attackers. Now when the vile Ike Turner died, many of the male gas bags online didn't get it. They thought Tina Turner should forgive her torturer of many, many decades. But that's not how it works.

And I'm down to
Your last cigarette and
this "We are one" crap
as you're invading . . .
-- "Taxi Ride," written and recorded by Tori Amos

'Unity' says the press today just as they said it when Bully Boy stole Florida from Al Gore. The bit players are all the same, they just had facial reconstruction. And I think you'll see a number of women who refuse to play cheerleaders for Princess Tiny Meat Barack. Not all, as Susan (Random Notes) point out, someone will gladly sell out. For the record, whomever the Democratic nominee is, Gloria Steinem will campaign for them. She does that every four years. I am not talking about Gloria. I have not and will not ever insult Gloria. But Gloria's always been the sweetest. Which isn't denying that's she's also very strong. It is pointing out that if Barack's given the nomination, don't expect to see a crowd of feminists skipping happily along -- several paces behind him. Women have witnessed non-stop sexism and grasped that feminism is needed now more than ever. This is the rebirth, not a time to be afraid. (True regardless of whom the Democratic nominee is in August.) And some can be cast aside like Christine and her beau Bernie who launched an attack on our own Kat -- demanding that she change a written opinion and demanding that she do so in his words and act like it was her opinion and her words -- that should have clued us into just how sick and vapid so many passing for 'contemporary' and 'popcult' 'feminists' actually were. So it's a good time for feminism and one in which faux feminists can hit the road and take their (at best) half-assed 'principles' with them.

John Bentley (CBS News) reports John McCain, presumed GOP presidential nominee, stated, "There are many of Sen. Clinton's supporters who believe that I am by far the best qualified to secure this nation's future, who don't want us to sit down with Ahmadinejad and other tyrants. I think there's a lot of Sen. Clinton's supporters who will support me because of their belief that Sen. Obama does not have the experience or the knowledge or the judgement to address this nation's national security challenges when we're in two wars."

Ralph Nader has selected Matt Gonzalez as his running mate and Team Nader's "The Uprising" notes yesterday's Democracy Now where the hosts and guest David Sirota talked a good game about an "uprising against Wall Street and Washington" but somehow avoided ever mentioning the Nader-Gonzalez ticket:

On Democracy Now, Sirota said that there is great anger and disaffection in America directed at not just the government, but also at corporate America, at big business, at banks and the financial system.
And for twenty minutes, he talked and talked and talked about the uprising in this momentous Presidential election year.
But not once did Sirota mention Ralph Nader's candidacy -- which polls indicate millions of people support.
And not once did Amy Goodman or Juan Gonzalez ask him about the Nader/Gonzalez candidacy.
Anger at corporations, big business and banks.
Presidential election year.
And no mention of Ralph Nader?
What we are to make of this?
That David Sirota doesn't really give a damn about the uprising.
If he did, he would happily welcome Nader/Gonzalez into the political arena as the most meaningful political expression of the uprising in 2008.
Sirota has spent hundreds of hours surveying the uprising, but refuses to even acknowledge the work of hundreds of young people working non-stop around the country to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot for what is shaping up to be a four way Presidential race -- McCain, Obama, Nader, Barr.
And Nader/Gonzalez will be the Presidential campaign for the uprising against corporate power in this Presidential election year.
And Sirota doesn't say a peep about it.
Why not?
Because he's concerned but not serious about change.


Meanwhile presumed Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney has bigger problems now than defining 'victory' as getting 5% of the votes (revealing her campaign as not a real run for the office), she now has to deal with her online supporters running voters off. (Yeah, I heard about the e-mails. We'll probably address "Miss Prissy for Cynthia" at Third this weekend.)

So what do we know? Hillary's still in the race. Supporters want her to go to Denver (but that will be her decision -- and after the way she and her family have been smeared and slimed, even her strongest supporters would understand her deciding the victory was in staying in the race when everyone said drop out, staying in the race and winning the popular vote, staying in the race and showing the world just how strong women are). Nader's running a real campaign.

iraqmaggie farleythe los angeles timesjoanna smithpaige aarhusmegan beanchris beanrich drostejohn wardjoshua keyphil mcdowelljanice tibbettsjeremy hinzmanbrandon hugheygerry condoncourage to resistthe world today just nutssir! no sir!iraq veterans against the war
the cbs evening newskatie couric
peggy simpson
ellen willis