John McCain said Tuesday that Sarah Palin did not damage his presidential bid, and he dismissed as typical campaign sniping anonymous criticism aimed at her following their crushing defeat. "I'm so proud of her and I'm very grateful she agreed to run with me. She inspired people, she still does," McCain told Jay Leno during an "Tonight Show" interview taped for broadcast Tuesday night. "I couldn't be happier with Sarah Palin."
that's from the associated press. well john mccain certainly took his sweet time defending palin, didn't he? she has been savaged and it's come from his aides. he should have called this nonsense out sooner.
that said, he probably hasn't been eager to talk to the press. i'm sure appearing on leno tonight wasn't easy. remember, when john kerry lost, he high tailed it out of the country. went on a little trip abroad.
so i will cut him slack - even though i don't care for mccain - on that. but he should have spoken up sooner.
c.i. asked me if i could note something. she included it in the snapshot but she slid the e-mail on it over to me as well. this is from survivor corps:
Today is Veteran's Day, and our troops need our help now. Which is why I'm asking you to honor their service by blogging about Survivor Corps' program for U.S. veterans and service members, Operation Survivor. I've put together this informational microsite which explains everything: http://survivorcorps.org/returningtroops The traumatic effects of war, left unaddressed, will have far-reaching negative consequences for service members, their families, and their communities. Based on our ten years of global experience helping survivors of conflict overcome trauma and give back to their communities, Survivor Corps founded Operation Survivor to provide the same kind of life-changing support to American veterans and service members. If you could share this with your readers on The Common Ills, or even post one of our donation banners, it would help many American soldiers and returning troops. Please let me know if you are able to help and send me the link to your post. Let me know either way. Thanks so much.
i'm going to highlight something and before i do, the guy is a libertarian. he is not a lefty. i do not agree with him on most things because i am of the left. but this is from justin raimondo's 'Forget the Honeymoon' (antiwar.com):
When the House Democratic majority passed a military appropriations bill slated for Iraq, a clause that would have prohibited an attack on Iran without a vote in Congress was deleted at the instigation of Emanuel and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When Rep. John Murtha presaged the popular rebellion against the Iraq war by coming out against it in no uncertain terms, Emanuel urged Pelosi to refrain from endorsing his call for withdrawal, arguing that it would hurt the Democrats politically. With the smiling face of Don Obama serving as a front for the knife-wielding Emanuel and his "legendary intensity" – as Rolling Stone writer Joshua Green puts it – one has to wonder: what (or who) else does the Prez-elect have in store for us? The answer is: Jane Harman – as head of the CIA! (If she doesn't get it, not to worry: she's also up for head of Homeland Security – and if she doesn't get that, she's on the short list for National Intelligence czarina). Will somebody go see if Glenn Greenwald is okay? I fear he may have done something drastic, especially after all that gushing he's done over the Dear Leader. Harman has always taken the side of the Bushies when it comes to eavesdropping: during Gen Michael Hayden's confirmation hearings for CIA director, she was against making government eavesdropping an issue. When the New York Times revealed the illegal eavesdropping program authorized by Bush, she was outraged – at the Times, which she strongly hinted ought to be prosecuted. She was pro-war, and did her part in spreading the "bad intel" she now claims to have been fooled by – declaring not only that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but also purveying the rather far-out notion that al-Qaeda had taken up residence there prior to the US invasion.
and to note something in the 1st paragraph i quote, steny hoyer's the 1 who strong-armed nancy re: iraq and murphy. i don't like rahm emanuel so i'm not sticking up for him, i'm just correcting the record to how it is as a i know it. and this comes from camp pelosi.
a lot of you e-mailed regarding last night's post 'heroes' and i'll answer 1 without any thought because i don't need it. about 12 asked who my favorite hero was on the show?
claire. the cheerleader. i was a cheerleader so that may be why but i also really enjoy the character. after her it would either be hiro or nathan-peter (i lump them together on my like scale).
if they made elle a character, it could be her. but what they really need to do is start putting claire on every episode. did any 1 else notice she wasn't on last night?
she remains the most relatable character for younger audiences and if they don't have her on every episode they really have no reason to turn around and whine about the ratings not being as high as they were before.
i'll need to think about the other questions. i will try to answer them and probably here to have something to write.
Tuesday, November 11. 2008. Chaos and violence continue, attempted land-grabs continue, the treaty is still in a holding pattern, and Katrina vanden Heuvel preps her comedy act.
Today Iraq's cabinet met for six hours during which they were to address the issue of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. However, AFP reports that they dispensed with the treaty quickly and quotes the Minister of Science and Techonology Raid Jahid Fahmi explaining, "The council of ministers will wait until we have a complete translation in Arabic of the American proposal and have consulted legal advisors before making a final decision." Despite this, the US remains publicly upbeat. AP quotes an e-mail from a US Embassy official (unnamed) which informs them, "We understand the Iraqi government is continuing to study the agreement text. We believe that an agreement can be reached that meets the needs of both parties." While Iraq decides to wait and the US tries to appear optimistic, Baghdad attempts to reassure its neighbors. Sana Abdallah (Middle East Times) reports, "Iraq's National Security Minister Shirwan al-Waeli, who delivered a message to the Arab League from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki outlining the security pact with the United States, said the accord contains 'basic content that no violations are undertaken from Iraqi soil against any neibhoring, Arab or friendly country, and it does not undermine Iraqi sovereignty'." That was already a fear on the part of some neighbors before October 26th. Following that day's US attack on Syria, it's only become more of a fear. Sara Flounders (Workers World) explains of that attack which killed 8 Syrians, "It is a violation of international law, the UN Charter, and U.S. law, specifically the War Powers Act." Brooke Anderson (San Francisco Chronicle) observes, "Syria has demanded that Washington apologize for the strike and has threatened to cut off cooperation on Iraqi border security. The government has also ordered all foreign staff of the American Language Center and American Cultural Center in Damascus to leave the country, and postponed a Nov. 12 meeting of a joint Syrian-Iraqi committee in Baghdad to improve troubled relations." Xinhua notes that Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's Foreign Minister, has "paid a surprise visit to Syria" today "as tension between the two neighbors rose after a U.S. cross-border raid killed eight Syrians last month." While there, he again repeated the claim that Iraq will not allow itself to be used as a base for attacks on its neighbors.
Today Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) reports Syria refused to allow a World Food Program ship to unload rice "at the country's main port" due to "the percentage of cracked rice in the cargo" (according to a Syiran official). The rice was intended for some of the estimated 194,000 refugees from Iraq currently living in Syria.
Iran is another neighbor and Fars News Agency reports Iraq's Ambassador to Iran Mohammed Majeed al-Sheikh met with Iranian MP Heshmatollah Falahatpishe who told the ambassador that "Iraq must not turn to the strategic territory of the United States and what the agreement must be geared to is paving the way for stabilizing an independent Iraqi state."
Today is Veterans Day and Survivor Corps has started Operation Survivor: "The traumatic effects of war, left unaddressed, will have far-reaching negative consequences for service members, their families, and their communities. Based on our ten years of global experience helping survivors of conflict overcome trauma and give back to their communities, Survivor Corps founded Operation Survivor to provide the same kind of life-changing support to American veterans and service members."
And IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will also be noted here. Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is noting the following:Tomorrow, Wednesday, Nov 12th is the first date, when one of the demonstrators, an IVAW member from D.C., Adam Kokesh, will have his day in court. It is Adams' trial. If you are off work, please, please come. It will be difficult to get enough people out here in Long Island on short notice. These veterans and demonstrators are worthy of support. And, it will be important, but difficult, to get a crowd out for all 15 of them, on 15 different days.Please spread the word:Subject: Please come to court in Nassau County on Wed, Nov 12th at 8am to support the Hempstead 15 from the Hofstra DemoSubject: Hempstead 15 plead not guilty while cops defend brutalizing veteransIt was a sad day for Nassau County, but a proud one for veterans and activists nation-wide when the Hempstead 15 plead not guilty Nov. 10 in the Nassau County District Courthouse to charges of disorderly conduct while a crowd of nearly 100 supporters cheered them from in and outside the building.Video of the court support demo is here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNGTnxWJFW8 Returning to tensions in Iraq, Ed Johnson and Bill Varner (Bloomberg News) report the United Nations has warned the provincial elections scheduled for January 31st "may trigger more attacks" and the reporters note UN Secretary-General delivering a report to the UN Security Council Monday in which he termed "the security gains 'fragile'." Michele Montas handled Monday's UN briefing in NYC and she stated that Iraqi ministries no longer provide the United Nations with fatality information. She also noted Ban Ki-moon released a report and that he states the provincial elections " represent the most significant events in the coming months, as they can advance political dialogue, establish representative provincial councils and empower community leaders to meet the needs of local citizens in cooperation with the Government of Iraq. At the same time, he warns, there is potential for election-related violence and instability." Take "he warns" out of the previous quote and that's page 14 of the Secretary General's report (item 55). The United Nations report is entitled [PDF format warning] "Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 1830 (2008)." The report covers a wide range of topics involving gains and things still needed. Regarding elections, it notes: Following intense negotiations, the Council of Representatives adopted the provincial election law on 24 September and the Presidency Council ratified the measure on 7 October. The law was amended on 3 November to include provisions for minority representation in Baghdad, Basra and Ninawa. Provincial council elections are now scheduled to take place in early 2009 in 14 of the 18 governorates in Iraq. Starting in August, attempts at intimdation aginst Christians in Mosul were reported with a dramatic increase in violence in the first two weeks of October. Over 2,200 families, more than 10,000 individuals, have reportedly fled their homes and most have sought temporary shelter in the Ninawa plains, leading my Special Representative to publicly express concern and strongly condemn the killing of civilians on 12 October. The development comes at a very sensitive time, and against a backdrop of heightened political tensions regarding the unresolved issues of minority representation in the provincial elections and disputed internal boundaries. [. . .] On 26 October, United States forces from Iraq launched an attack on a house in the village of Sukkariyah in the Syrian Arab Republic. I expressed my deep regret over the loss of civilian lives and I called for regional cooperation to solve issues of common concern, including border security. The situation in the region is fragile and we therefore must stay focused on initial positive steps towards regional dialogue. And regarding Kirkuk and minorities, we'll note this from the report:During the reporting period my Special Representative and his political and electoral teams faciliated the negotiations on the provincial election law between the major political party blocs, the Presidency Council, members of the Council of Representatives and the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government. Following the passage of the election law, engagement with the parties continued with a view to their reconsidering the issue of minority representation in the provincial councils. An amendment addressing this issue was passed on 3 November. My Special Representative met with key leaders from the Christian, Yezidi, Shebek and Sabean Mandean communities to reassure them of the continued engagement of the United Nations on the issue of minority representation. The provincial election stipulates special arrangements for Kirkuk Governorate, whereby a committee comprised of seven representatives (two Members of Parliament each from Kirkuk's Arab, Turkmen and Kurdish components and one Christian representative) is to submit a consense report to the Council of Representatives by 31 March 2009 on (a) mechanisms for sharing administrative and security powers and civil service positions in Kirkuk; (b) a review of violations against public and private property within the Governorate of Kirkuk before and after 9 April 2003, with the Government of Iraq guaranteeing the correction of those violations in accordance with the laws applied in Iraq; and (c) an examination of all data and records related to the demographic situation including the voter registry. The committee's findings will be binding recommendations for implementation by the Independent High Electoral Commission. The committee's mandate concerns the issues that lie at the epicentre of what has so far been irreconcilable Kurdish, Arab, Turkmen and Christian claims on the future administrative status of Kirku. UNAMI is ready, should it be invited, to provide advice and assistance to the committee. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that "world attention has focused on the battle to control oil-rick Kirkuk"; however, "the strip of small villages connecting Sinjar to Khanaqeen has turned into a powder keg as Kurdish and Arab parties compete for the loyalties of the minorities. Both sides are using economic incentives, intimidation, detention and in some cases murder." Fadel focuses on Yazidi Murad Kashtu who has been taken into custody by Kurdish forces three times (twice he was beaten while in their custody) while threatening him over his work "with an Arab party in territory that the Kruds covet." Asi tells Fadel, "Any man who is not with them (the Kurds) -- and especially not with the party (the Kurdistan Democratic Party) -- cannot live in the area because he will suffer, and for this reason I think all of us will leave the area."
Staying with violence but dropping back to yesterday's Baghdad bombings, Anwar J. Ali and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) report the "synchronized triple-bombing" claimed 28 lives according to the Ministry of the Interior and that is and the "suicide attack in Baquba on Monday, seem to be part of a rise in violence after a relatively quiet few weeks here. . . . The Associated Press counted at least 19 bombings in Baghdad this month as of Sunday, compared with 28 for all of October and 22 in September." Mary Beth Sheridan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) describe the scene: "Walls define much of this historic city -- slabs of concrete erected by U.S. soldiers or residents that have turned neighborhoods into mazes aimed at frustrating attackers. Only recently, as security improved, did someone wedge open the barriers by Karim's Abu Wael restaurant. No one noticed when someone drove a white Volkswagen Passat through the opening and parked. At about 8 a.m. Monday, explosives in the Passat's trunk detonated, just as a minibus packed with 20 people passed by on the busy road on the other side of the barriers, witnesses and U.S. officials said." Hussein Kadhim and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explain that there is some confusion as to whether there were three or four bombings: "Witnesses said they saw two car bombs followed by two roadise bombs, while police blamed a suicide bomber and two roadside bombs for the fatalities." AP's Robert H. Reid and Qassim Abdul-Zahra raise the death toll to 31 and they add, "Witnesses said the suicide bomber mingled among rescuers and bystanders, then detonated an explosives belt, which probably accounted for most of the casualties."
Baghdad was again the scene of coordinated bombings this morning. BBC reports a double-bombing "during the morning rush hour. The target appeared to be a newspaper distribution; the first blast hit a delivery lorry and the second a row of vendors waiting to collect newspapers." AFP adds, "Three day labourers were killed and another 14 wounded when a bomb went off in an empty lot where they were waiting for work near Palestine street, one of the main thoroughfares of Baghdad." McClatchy's Sahar Issa notes 2 dead from the two bombings and seventeen wounded.
Other bombings today?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack that left six people wounded a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded six people, another Baghdad roadside bombing also injured six ("including three policemen"), a Nineveh car bombing that wounded fifteen people and the Turkish military bombed Dohuk last night and this morning.
Of course, we all understood that Nader would not win the election, but the movement of Arab Americans away from him regrettably deprives him of the political influence he might have gained to press his positions, including his strong criticism of Israel's illegal occupation. His voice is considerably weakened because of the movement of Arab American voters to other candidates, which is unfortunate for those Palestinians who live in desperation on a daily basis. The same is true for the people of Lebanon and Syria who are in constant fear of being bombed by U.S. warplanes flown by Israeli pilots. In this election, a great many Arab American joined Obama's winning coalition, despite Obama's clear indication that he wanted nothing to do with Arabs, either Christian or Muslim. We saw, during his campaign, that his staff prevented Muslim women with head scarves from sitting behind him in view of the television cameras during his campaign rallies. He visited Christian churches and Jewish Synagogues, but he refused to visit even one Mosque during the campaign. And, finally, joining John McCain, he made the obligatory bow and scrape to the Israeli Lobby -- AIPAC -- during that group's 2008 convention. He made no attempt to hide any of these clearly pro-Israeli actions from Arab Americans. Had he done the same toward any other ethnic group, we would expect that the group would find another electoral home for their support and their votes. But that, apparently, is not what happened this year. Arab Americans voted overwhelming in support of Obama, rushing right past Ralph Nader, who has articulated the community's feelings about the Israeli occupation. This is a continuation of the self-destructive attitude held by people of Arab descent. We see it in the Arab world, and we see it among the Arab diaspora. We see the urge to defeat or to overlook one of our own in favor of catering to those we think are certain to hold power.
Team Obama launched, encouraged and fed on some of the most sexist attacks the country's seen in years. In a landscape where feminist 'leaders' rolled over and took it (with a smile!) The New Agenda was among the organizations springing up to promote self-respect and self-worth. Amy Siskind notes that today is the quarter birthdray of New Agenda and recaps the recent history:
On Governor Palin, we noted Sunday at Third, "Palin is seen as a strong voice in the Republican Party's future so naturally the press violates all the rules to spread a whisper campaign. No, The New York Times is not supposed to allow opponents to attack someone without coming forward. Strange that when they acknowledge that policy these days, it's usually when someone in the entertainment industry threatens to sue the paper. The threat of lawsuit will always force the paper to issue one of those, 'Oops, we goofed. It is not our policy to allow character assaults to be launched by unnamed persons.' Maybe Palin should threaten to sue?" As Debra J. Saunders (San Francisco Chronicle) points out today, "It tells you everything that the Palin smear stories come from anonymous staffers. There is no documentation. There is no way to prove the rumors false. Think graffiti in a junior high school girls' room." Saunders goes on to note, "The political press corps doesn't win any awards in this episode, either. Remember when the pack would not jump on National Enquirer stories about John Edwards' relations with Rielle Hunter and child -- because the story had not been nailed down? It seems that there is a different standard for Palin -- to wit, anything goes."
Today the Times continues their efforts to smear Palin and Michael Cooper should be ashamed of himself. He accuses her of "not going quietly into the sunsent" which is strange when you consider no one launched accusations like that at John Edwards who, following the 2004 election, immediately launched his 2008 presidential campaign. He finds it shocking that "she will be given a starring role when the Republican Governors Associations meets in Miami" -- why the hell shouldn't she? She's one of the few exctiing people that party has. It's her or Ahnuld. And she just came off a campaign where she packed in huge crowds.
"She seems determined to remain highly visible," Cooper frets. Was she supposed to die? Was she supposed to hang her head in shame? Exactly what does the New York Times want from Governor Palin and how long is the paper going to allow the double-standard to remain so obvious in print? He then goes on to declare that "Palin remains popular among some Republicans, and she is still mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012." Among some? Jeremy P. Jacobs (PolitickerMA) reports the latest Rasmussen poll finds "64% of 1,000 likely Republican voters would support Palin over Rmoney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Louisian Gov. Bobby Jindal, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist" for the 2012 GOP presidential nominee. Among some? 8% judged Palin unfavorable in the poll (that's "somewhat" and "very") while 91% judged her favorable (that's "somewhat" and "very lumped together). This echoes Rasmussen's earlier poll this month, "Seventy-one percent (71%) of Republicans say John McCain made the right choice by picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, Palin has been the subject of largely critical media coverage but has attracted some of the most enthusiastic crowds of either campaign. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say the party picked the right nominee for president." With Republicans, Palin was more popular than was McCain. And that's in spire of non-stop attacks.
As soon as Palin was announced, Barack's operatives set about smearing her with one vile lie after another. Early on, it was noted here (back in August) that we wouldn't repeat that nonsense but if Palin commented on it, we'd quote her. She's commented on one of the big early lies, that Trig was not her son. She did so on Fox's On the Record With Greta which has transcript and video:
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there anything else that has been raised or said about you in the media, either during the convention -- I mean, during the campaign or since the campaign ended, that you think you need to address that has been, you know, an allegation about you? PALIN: Well, unfortunately, early on, there are a tremendous number of examples that we can give regarding my record and things that could have, should have been so easily corrected if -- if the media would have taken one step further and -- and investigated a little bit, not just gone on some blogger probably sitting there in their parents' basement, wearing their pajamas, blogging some kind of gossip or -- or a lie regarding, for instance, the -- the discussion about who was Trig's real mom? You know, Was it one of her daughters or was she faking her pregnancy? And that was in mainstream media, the question that was asked, instead of just coming to me and -- and -- and you know, setting the record straight. And then when we tried to correct that, that, yes, truly, I am Trig's mother, for it to take days for it ever to have been corrected, that -- that kind of right out of the chute was one of the oddities of this campaign and the messaging. And then, too, things that, again, so easily could have been corrected about my supposed attempts to censor and ban books when I was the mayor of Wasilla. And one of the examples that they gave was that media was just sure that one of the books I tried to ban was Harry Potter. Of course, it hadn't even been written when I was the Mayor of Wasilla. So just issues like that that just -- you know, it was -- it was mind- boggling to consider what it was that we were going to be up against, when you could see that something was written about, something was stated in the media. I knew the truth and I had the record to prove otherwise, and yet it would either take too long to unring that bell that had just been rung or there was no attempt at all to correct the record. That was pretty frustrating.
That's Greta Van Sustern. We don't normally link to Fox but it was noted -- back in August -- that if Palin commented on that vile trash, we would note and otherwise we wouldn't. She's commented.
Virtually without exception, liberal commentators and "left" political tendencies have ignored or downplayed all such indications that Obama intends to pursue a conservative course and reject anything that suggests a more democratic and egalitarian restructuring of American capitalism. This has been facilitated by their interpretation of the election almost entirely in racial terms. The obsession with race, which for 40 years has been the mainstay of liberal politics in America, has, if anything, been accentuated in the aftermath of the election. This is despite the fact that the election was a powerful refutation of the portrayal of American working people as racist, backward and hopelessly in the thrall of religion and conservative "values"--a political myth that assumed the status of an unassailable truth after the reelection of Bush in 2004. Typical is the column in the Sunday New York Times by Frank Rich, which begins, "On the morning after a black man won the White House, America's tears of catharsis gave way to unadulterated joy." Rich notes approvingly that the election disproved what "we've been told by those in power… that we are small, bigoted and stupid--easily divided and easily frightened." He then makes the significant admission that "We heard this slander of America so often that we all started to believe it, liberals most certainly included." It is obvious that Rich, speaking for liberals in general, employs the same superficial impressionism, buttressed by an obsession with race, that led him to buy into the old illusions in order to embrace a new one--that Obama represents a new dawn of democracy and progress in America. It is legitimate to recognize that the vote for Obama would not have been possible were it not for the fact that social attitudes in America have changed profoundly over the past 50 years--something that was for all practical purposes denied by Rich and his fellow liberals. Nor is there any doubt that the movement to the left of broad sections of the working class overcame any hesitations linked to the lingering influence of racial attitudes. But there is a disturbing undercurrent in the response of Rich and other liberal and "left" commentators to the election. For them, it is all about race, and not about the social sentiments, policy questions and class issues that actually determined the outcome. They define the election as the victory of a black man, not the result of a wave of popular opposition to Bush and a Republican administration that lifted a candidate into the White House who happens to be black.
I sorry to say I'm over it. While I was moved by the first reports of people celebrating in the streets, and can still understand the feeling that many people (many of my neighbors) have, the plethora of bad analysis and false claims has left me not wanting to hear any more.For example:Obama's Historic Victory by Howard Zinn"But, as the first African American in the White House, elected by an enthusiastic citizenry which expects a decisive move towards peace and social justice, he presents a possibility for important change.Obama becomes president in a situation which cries out for such change. The nation has been engaged in two futile and immoral wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American people have turned decisively against those wars."No and no. What people did was vote against Bush. They didn't like him anymore, and took it out on McCain. The McCain tactic of claiming to have years of inside experience backfired when the economic went south and the voters blamed those in power for the collapse. And they couldn't tell or didn't care that Obama was no different than McCain on the economy.And the economy was the issue. Obama was a likely loser before it came along.Not the wars. Not social justice.
Cynthia McKinney was the Green Party's presidential candidate and Rosa Clemente was her running mate. Unlike other presidential tickets, Cynthia regularly raised the issue of the prison-industrial-complex and the death penalty throughout her campaign. Gloria Rubac (Workers World) reports, "Cynthia McKinney made history in Texas Oct. 30. Never has any politician or any candidate for public office been in Huntsville, Texas, on an execution night to join in with those protesting. . . . As [Greg] Wright's stepdaughter stood outside of the death house holding a cell phone in one hand and a framed photo Wright in the other, McKinney approached her and asked about the photo. 'How long has your family been dealing with fighting this execution? Did you ever think that your family would ever have to deal with the issue of the death penalty in such a personal way?' McKinney listened to Misty Smith explain that they had been fighting to prove Wright's innocence for seven or eight years and that never did she think she and her mother would be going through this injustice."
Meanwhile Laura Carlsen (CounterPunch) reports that "Latin American leaders still aren't running to the mountaintop to proclaim the dawn of a new era in U.S. relations. The response can be characterized more as hope seen through the ever-leery eye the contintent keeps on its northern neighbor. The U.S. government has a long way to go to undo the damage done to its relations and its repuations through decades of both Republican and Democratic presidencies. Latin American leaders placed conditions and qualifications on their congratulations. Lula in Brazil and Evo Morales in Bolivia called for an end to the 'unjustifiable' embargo against Cuba. Morales added a demand for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region. Mexico's Felipe Calderon sent a brief congratulatory note, calling for strengthening bilateral relations and emphasizing the role of Mexican-Americans in the elections and the U.S. economy. This was his way of insisting on action toward legalizing the status of Mexican immigrants and creating legal frameworks for future immigration flows."
Obama is no different. He will soon be exposed the person he really is; just another wolf in sheep clothing. Obama's promises to protect the middle class are just empty promises. This was obvious after he approved the $700 billion (plus interest) bailout to give more tax money to corrupt bankers, who will use that money to buy weaker banks. The money should have been used to pay portions of the mortgages the middle class owe to the banks, so they could keep their homes. His acclaimed tax cut promise to the middle class means nothing to its unemployed members. The official unemployment rate is 6.5% not counting those, who are not receiving unemployment benefits and are thus not counted. In 2008 alone Americans have lost 1.2 million jobs to outsourcing. Obama's solution to outsourcing is offering corporations tax cuts as incentives to keep the jobs in the US. Such incentive is nothing compared to the huge savings, in the forms of benefits and retirement funds the corporations are saving by employing very cheap labor force unprotected by any labor laws in third world countries lacking any environmental laws. Obama never talked about the poor Americans. For him they don't exist. Obama's real position concerning the unfair NAFTA agreement, that he aggressively criticized and called for its revocation, was exposed later, when it was leaked that his advisor Astan Goolsbee had called Canadian officials asking them not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric seriously, but "... should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plan".
Herb the Verb (Corrente) takes on bigot Jasmyne A. Canick who made an ass out of herself on NPR's Talk of the Nation spewing homophobia, "She has a point, after all, since human rights are a limited resource, the more human rights your group gets, the less my group gets. She didn't say whether that also translates to brown people, women, etc., but it isn't a stretch to assume that it does." (Herb the Verb is using sarcasm.) And we'll close out on this topic with Media Matters (which misses the boat in their criticism):
During the November 7 edition of ABC's The View, while discussing the passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and effectively overturning the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling that affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserted that a "priest" in Sweden was "put in jail for not wanting to perform a marriage to a gay couple, so then they put him in jail because the law stated that you could not discriminate based on sexual preference." Later in the discussion, co-host Sherri Shepherd said: "I don't want to know that my pastor -- because, you know, the church is preaching against homosexuality, and I don't want to know that my pastor could be jailed." However, contrary to Hasselbeck and Shepherd's suggestion that as a result of the California Supreme Court's ruling -- or without the passage of Proposition 8 -- members of the clergy "could be jailed" for refusing to perform gay marriages, neither the decision by the California Supreme Court, nor Proposition 8 had anything to do with members of the clergy. The California Supreme Court's ruling applied only to state officials. The ruling directed "state officials [] [to] take all necessary and appropriate steps so that local officials may begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples" [emphasis added]. The court itself noted the irrelevance of its decision to clergy, saying in the majority opinion that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
A) Barbara Walters brought it up. (Media Matters has the transcript.) It's her show. Hold her accountable. There was no reason for her to bring up things that weren't accurate (which was the reason Whoopi's visibly ticked off, video is posted as well). Walters brought it up. B) In the US, churches do not handle marriages or divorces, the government does. You can be married in a church -- it can be a location. You can pick someone of the clergy to preside over the ceremony; but the church itself has nothing to do with marriage or divorce in the US other than locale and ceremony. States issue marriage licenses, states grant divorces. That's how it works. C) Elizabeth's tale of Sweden doesn't need to be addressed because who knows if it's true (it probably isn't) and who gives a damn? This is the United States of America. You don't need to fret over what Sweden did or didn't do. In the US can someone be sued for refusing to marry a couple? No. NO NO NO. If they could, couples would be suing the Catholic Church which is very clear that you have a Catholic annullment (not a civil one) or a dead spouse if you plan to remarry in the Church.
And for pro-Barack talk, you can check out the Peace Resister Katrina vanden Heuvel who will be Mike Schneider's guest tonight on Bloomber TV's Night Talk. Watch Mike try to keep a straight face as alleged lefty Katty-van-van declares, "I could see sending Colin Powell to the middle east or to Iraq to help faciliate an exit out of Iraq or to really move on a Middle East peace process." Yes, Katty-van-van is that silly of a prat-prat. Katty-van-van will go on to hiss, "I'm not ecstatic that there are so many Clinton administration people" but Colin Powell -- the man who lied to the UN and created his own "blot" -- she wants to bring as someone to do 'good' work in the Mid East? Cover-up Collie, covering up for War Crimes since Vietnam? In fairness, if Katty's saying it either her husband or her father told her to. Since it's so outrageous, the talking points came from her father.
Laugh with Katty-van-van tonight at 10:00 PM in Europe, Asia or the US on Bloomberg TV or catch the artifical coo in stereo on Bloomberg Radio (1130 AM in NYC also on XM and Sirius) at the same time. You can also catch Night Talk online at Bloomberg.com and click here for the podcast (or check iTunes Business News).
In January of 2006, I started my site and I'll continue this weekly blog until C.I. decides to shut down The Common Ills. C.I. is at the four-year mark and I thought I would write a little about that.
I think my husband first discovered The Common Ills. It may have been our son Mike,
but I would bet it was my husband (you can't ask them, their memory is
worse than mine). I know I would walk into the kitchen in the morning
and my husband would be at the computer reading the day's news and
leaving it running for me with a "Be sure to read The Common Ills" cry
before he was out the door.
So I read for over a year before I
ever started a site. Mike had already started his site. So I had a long
time of reading and got a sense of the site and of C.I. It was obvious
that TCI existed for a number of reasons including to speak out against
the illegal war and to speak up for women.
That really didn't
take place and if the latter did they were usually ghetto-ized in a
woman's only space. If you think about it, even now, there are very few
women who cover the 'big topics' and also stand up to attacks against
women. There is no bigger topic than Iraq and I think of it as a real
credit for women that the site online whose focus is the illegal war is
also the site run by a woman and where women will not be treated as
extras in life.
There's a blogger online whose a woman and she
does 'serious' topics. But you'll notice that she never addresses
gender unless it's time to self-promote. I think of her as Little Miss
Gregory Peck. When it's time to self-promote in interviews this year,
she's taken to repeating tales that we've heard from Ava and C.I. since
2005. Which is another reason to roll your eyes at her.
But C.I.
just really created a safe space. Women were not welcome online at
political sites. We still aren't. You'll notice how many will include
comments that equate strength with testes. If women were truly
appreciated online, those comments would not pop up repeatedly.
In
2004, it was even worse online. And not only was it worse for women,
Iraq got about as much attention as it gets right now which is nearly
none.
Into that mix came C.I. and never doubt her influence.
I
get e-mails all the time asking why I don't link to this or that. I
don't link because my attitude is they are dishonorable people. They
steal. They don't credit.
Today it is very common to see
someone refer to a website and then refuse to link to it. That comes
from four years of C.I.'s "No links to trash." C.I. started that and
did so because she understood that linking to something was increasing
its popularity and rank. That's only one example. There are many more.
So when one of the e-mails comes in asking for me to link to something, it goes into the trash folder. I'm not in the mood.
I'm
really not in the mood to link to too much outside of the community. If
you look at my blogroll, you should notice I've purged somethings. Gone
are all Ms. and WMC related websites. I'm done with them. I'm done with
elderly girls who get their tired jollies from attacking other women.
Gloria Steinem's an embarrassment. Maybe when she had the plastic
surgery to suck out the fat from her upper eye lids, it grabbed a
little brain matter? I have no idea. I just know she's embarrassed
herself. She went on Oprah this week to trash Sarah Palin again.
How
very pathetic. I've also heard what Christian Bale says about his
one-time (very brief) step-monster and thought, "Hmm. Doesn't sound all
that feminist."
Sarah Palin was running for public office and
a woman who destroyed with her lies isn't a feminist. So Gloria
Steinem, you're just an old woman still coloring your straw hair. You
are not a feminist. You gave up that right. You're an embarrassment
like the elderly women were in the 1920s. You need to leave the public
stage and take your little dog Toto (Robin Morgan) with you. What those
two women have done in the last nine weeks especially is shameful and
they are not feminists. They are embarrassments and they may be
suffering from dementia due to their advanced age. Regardless, they
need to transition into private live and off the public stage because
they have nearly destroyed everything they helped build in the last 40
years.
Gloria is especially offensive because she's sweet.
Robin Morgan's just a bitch. She's just an ugly bitch who tears apart
Sarah Palin because she (Robin) is so butt ugly that no one thinks
she's cute or pretty and hasn't in many, many decades. The way she goes
after Palin makes it very clear that jealousy is the root of her hatred
of Palin.
But Gloria's the sweet one. She's become the idiot.
She's become Rose on Golden Girls. How so? Her actions this year? A
repeat of her behavior in 1972 and maybe this isn't know but Gloria had
a lot of apologizing to do in 1973. And a lot of us were willing to
forgive her stabbing women in the back to wrap her legs around the
patriarchy (the men in the Democratic Party with her ridiculous "I'm
for Shirley is you're in an uncontested state but if the vote's close,
vote for George McGovern!") because it was early in the second wave and
mistakes would be made.
But the promise we were given was that Gloria didn't just know she was wrong, she was promising it would never happen again.
But it has. This year.
And if she's not going to learn from her mistakes, she needs to run from the public stage.
Women
have suffered under the backlash and a large cause of the suffering has
been the ineffective 'leadership' in the feminist movement which is
always too quick to fall on its back and spread its legs.
We need women that fight.
And
if you're someone who read The Common Ills in the early days, you know
what a fighter C.I.'s become. It's really amazing. Then and now, C.I.'s
attitude was 'think what you want.' But she's lost the stomach for 'in
fairness' and for trying to see it from someone else's side if the
someone else repeatedly does harm.
I love what she does and wish I could do something similar. Not the same thing because I'm Trina and can't copy someone else.
But what I do want is to be a stronger voice when I speak.
C.I.
thought The Common Ills would be ending this week. That was the
announced plan in the summer of 2005. It hasn't ended. Yet. But we have
no idea how much longer it will continue and I want to hit hard when I
write here.
I'm not interested in the weak. The weak destroyed
the country for eight years and they're gearing up to destroy for four
more. There's not a bit of difference in Barack and Bully Boy or in the
way both are turned into heroes with no basis in reality.
It is
very difficult to read Paul Krugman anymore because he is as bad as
Chris Matthews in the lead up to the illegal war. He is writing these
embarrassing pieces that may, in fact, top some of Peggy Noonan's 2000
and 2001 hagiography on the Bully Boy.
So many people made themselves useless in 2008.
C.I.'s
said you could see it as something to cry about or as a gift. I choose
the latter. We now know how weak the left 'voices' are and how they
sell out everything for a cheap election.
There are no ethics, there are no standards and there is no honesty.
From
hundreds of 'voices,' we are left with maybe a dozen we can trust on
radio or in mags or newspapers. That's not saying much. But imagine how
much worse it would be if we hadn't awoken to the reality of what our
'leaders' really were? If we didn't realize how weak they were we might
have, wrongly thinking we could depend upon them, found ourselves in a
crisis and realized after the fact that we couldn't count on them. As
the ship sinks, better to know who can't swim before you pass out the
life preservers.
And as I rush to wrap up, the real gift has
been watching C.I., during a very difficult and rough year, keep
fighting, keep standing up and never selling out.
Finally, let
me say thank you to the woman who never operated under the mistaken
belief that women didn't matter or only mattered half as much as a man.
C.I.'s created a strength that will live on online long after this
community packs it in.
Friday,
November 7, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military
announces another death, the pathetic voices of the left continue
cooing while stronger voices from the left speak to realities, Talabani
makes an announcement, and more.
Tuesday a presidential election
was held in the US. It could have been about something but that would
have required actual issues. Instead it was stroke, fondle and
feather-kiss Barack by All Things Media Big and Small while real
candidates were shut out of the coverage -- by all outlets and Amy
Goodman a crappy once a month nod to Ralph or Cynthia didn't mean s**t
when every day you swung that tired ass under the street lamp once more
for Barack. In 2004, we heard "never again." Never again would we allow
the movement to end the illegal war to be derailed by a presidential
campaign. That got tossed aside and ripped to shreds, now didn't it?
Let's move over to Loony Tune Stephen Zune who lied in a 2008 article, never corrected it and, before you knew it, all the simple minded were running with (Dahr Jamail, come on down!). No, Hillary did not visit Iraq only once. "Dr." Zunes, correct your lying mouth. He, of course, refused to. And he's back to lie some more at ZNet:
"Obama's honest and prescient understanding of Iraq prior to the
invasion gives hope that as president he will be less inclined to
engage in such acts of reckless militarism." Apparently Zunes is back
on the meds that regulate his intense mood swings (sadly, the meds do
nothing for his delusions). The 2002 speech was an embarrassment and
nothing for the peace movement to praise. There's been some question
about that speech so let's put Zuney to the side for a moment. The
speech did take place. It is recorded. On video. The reaction from the
crowd is the only reason Team Barack had to lie and claim that the
speech didn't exist. The crowd wasn't applauding, they weren't
cheering. It was a meek and embarrassing speech (delivered to a sparse
crowd, it should be noted). When Barack finished there wasn't even
polite applause. But Zuney liked it and, if you're off your meds, you
may as well.
Loony Tunes Zunes goes on to argue that if the War
Hawk Barack isn't a dove, so what, because "he owes his nomination --
and therefore his election -- to those who opposed the invasion of
Iraq". Yeah, try collecting on that, Stephen. Hey, remember Stephen
Zunes' snit-fit at Barack a few months back? When Barack picked Joe
Biden as his running mate? The Joe Biden who supported the illegal war?
But Loony wants you to believe that Barack's indebted to the 'anti-war'
'movement.' (That would be the same Barack who punked Iraq Veterans
Against the War in Denver -- they were protesting and getting
attention, he sent out a Texan known for lying -- one who even lied for
W. -- out to trick them and they fell for it and gave the media a lot
of statements about how groovy Barack was. As soon as the protest ended
so did Barack's 'promise' to them.) Zunes uses phrases like "surely
Barack is aware of this" and what's really hilarious is that someone
who whored his ass for Barack as hard Stephen did has to guess as to
what Barack is and isn't aware of. But a debt is owed, Zunes maintains,
and pressure will be applied! In the real world, Mickey Z points out:
While
the savvy strategist/activists of the Left harbor their delusions of
grandeur about their ability to sway the Prince of Hope, here's a tiny
bit what they--and all of us--have allowed to happen without exerting
our "influence": epidemics of preventable diseases; the poisoning of
our air, water, and food (including mother's breast milk); global
warming, climate change, animal and plant extinctions, disappearing
honeybees, destruction of the rain forest, topsoil depletion, etc.;
one-third of Americans either uninsured or underinsured in terms of
health care; 61% of corporations do not even pay taxes; presidential
lies, electoral fraud, limited debates, etc.; the largest prison
population on the planet; corporate control of public land, airwaves,
and pensions; overt infringement of our civil liberties; bloated
defense budget, unilateral military interventions, war crimes committed
in our name, legalization of torture, blah, blah, blah... Before
you know it, the US government will start spying on American citizens
and detaining prisoners without charges while allowing corporations to
ravage the earth in pursuit of profit, wiping out entire eco-systems in
the process. Oops . . . sorry: they're already doing all that and the
mighty Left is fighting back by supporting Obama? Everywhere I
went on Election Day, I was asked by friend and stranger alike: "Did
you vote?" Once the polling booths closed, I could be 100% certain I'd
not be asked another politically motivated question by such people for
another four years. No one would be rushing up to me and demanding to
know if I was planning to do anything about, say, FISA, the death
penalty, the PATRIOT Act, homelessness, or factory farming. The
election is over. Obama has won. For 99% of the Left, that means their
work is done until 2012. It's time to gloat and reap all the rewards,
right? My prediction: The only pressure that will be consistently
exerted by those on the Left will be the pressure of their soft butts
on their couch cushions as they sit back to smugly watch Jon Stewart,
Keith Olbermann, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher.
Zunes can
never stick to the facts and, having a word count, has to resort
frequently to falsehoods. Which is how you end up with his claim that
the likes of Susan Rice (she works herself into a war frenzy at the
drop of a hat) and Our Modern Day Carrie Nations Samantha Power (Sammy,
get the axe!) are "innovative and enlightened members of the foreign
policy establishment". Keep dreaming and keep lying Zunes. If you told
the truth at this late date, your head might fall out. For reality on
the likes of Sammy Power, see John R. MacArthur's "Pro-War Liberals Frozen in the Headlights" (Common Dreams). Or maybe you want to refer to Howard Zinn
on Power's "myopia":She believes that "there is a moral difference
between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and
killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a
military objective." Of course, there's a difference, but is there a
"moral" difference? That is, can you say one action is more
reprehensible than the other? In countless news briefings, Donald
Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, responding to reporters' questions about
civilian deaths in bombing, would say those deaths were "unintentional"
or "inadvertent" or "accidental," as if that disposed of the problem.
In the Vietnam War, the massive deaths of civilians by bombing were
justified in the same way by Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard
Nixon and various generals.
Or maybe you'd prefer Edward S. Herman (ZNet) explaining
Power's belief system?She believes that "there is a moral difference
between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and
killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a
military objective." Of course, there's a difference, but is there a
"moral" difference? That is, can you say one action is more
reprehensible than the other?In countless news briefings, Donald
Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, responding to reporters' questions about
civilian deaths in bombing, would say those deaths were "unintentional"
or "inadvertent" or "accidental," as if that disposed of the problem.
In the Vietnam War, the massive deaths of civilians by bombing were
justified in the same way by Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard
Nixon and various generals.
No, it doesn't sound very enlightened but then Stephen Zunes is the Minute Rice 'Scholar' of the campus set. Here's Noam Chomsky (via ZNet) explaining
the basics re: Sammy Power, "I don't think, incidentally, that it would
be fair to criticize Power for her extraordinary services to state
violence and terror. I am sure she is a decent and honorable person,
and sincerely believes that she really is condemning the US leadership
and political culture. From a desk at the Carr Center for Human Rights
at the Kennedy School at Harvard, that's doubtless how it looks."
I
think it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that a black candidate at
this level is fundamentally different from all white candidates who
have come before or who are now competing. the more so a black
candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs, and who has relatives
TODAY living in the Third World (Kenya).
The person making a
PATHETIC FOOL of himself? That's Dave Lindorff. Yes, Dave Lindorff
supported Barack because he was "a black candidate who has risked jail
by doing drugs". It doesn't get anymore pathetic than that. Davey-Boy
thought Barack was fighting the brave fight, just, no doubt, as Amy
Winehouse does on the streets of London today. The same 'civil rights'
battle that River Phoenix gave his life for, Dave?
Dave Lindorff is an idiot, he is pathetic and he has proven that In These Times
had good reason to end their relationship with him over his 'curious'
assertions. We stood by Crazy Ass back then. We walked away after he
made a frothy-mouthed fool of himself in February. You can't go home
again, Crazy Ass. This is the world and bed you made, live with it. Pablo Ouziel (Dissident Voice) tracks the continued disengration of left 'voices':
The
new era of voting for the lesser of the two evils has penetrated the
core of America's critical intellectual community, and some of the
biggest voices for change have endorsed Obama. In effect, what has
taken place is the union between those opposed to imperial ideology and
those endorsing it. Although this serious event has gone largely
unnoticed, American intellectuals will need to reflect on its
consequences seriously if they are to contribute to the building of a
stable future for humanity as a whole, and in particular to mending the
tarnished corrupt fabric of American society. One American
intellectual, James Petras, has been able to identify the direct social
consequences of such a paradigm shift and prior to the elections has
publicly expressed his views in an article titled "The
Elections and the Responsibility of the Intellectual to Speak Truth to
Power: Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney." As
the title of the article clearly states, Petras voices the reasons why
intellectuals have the responsibility of voting against Obama just like
they should vote against McCain. In regards to those intellectuals who
have endorsed Obama he says: They are what C. Wright Mills called
'crackpot realists', abdicating their responsibility as critical
intellectuals. In purporting to support the 'lesser evil' they are
promoting the 'greater evil': The continuation of four more years of
deepening recession, colonial wars and popular alienation. After
listening last night to Obama's first speech after his victory, a
victory he said was of the people, what Petras is saying seems
disturbingly accurate when looked at through the prism of critical
discourse analysis. One can look back now to the presidency of George
W. Bush and listen to his rhetoric. What has been his message
throughout the last 8 years? When Obama's core messages are compared to
Bush's, it becomes apparent that the coming presidential plans are not
too different to current presidential policies. Even more
disturbing, is the fact that when Bush spoke throughout his presidency
there was always a slight cynical reaction by the majority of the
public, as most of the surveys have shown time and time again. However,
last night the cynicism seemed to have vanished and the hope of a new
American century was reborn with full force, to the clapping thunder
and joyous splendour of the reborn American people. With every word
uttered by Obama one could see how the empire was not gone, Bush almost
killed it, now Obama the symbol of hope, together with all the American
people in unity, are going to reconstruct their country and the world,
restabilising America's faltering hegemony.
All of the above
effects the illegal war. The defocusing on what mattered, the hijacking
of the peace movement result in the illegal war being prolonged. The
decisions Barack will be making (and receiving excuses on from
Panhandle Media) will prolong the Iraq War. All of the appointments
will say something (usually, "Empire! Empire! Empire!"). We'd planned
to be dark after this day so you can see some of the above as raided
from what would have been the year-in-review but it's also true that
some topics we'll ignore. Rahm Emanuel is now Barack's Chief of Staff.
I know Rahm. If he makes a real ass out of himself, we'll call him out
here or have a laugh over it, otherwise we'll ignore him. (You can
think back to the way Joe Biden was covered here after he became the
v.p. nominee.) You can go elsewhere community wide for negative
criticism of Rahm (Rebecca
doesn't like him) and we can highlight that here (or other trusted
voices from outside the community) but unless Rahm makes a real ass out
of himself on a particular day, I'm not going to be weighing in on him
here. (And no compliments or defense unless he's the target of a
pile-on.) Example, Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) offers,
"For starters, Emanuel is a shameless neoliberal with close ties to the
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), even co-authoring a strategy book
with DLC president Bruce Reed." Tariq Ali (CounterPunch) opines,
"The same day that Spain denied the son of Osama Bin Laden political
asylum, Obama appointed the son of an Irgun terrorist as his Chief of
Staff. Osama's son declared that he did not agree with his father's
actions or opinions. Rahm Israel Emmanuel is an Israel-firster, a
pro-war DLC hack and bully."
Meanwhile the Whig Standard editorializes
today that Barack should use "soft power" and argue Barack "should
start by reaffirming his greatness by demonstrating to the world the
'enduring power of our ideals.' He should start by reaffirming his
campaign pledge to stand is in U.S.-occupied Iraq where Assyrians -- an
ancient Christian people indigenous to northern Iraq -- are the victims
of a jihadist campaign of ethnic cleansing. The U.S. must accept some
blame for this crisis. By deposing Iraiq dictator Saddam Hussein, the
U.S. unwittingly unleashed sectarian forces that are bent on destroying
religious pluralism in Iraq." Meanwhile the National Council of Churches in Australia issues an alert
and calls for their country to take in more Iraqi reufgees and to
provide more funds for external and internal Iraqi refugees. They note:
Violence
and persecution against minority groups in Iraq continues, including
communities of Christians which have been in existence for over 1500
years. The Assyrian Church of the East, as one of the Churches most
affected, has mobilised itself worldwide to call attention to the
crisis, and seek help where help can be found. Other Churches under
extreme duress are the Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Armenian
Apostolic, and Chaldean. Prior to 2003, 4% of Iraq's population was
Christian. Yet 40% of Iraq's 2.2 million refugees are Christian, which
indicates the seriousness and disproportionate degree of violence and
persecution to which Iraqi Christians are being exposed. "No one has
been untouched by grief either by personal loss or to see their country
torn apart by violence," said Bishop Mar Meelis Zaia, Australian head
of the Assyrian Church of the East. According to Church sources this
exodus is the result of a campaign of violence, murder, terrorism,
threats, and intimidation targeted at the Christian minority. Attacks
have escalated since September, when the electoral law was changed to
remove the system of quotas that ensured minority groups representation
on provincial councils. The result of government investigations and the
arrest of about 12 people in relation to the latest wave of attacks are
being awaited. The international Assyrian Christian community is
raising money to help. Local parishes are collecting money to help the
Assyrian Church of the East Relief Organisation (ACERO) provide aid for
people in the city of Mosul, where the recent escalation of attacks has
been most severe. In the long run the hope of those fleeing the country
is for a self-governing administrative region within Iraq.
The Journal of Turkish Weekly reports
that Chaldean-Assryian Council chair Jamil Zito declaring, "Iraq's
Christians were hoping that various political factions would accept the
UN Mission in Iraq proposal". Iraq may hold provincial elections in
January (or not). Article 50 provided for religious minority
representation. Article 50 was stripped out of the bill before
Parliament passed it. A compromise was proposed this week which Iraqi
Christians find insulting. Earlier this week, Sam Dagher and Mohammed al-Obaidi (New York Times) explained that Christians would get one seat each on Baghdad, Basra and Nineveh council while
Yazidis would get one seat on Nineveh for a total of 4 seats combined
while Article 50 guaranteed the religious minorities 13 seats and the
UN proposed 12 (the United Nations proposal came after Article 50 was
deleted). Today Waleed Ibrahim, Tim Cocks and Philippa Fletcher (Reuters) report
that the office of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani issued a statement
yesterday about his meet up with Christians, "They expressed worries
about the negative impact of the law passed in parliament, which they
said gives them a small number of seats and does not protect their
rights. They asked the [presidency] council to reject this law. The
president showed full support to Christian and other minorities (and) .
. . promised he will not sign any law that could deprive any Iraqi
group of their rights." If you thought that or the treaty might have
resulted in questions at the White House today you missed Tony Fratto's
and the press' embarrassing performances.
The treaty? Leila Fadel, Nancy A. Youssef and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report,
"Many Iraqi officials are now calling the status-of-forces accord, or
SOFA, 'the withdrawal agreement,' possibly as a way of marketing it to
a wary public." Ernesto Londono, Mary Beth Sheridan and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) quote
government spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh, "Iraqis would like to know and
see a fixed date" and that the US has to be prepared for more
negotiatings while the US Embassy maintains (as does the US State Dept)
that what Iraq has been given is the "final text." Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News) adds
that Hoshyar Zebari, the country's foreign minister, has stated that
the treaty will be finalized with "the current administration." AFP reports
that al-Sadr follower Sheikh Sattar al-Batat, "Every Iraqi should read
this agreement and decide for himself whether he agrees or disagree
with it. . . . No one in his right mind can accept this agreement, so
how can we?" NYT's Katherine Zoepf (for the paper's other holding, International Herald Tribune) quotes
al-Batat declaring, "We will continue to condemn the Iraqi-American
pact because it will legislate the American presence in Iraq. Sadr City
has lost 4,300 martyrs since the invasion, so how could we accept this
agreement? We say no to the Iraqi government if it wishes to sign
anything." And Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) notes
that Sunnis are also nervous over the treaty and Rubin also notes, "The
Iraqi government, made up of exiles who were able to rise to power only
as a result of the American invasion, has been looking for a way to
support the pact without appearing to be kowtowing to Americans."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing killed Haider Hassoon (an Iraqi refugee
who'd just reclaimed his home) and left six people wounded, a Baghdad
sticky bombing that claimed 2 lives and left seven people injured and a
Diyala Province roadside bombing targeting "Awakening" Council members
-- two were killed, five more wounded.
Today the US military announced:
"A Coalition force Soldier died in a non-combat related incident Nov. 6
in Kirkuk province. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending
notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense.
The incident is still under investigation." The announcement brings the
number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the
illegal war to 4191.
Public radio note, Monday on WBAI (2:00 pm EST), Cat Radio Cafe features: "Writer/performer Danny Hoch
on Taking Over, his hip-hop infused play about New York gentrification;
and Coney Island documentarian Charles Denson, photographer Claude
Samton, and PS 225/ Shell Bank JHS/Abraham Lincoln HS graduate Sheila
Samton on The Puffin Room's multi-media celebration of Coney Island Maybe. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer." And TV note, Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes Steve Kroft explores president-elect Barack's "brain trust," Scott Pelley explores the final destinations for discarded cell phones, monitors, etc and Morley Safer speaks with pioneer Ted Turner.
Community member Stan started his own site yesterday entitled Oh Boy It Never Ends. He's still playing around with it and has so far offered "Good for Nader" and "Stan 411" and "Robin Morgan". Also posting yesterday, Mike's "Joshua Frank, Murphy, Cocktail Weinie Norman" covers the strong and the pathetic, Marcia's "A lot including my cousin is blogging!" is a grab bag post on a multitude of topics, Ruth's "McKinney results, Doug Ireland" continues Ruth's following of election results, Kat's "Pathetic Green Party" explores the planned uselessness of a political party, Cedric's "And she smells like urine" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! TINA FEY'S A SKANK!" (joint-post) pulls a Jim and assigns Ava and I an article (joking, it falls under the topic we're already covering) and Rebecca's "gail collins is an idiot" covers the embarrassment of Collins. On the Green Party, Kimberly and Ian Wilder (On The Wilder Side)
are advocating for action and not waiting around until Januray 2012 to
start figuring out what to do:What next for the national Green Party?
Let's send Malik Rahim to CongressThe Green Party has a golden
opportunity to elect a Congressperson next month. Let's work together,
in this lull after the election, to focus on a powerful strategy and a
winnable race.It has created such interesting timing, that the election
for Congress, District 2, in Louisiana was changed to December 6, 2008.
And, we have one of our strongest Green Party candidates running in
that race. In the vacuum of the November elections being over, this is
a chance for green throughout the country to focus their energy in one
place, on one candidate, who has the qualifications, resume and
charisma to win.Malik Rahim
has credentials. He was a member of the Black Panther Party. He was a
founder of Common Ground, an organization dedicated to supporting poor
and working class people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Malik's story has been in a variety of national media outlets. And,
Malik's work after Hurrican Katrina is a story in Amy Goodman's book,
"Standing Up To The Madness." Malike gave one of the most compelling
and inspiring speeches at the Green Party National Convention in
Chicago this summer. (Video of his speech is: here.)
Bitchy
Tina Fey Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Bitchy Tina Fey" and this
is not a stand-alone. Isaiah plans one more and hopes for two. But the
next one has a guest star (not a politician). Tina can dish it out,
let's see her take ... posted by Marcia @ 11:00 PM
Why
don't you ever list the entire ten? An e-mail came in on my Google of
The Common Ills. I'm not interested in the entire ten but if it's an
issue and you're unable to Google on your own, here it is: ... posted by Marcia @ 9:28 AM
that is isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts 'Bitchy Tina Fey' and from that let's go into nbc's heroes. we did watch tonight and it was good but, honestly, the start dragged like crazy. the 1st ten minutes, i was thinking, 'i can turn this off.'
the show's too top heavy on cast members that are 'likeable' but not necessary.
if that's not clear, once upon a time soaps had monday, wednesday and friday starts. genie francis and tony geary would anchor those days as luke and laura on general hospital and people like laura's parents rick and lesley and rick's mistress monica quartermaine would be the tuesday and thursday stars. you need your heavy hitters and too much time is being given to characters we do not care about intensely.
i don't mean angela, for example. she's interesting just because figuring her out allows you to figure out a great deal since she's skylar, peter and hunky's mother. (i'm blanking on pasadar's character's name.) nathan! just remembered.
also there are too damn few women on this show.
so angela wasn't a problem.
but they need to get their mojo going better. elle. is she a regular character or not?
if she is, start using her. if she's not, quit wasting time with her.
i actually like the character but this episode took place a year ago and the episode before had her turning herself over to some freak show org that allows her to 'lose' her powers (peter & nathan's dad steals them from people at the org). so if she's a regular character, great. they need her and other females. if she's not, quit wasting our time with her stories.
and sorry but jack coleman is boring as hell.
he was interesting when he was required to protect clair (who never is on enough) but these days he's just so boring.
my thoughts. you can watch heroes online if you've missed it so far this year. you can also see their online only stories/sketches brought to you by sprint.
Monday, November 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad bombings get some actual press attention, the treaty still waits, Iraq and China ink their billion dollar deal, provincial elections get scheduled and more.
On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, an armistice ended the slaughter of World War I along the Western Front. A year later, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a national holiday to honor the sacrifice of the U.S. troops who fought in that war. Since then, on November 11th, people across the United States and around the world have historically given thanks for peace, and observed moments of silence to remember those who fought and died during times of war. Tomorrow will be the sixth Veterans Day that finds U.S. troops fighting and dying in Iraq, in a war based on lies. Our troops, our Veterans, our families, and the Iraqi people need to know that it will also be the last. President-Elect Obama, you had the courage and the vision to oppose this war before it started, and you have pledged to end it. As Commander in Chief you will have the power to do that. But leaving U.S. combat troops in Iraq well into 2010, and leaving tens of thousands of additional troops in Iraq indefinitely, is not ending this war -- it is continuing it. 4,193 U.S. troops and over a million Iraqis have already died as a result of this war. Countless others will struggle for the rest of their lives with devastating physical and psychological injurieds. Each day that this war continues, new tragedies occur. The war in Iraq was wrong from the beginning and it is wrong today. There is no justification for continuing to risk the lives of our sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, husbands and wives, and the Iraqi people. President-Elect Obama, please honor the sacrifices of our troops, our Veterans, and our families by committing to the immediate, orderly, and safe return of all U.S. troops from Iraq and assuring that they receive the care they need when they get home.
From reality to the ridiculous, Martin Sieff (UPI) is so excited and he just can't hide it, "The first impact of Obama's historic and decisive election victory last week looks likely to be ensuring the rapid and successful conclusion of the talks to reach an effective Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki." Was that UPI or ICM? This treaty's been discussed so long that it's rare that a State Dept press briefing doesn't result in reporters bringing up the fact that the White House swore the treaty would be concluded by the end of July. But Sieff wants to give credit for whatever happen to an election? So is that alleged "historic and decisive election victory last week" going to be responsible for the daily sunrises as well or might UPI consider asking Sieff to journey back to planet earth? al-Maliki mouthpiece Ali al-Dabbagh is back in the news. AP reports that he's declared of the US response to proposed amendments, "The American answer is not enough for the government to accept it in its current form. There are still some points in which we have not reached a bilateral understanding." Barack -- who will not be sworn in until January -- is no more responsible for al-Dabbagh's comments than he is for what UPI saw as 'success.' This is the White House's dance and he won't occupy it until mid-January. The treaty masquerading as a SOFA would replace the United Nations mandare which expires December 31st. Iran's Press TV reports that Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani "reiterated that he would oppose any agreement which violates Iraq's sovereignty for even an iota and he would clearly announce his stance [on the proposed agreement] in the near future." Yesterday Al Bawaba reported that Bashar Assad, Syrian president, declared today that the treaty the White House wants with the puppet government because "American troops contribute to regional instability and should withdraw from Iraq. Assad told the audience that a recent American raid inside Syria near its border with Iraq is confirmation that the U.S. will use Iraq as a base to attack its neighbors." Staying with the treaty but moving to speculation, Iran's Press TV referenced al-Sabah (Iraq daily newspaper) to state that the White House refused Iraq's "request to change a SOFA provision which would grant US citiziens immunity from legal prosecution in Iraq. . . . The daily added, under the deal, Iraq would supervise US postal services inside the country but would not be permitted to inspect parcels distained for US institutions." Saturday Liz Sly (Chicago Tribune) explained: "The Iraqi government is coming around to the view that it would be better to sign a security deal with the Bush administration than to wait to strike a deal with President-elect Barack Obama, spurred in part by fresh U.S. concessions as well as threats by the U.S. to suspend all operations in Iraq if there is no deal by the end of the year, according to Iraqi officials." Equally true is the US statements (blackmail) that they would pull back (to bases and stop patrolling) if there was not an agreement in place by December 31st when the UN mandate expired.
Moving from the always just-around-the-corner treaty to flashback time, October 1st the US conducted the 'handover' to the puppet government in Baghdad. So the fact that the Awakening Councils are back in the news -- because the puppet government began paying some of them a portion of what the US did -- may strike some as strange. Gina Chon (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) explains, "Today marked the first day that the Iraqi government paid salaries to thousands of informal security group members known as the Sons of Iraq, who have been credited with helping to reduct violence in the country. Between now and Nov. 17, about 40,000 Sons of Iraq members in Baghdad will receive their $300 a month salary from the Iraqi government." Al Jazeera notes, "The new salaries represent a slight pay cut from $300 a month under the US, down to $275 a month on the Iarqi security forces payroll. The move to bring the Awakening groups into the security forces could test Baghdad's fragile calm" and quotes the Royal Institute for Defence and Security Studies Alastair Campbell stating, "Not only is the Iraqi government paying them slightly less . . . but also they're not paying the same amount [of people]. It's thought that about 80,000 were on the books of the Americans and Iraqs -- although they initially agreed to pay 58,000 -- will only pay 54,000. Only 20,000 [of the 54,000] are being reintegrated into the Iraqi security forces at the moment so what will these others do? Will they just hang around being paid not quite as much?" "Awaking" (also known as Sawha and 'Sons of Iraq') numbered approximately 100,000 October 1st [September 22nd Bill McMichael of Military Times used the figure 99,000 during Lt Gen Lloyd Austin's press briefing and Austin did not correct the number]. So October 1st, the puppet government got a little bit of applause and today they are actually supposed to begin doing what they took applause for all that time ago.
Earlier today AP reported two Baghdad bombings which claimed at least 22 lives with forty-two more wounded: "The bombs struck during morning rush hour in the northern part of the city. The first struck a passenger bus. The other blast occurred about 50 yards away as people rushed to help the wounded, authorities said." The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued this statement: "The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG) Staffan de Mistura condemned the double bombing in the Kasra district of Baghdad today killing dozens of innocent civilians and wounding scores more. Mr. de Mistura described these detestable bombings as, 'repugnant crimes aimed at re-instilling fear, distrust and division among the public just as Iraq prepares itself to assume political normalcy with the upcoming provincial elections.' The SRSG extends the United Nations' sincere condolences to the bereaved families and its wishes for a full and speedy recovery for the wounded." Reuters explained it was not a double bombing but a triple bombing and listed the death toll at 28 with the number wounded at sixty-eight. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) cites witnesses counting one car bombing and two roadside bombings. Mary Beth Sheridan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) add that the bombings "destroyed a minibus full of passengers and rained glass and debris on people nearby" and Abu Wael restraurant owner Imad Karim believes the bulk of those hurt (or killed) were on the bus: "We are not feeling safe. There is no security, we only hear about the security from the TV stations." Al Jazeera quotes eye witness Jassim Mohammed who declares, "Innocent and simple people were gathering to have breakfast or shop in the nearby area. A minibus which was driving past was also hit and four or five of its passengers were killed. How can you explain this act? This is not a military unit, not a military barracks. There is nothing there." Andrew North (BBC) offers perspective: "For Iraqis it was a depressing reminded not only of the recent past, but also of the reality that the stability they crave is still far away. . . . This incident is gettin more attention beyond Iraq because there were more deaths than usual. But in the last week alone more than 30 people have been killed in morning rush hour bombings in Baghdad." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) explains, "Today's attack is the worst in Baghdad since a car bombing on June 17 killed 51 people and wounded 75 others."
The Baghdad triple-bombing targeting the crowded area was not the only bombing today. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) notes 5 dead in Baquba resulting from 1 "female suicide bomber" with fifteen injured. CNN cites an Interior Ministry official who "said a report from local police quoted hospital officials and witnesses saying that the bomber was only 13 years old." Phillippe Naughton (Times Of London) reports that "the girl blew herself up at a checkpoint manned by members of the Sunni Muslim 'Awakening' councils, which have led the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq." The Melbourne Herald Sun adds, "Police said the attacker activated her explosive belt at a checkpoint in Baquba, capital of Diyala province. . . Dr. Ahmed Fuad of Baquba General Hospital confirmed the number of killed and wounded and said the bomber appeard to be a 13-year-old girl."
Turning to the issue of provincial elections, BBC reports that January 31st is now the day scheduled for them and that "[t]he vote will be held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces - excluding Kirkuk and three autonomous Kurdish provinces." They've been postponed over and over before and may be again. Sunday Katherine Zoepf and Sam Dagher (New York Times) addressed the decision by the presidency council (Iraq's president and two vice presidents) to sign off on the measure Parliament passed (after Parliament stripped Article 50 out of the provincial elctions bill) and they quote MP Younadim Kanna declaring, "Their sweet speeches to us turned out to be useless. We thought that they would compensate for what was done to us by other major political entitites." Kanna's referring to the song and dance Iraq's religious minorities have gotten for weeks most recently from Jalal Talabani. From Friday's snapshot: "Waleed Ibrahim, Tim Cocks and Philippa Fletcher (Reuters) report that the office of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani issued a statement yesterday about his meet up with Christians, "They expressed worries about the negative impact of the law passed in parliament, which they said gives them a small number of seats and does not protect their rights. They asked the [presidency] council to reject this law. The president showed full support to Christian and other minorities (and) . . . promised he will not sign any law that could deprive any Iraqi group of their rights." Talabani gives a bunch of pretty speeches and then goes ahead and votes for the measure which gives Iraq's religious community six seats -- when Article 50 guaranteed them 13 and the UN (after Article 50 was struck) proposed 12. Just a bunch of pretty words from Talabani. All it takes is one veto vote from any of the three members of the presidency council to tank a measure. Since this one passed, Talabani obviously voted for it despite his repeated assurances to the religious communities. Leila Fadel (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) observes this came following "nationwide protests from minority communities" when Parliament axed Article 50: "Screwing the minorities seems to be the order of the day so that the powerful become more powerful. Arab and Islamic parties banned together to pass the law because they worried that giving minorities would help Kurdish expansion. Arab nationalists fear the expansion of the Kurdish region and the ultimate secession of the Kurdish north. Currently the Kurds control the local government in the mostly northern Sunni Arab province of Nineveh." Meanwhile Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) notes that thee "new difficulty facing the government is the fall in the price of crude oil on which the state is wholly dependent. Iraq has been expecting oil revenue of almost $80bn for 2008, but this will be much lower now the price of oil is down to $64 a barrel. With total government expenditure at some $50bn, this means the government may be short of $10bn to $15bn next year. Earlier this year the government was doubling the salaries of government employees, as if the high price of oil would be permanent." China's Xinhua reports that Iraq's oil deal with China National Peteroleum Corporation was signed today and that the deal is thought to be worth "2.9 billion U.S. dollars".
those are the texas totals for the 2008 vote. are those totals correct? texas community members don't think so. eddie said, 'a few people were nervous and might have decided to vote mccain - palin at the last minute the way ___ did but if they made that decision it seems like they would have talked about it like ___ did.' it does seem that way.
are these the final results above?
if they are i doubt the results. i divided texas up into 9 regions and then called c.i. to find out who was a key member in each area? i think contacted the key member (and any 1 they suggested) and this nader vote is underwhelming compared to what every 1 thinks. maybe they haven't added all the votes? maybe some regions didn't bother to count the write-ins? but our estimating makes it appear that count is less than solid.
i'm not accusing any 1 of fixing the elections.
i am however asking that write-in ballots be treated as real 1s and it doesn't appear that they were in texas. the number for ralph is too small.
i am not contesting the election results for the winner. i do not think ralph won texas. but i do not think that write-in votes were counted in full in texas. maybe i'm wrong. maybe a lot of community members switched to cynthia (doesn't look like it from her numbers) or to barack (doubtful) or to mccain (ditto) and just didn't want to say so?
i don't think so.
in connecticut (pdf format, click here), nader got 19,058 while cynthia got 53. i don't know about cynthia, but ralph was listed on that ballot and wasn't a write-in.
You’ve got to be kidding: Good grief! We scanned his words a second time, to see if we’d read them correctly. We’re fairly sure you know our view: Paul Krugman has been the very best, at the top of the pile, for a very long time now. But golly Ned! Here’s how he started this morning’s column. We had to read it twice: KRUGMAN (11/7/08): Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, is a date that will live in fame (the opposite of infamy) forever. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you. If those are the rules of the current game, sign us up for “something wrong with you.”
that's going to be it for me tonight. everybody have a great weekend. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, November 7, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, the pathetic voices of the left continue cooing while stronger voices from the left speak to realities, Talabani makes an announcement, and more.
Tuesday a presidential election was held in the US. It could have been about something but that would have required actual issues. Instead it was stroke, fondle and feather-kiss Barack by All Things Media Big and Small while real candidates were shut out of the coverage -- by all outlets and Amy Goodman a crappy once a month nod to Ralph or Cynthia didn't mean s**t when every day you swung that tired ass under the street lamp once more for Barack. In 2004, we heard "never again." Never again would we allow the movement to end the illegal war to be derailed by a presidential campaign. That got tossed aside and ripped to shreds, now didn't it?
Let's move over to Loony Tune Stephen Zune who lied in a 2008 article, never corrected it and, before you knew it, all the simple minded were running with (Dahr Jamail, come on down!). No, Hillary did not visit Iraq only once. "Dr." Zunes, correct your lying mouth. He, of course, refused to. And he's back to lie some more at ZNet: "Obama's honest and prescient understanding of Iraq prior to the invasion gives hope that as president he will be less inclined to engage in such acts of reckless militarism." Apparently Zunes is back on the meds that regulate his intense mood swings (sadly, the meds do nothing for his delusions). The 2002 speech was an embarrassment and nothing for the peace movement to praise. There's been some question about that speech so let's put Zuney to the side for a moment. The speech did take place. It is recorded. On video. The reaction from the crowd is the only reason Team Barack had to lie and claim that the speech didn't exist. The crowd wasn't applauding, they weren't cheering. It was a meek and embarrassing speech (delivered to a sparse crowd, it should be noted). When Barack finished there wasn't even polite applause. But Zuney liked it and, if you're off your meds, you may as well.
Loony Tunes Zunes goes on to argue that if the War Hawk Barack isn't a dove, so what, because "he owes his nomination -- and therefore his election -- to those who opposed the invasion of Iraq". Yeah, try collecting on that, Stephen. Hey, remember Stephen Zunes' snit-fit at Barack a few months back? When Barack picked Joe Biden as his running mate? The Joe Biden who supported the illegal war? But Loony wants you to believe that Barack's indebted to the 'anti-war' 'movement.' (That would be the same Barack who punked Iraq Veterans Against the War in Denver -- they were protesting and getting attention, he sent out a Texan known for lying -- one who even lied for W. -- out to trick them and they fell for it and gave the media a lot of statements about how groovy Barack was. As soon as the protest ended so did Barack's 'promise' to them.) Zunes uses phrases like "surely Barack is aware of this" and what's really hilarious is that someone who whored his ass for Barack as hard Stephen did has to guess as to what Barack is and isn't aware of. But a debt is owed, Zunes maintains, and pressure will be applied! In the real world, Mickey Z points out:
While the savvy strategist/activists of the Left harbor their delusions of grandeur about their ability to sway the Prince of Hope, here's a tiny bit what they--and all of us--have allowed to happen without exerting our "influence": epidemics of preventable diseases; the poisoning of our air, water, and food (including mother's breast milk); global warming, climate change, animal and plant extinctions, disappearing honeybees, destruction of the rain forest, topsoil depletion, etc.; one-third of Americans either uninsured or underinsured in terms of health care; 61% of corporations do not even pay taxes; presidential lies, electoral fraud, limited debates, etc.; the largest prison population on the planet; corporate control of public land, airwaves, and pensions; overt infringement of our civil liberties; bloated defense budget, unilateral military interventions, war crimes committed in our name, legalization of torture, blah, blah, blah... Before you know it, the US government will start spying on American citizens and detaining prisoners without charges while allowing corporations to ravage the earth in pursuit of profit, wiping out entire eco-systems in the process. Oops . . . sorry: they're already doing all that and the mighty Left is fighting back by supporting Obama? Everywhere I went on Election Day, I was asked by friend and stranger alike: "Did you vote?" Once the polling booths closed, I could be 100% certain I'd not be asked another politically motivated question by such people for another four years. No one would be rushing up to me and demanding to know if I was planning to do anything about, say, FISA, the death penalty, the PATRIOT Act, homelessness, or factory farming. The election is over. Obama has won. For 99% of the Left, that means their work is done until 2012. It's time to gloat and reap all the rewards, right? My prediction: The only pressure that will be consistently exerted by those on the Left will be the pressure of their soft butts on their couch cushions as they sit back to smugly watch Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher.
Zunes can never stick to the facts and, having a word count, has to resort frequently to falsehoods. Which is how you end up with his claim that the likes of Susan Rice (she works herself into a war frenzy at the drop of a hat) and Our Modern Day Carrie Nations Samantha Power (Sammy, get the axe!) are "innovative and enlightened members of the foreign policy establishment". Keep dreaming and keep lying Zunes. If you told the truth at this late date, your head might fall out. For reality on the likes of Sammy Power, see John R. MacArthur's "Pro-War Liberals Frozen in the Headlights" (Common Dreams). Or maybe you want to refer to Howard Zinn on Power's "myopia":She believes that "there is a moral difference between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a military objective." Of course, there's a difference, but is there a "moral" difference? That is, can you say one action is more reprehensible than the other? In countless news briefings, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, responding to reporters' questions about civilian deaths in bombing, would say those deaths were "unintentional" or "inadvertent" or "accidental," as if that disposed of the problem. In the Vietnam War, the massive deaths of civilians by bombing were justified in the same way by Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon and various generals.
Or maybe you'd prefer Edward S. Herman (ZNet) explaining Power's belief system?She believes that "there is a moral difference between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a military objective." Of course, there's a difference, but is there a "moral" difference? That is, can you say one action is more reprehensible than the other?In countless news briefings, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, responding to reporters' questions about civilian deaths in bombing, would say those deaths were "unintentional" or "inadvertent" or "accidental," as if that disposed of the problem. In the Vietnam War, the massive deaths of civilians by bombing were justified in the same way by Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon and various generals.
No, it doesn't sound very enlightened but then Stephen Zunes is the Minute Rice 'Scholar' of the campus set. Here's Noam Chomsky (via ZNet) explaining the basics re: Sammy Power, "I don't think, incidentally, that it would be fair to criticize Power for her extraordinary services to state violence and terror. I am sure she is a decent and honorable person, and sincerely believes that she really is condemning the US leadership and political culture. From a desk at the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Kennedy School at Harvard, that's doubtless how it looks."
I think it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that a black candidate at this level is fundamentally different from all white candidates who have come before or who are now competing. the more so a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs, and who has relatives TODAY living in the Third World (Kenya).
The person making a PATHETIC FOOL of himself? That's Dave Lindorff. Yes, Dave Lindorff supported Barack because he was "a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs". It doesn't get anymore pathetic than that. Davey-Boy thought Barack was fighting the brave fight, just, no doubt, as Amy Winehouse does on the streets of London today. The same 'civil rights' battle that River Phoenix gave his life for, Dave?
Dave Lindorff is an idiot, he is pathetic and he has proven that In These Times had good reason to end their relationship with him over his 'curious' assertions. We stood by Crazy Ass back then. We walked away after he made a frothy-mouthed fool of himself in February. You can't go home again, Crazy Ass. This is the world and bed you made, live with it. Pablo Ouziel (Dissident Voice) tracks the continued disengration of left 'voices':
The new era of voting for the lesser of the two evils has penetrated the core of America's critical intellectual community, and some of the biggest voices for change have endorsed Obama. In effect, what has taken place is the union between those opposed to imperial ideology and those endorsing it. Although this serious event has gone largely unnoticed, American intellectuals will need to reflect on its consequences seriously if they are to contribute to the building of a stable future for humanity as a whole, and in particular to mending the tarnished corrupt fabric of American society. One American intellectual, James Petras, has been able to identify the direct social consequences of such a paradigm shift and prior to the elections has publicly expressed his views in an article titled "The Elections and the Responsibility of the Intellectual to Speak Truth to Power: Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney." As the title of the article clearly states, Petras voices the reasons why intellectuals have the responsibility of voting against Obama just like they should vote against McCain. In regards to those intellectuals who have endorsed Obama he says: They are what C. Wright Mills called 'crackpot realists', abdicating their responsibility as critical intellectuals. In purporting to support the 'lesser evil' they are promoting the 'greater evil': The continuation of four more years of deepening recession, colonial wars and popular alienation. After listening last night to Obama's first speech after his victory, a victory he said was of the people, what Petras is saying seems disturbingly accurate when looked at through the prism of critical discourse analysis. One can look back now to the presidency of George W. Bush and listen to his rhetoric. What has been his message throughout the last 8 years? When Obama's core messages are compared to Bush's, it becomes apparent that the coming presidential plans are not too different to current presidential policies. Even more disturbing, is the fact that when Bush spoke throughout his presidency there was always a slight cynical reaction by the majority of the public, as most of the surveys have shown time and time again. However, last night the cynicism seemed to have vanished and the hope of a new American century was reborn with full force, to the clapping thunder and joyous splendour of the reborn American people. With every word uttered by Obama one could see how the empire was not gone, Bush almost killed it, now Obama the symbol of hope, together with all the American people in unity, are going to reconstruct their country and the world, restabilising America's faltering hegemony.
All of the above effects the illegal war. The defocusing on what mattered, the hijacking of the peace movement result in the illegal war being prolonged. The decisions Barack will be making (and receiving excuses on from Panhandle Media) will prolong the Iraq War. All of the appointments will say something (usually, "Empire! Empire! Empire!"). We'd planned to be dark after this day so you can see some of the above as raided from what would have been the year-in-review but it's also true that some topics we'll ignore. Rahm Emanuel is now Barack's Chief of Staff. I know Rahm. If he makes a real ass out of himself, we'll call him out here or have a laugh over it, otherwise we'll ignore him. (You can think back to the way Joe Biden was covered here after he became the v.p. nominee.) You can go elsewhere community wide for negative criticism of Rahm (Rebecca doesn't like him) and we can highlight that here (or other trusted voices from outside the community) but unless Rahm makes a real ass out of himself on a particular day, I'm not going to be weighing in on him here. (And no compliments or defense unless he's the target of a pile-on.) Example, Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) offers, "For starters, Emanuel is a shameless neoliberal with close ties to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), even co-authoring a strategy book with DLC president Bruce Reed." Tariq Ali (CounterPunch) opines, "The same day that Spain denied the son of Osama Bin Laden political asylum, Obama appointed the son of an Irgun terrorist as his Chief of Staff. Osama's son declared that he did not agree with his father's actions or opinions. Rahm Israel Emmanuel is an Israel-firster, a pro-war DLC hack and bully."
Meanwhile the Whig Standard editorializes today that Barack should use "soft power" and argue Barack "should start by reaffirming his greatness by demonstrating to the world the 'enduring power of our ideals.' He should start by reaffirming his campaign pledge to stand is in U.S.-occupied Iraq where Assyrians -- an ancient Christian people indigenous to northern Iraq -- are the victims of a jihadist campaign of ethnic cleansing. The U.S. must accept some blame for this crisis. By deposing Iraiq dictator Saddam Hussein, the U.S. unwittingly unleashed sectarian forces that are bent on destroying religious pluralism in Iraq." Meanwhile the National Council of Churches in Australia issues an alert and calls for their country to take in more Iraqi reufgees and to provide more funds for external and internal Iraqi refugees. They note:
Violence and persecution against minority groups in Iraq continues, including communities of Christians which have been in existence for over 1500 years. The Assyrian Church of the East, as one of the Churches most affected, has mobilised itself worldwide to call attention to the crisis, and seek help where help can be found. Other Churches under extreme duress are the Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Chaldean. Prior to 2003, 4% of Iraq's population was Christian. Yet 40% of Iraq's 2.2 million refugees are Christian, which indicates the seriousness and disproportionate degree of violence and persecution to which Iraqi Christians are being exposed. "No one has been untouched by grief either by personal loss or to see their country torn apart by violence," said Bishop Mar Meelis Zaia, Australian head of the Assyrian Church of the East. According to Church sources this exodus is the result of a campaign of violence, murder, terrorism, threats, and intimidation targeted at the Christian minority. Attacks have escalated since September, when the electoral law was changed to remove the system of quotas that ensured minority groups representation on provincial councils. The result of government investigations and the arrest of about 12 people in relation to the latest wave of attacks are being awaited. The international Assyrian Christian community is raising money to help. Local parishes are collecting money to help the Assyrian Church of the East Relief Organisation (ACERO) provide aid for people in the city of Mosul, where the recent escalation of attacks has been most severe. In the long run the hope of those fleeing the country is for a self-governing administrative region within Iraq.
The Journal of Turkish Weekly reports that Chaldean-Assryian Council chair Jamil Zito declaring, "Iraq's Christians were hoping that various political factions would accept the UN Mission in Iraq proposal". Iraq may hold provincial elections in January (or not). Article 50 provided for religious minority representation. Article 50 was stripped out of the bill before Parliament passed it. A compromise was proposed this week which Iraqi Christians find insulting. Earlier this week, Sam Dagher and Mohammed al-Obaidi (New York Times) explained that Christians would get one seat each on Baghdad, Basra and Nineveh council while Yazidis would get one seat on Nineveh for a total of 4 seats combined while Article 50 guaranteed the religious minorities 13 seats and the UN proposed 12 (the United Nations proposal came after Article 50 was deleted). Today Waleed Ibrahim, Tim Cocks and Philippa Fletcher (Reuters) report that the office of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani issued a statement yesterday about his meet up with Christians, "They expressed worries about the negative impact of the law passed in parliament, which they said gives them a small number of seats and does not protect their rights. They asked the [presidency] council to reject this law. The president showed full support to Christian and other minorities (and) . . . promised he will not sign any law that could deprive any Iraqi group of their rights." If you thought that or the treaty might have resulted in questions at the White House today you missed Tony Fratto's and the press' embarrassing performances.
The treaty? Leila Fadel, Nancy A. Youssef and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report, "Many Iraqi officials are now calling the status-of-forces accord, or SOFA, 'the withdrawal agreement,' possibly as a way of marketing it to a wary public." Ernesto Londono, Mary Beth Sheridan and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) quote government spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh, "Iraqis would like to know and see a fixed date" and that the US has to be prepared for more negotiatings while the US Embassy maintains (as does the US State Dept) that what Iraq has been given is the "final text." Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News) adds that Hoshyar Zebari, the country's foreign minister, has stated that the treaty will be finalized with "the current administration." AFP reports that al-Sadr follower Sheikh Sattar al-Batat, "Every Iraqi should read this agreement and decide for himself whether he agrees or disagree with it. . . . No one in his right mind can accept this agreement, so how can we?" NYT's Katherine Zoepf (for the paper's other holding, International Herald Tribune) quotes al-Batat declaring, "We will continue to condemn the Iraqi-American pact because it will legislate the American presence in Iraq. Sadr City has lost 4,300 martyrs since the invasion, so how could we accept this agreement? We say no to the Iraqi government if it wishes to sign anything." And Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) notes that Sunnis are also nervous over the treaty and Rubin also notes, "The Iraqi government, made up of exiles who were able to rise to power only as a result of the American invasion, has been looking for a way to support the pact without appearing to be kowtowing to Americans."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing killed Haider Hassoon (an Iraqi refugee who'd just reclaimed his home) and left six people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing that claimed 2 lives and left seven people injured and a Diyala Province roadside bombing targeting "Awakening" Council members -- two were killed, five more wounded.
Today the US military announced: "A Coalition force Soldier died in a non-combat related incident Nov. 6 in Kirkuk province. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is still under investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4191.
Public radio note, Monday on WBAI (2:00 pm EST), Cat Radio Cafe features: "Writer/performer Danny Hoch on Taking Over, his hip-hop infused play about New York gentrification; and Coney Island documentarian Charles Denson, photographer Claude Samton, and PS 225/ Shell Bank JHS/Abraham Lincoln HS graduate Sheila Samton on The Puffin Room's multi-media celebration of Coney Island Maybe. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer." And TV note, Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes Steve Kroft explores president-elect Barack's "brain trust," Scott Pelley explores the final destinations for discarded cell phones, monitors, etc and Morley Safer speaks with pioneer Ted Turner.
Community member Stan started his own site yesterday entitled Oh Boy It Never Ends. He's still playing around with it and has so far offered "Good for Nader" and "Stan 411" and "Robin Morgan". Also posting yesterday, Mike's "Joshua Frank, Murphy, Cocktail Weinie Norman" covers the strong and the pathetic, Marcia's "A lot including my cousin is blogging!" is a grab bag post on a multitude of topics, Ruth's "McKinney results, Doug Ireland" continues Ruth's following of election results, Kat's "Pathetic Green Party" explores the planned uselessness of a political party, Cedric's "And she smells like urine" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! TINA FEY'S A SKANK!" (joint-post) pulls a Jim and assigns Ava and I an article (joking, it falls under the topic we're already covering) and Rebecca's "gail collins is an idiot" covers the embarrassment of Collins. On the Green Party, Kimberly and Ian Wilder (On The Wilder Side) are advocating for action and not waiting around until Januray 2012 to start figuring out what to do:What next for the national Green Party? Let's send Malik Rahim to CongressThe Green Party has a golden opportunity to elect a Congressperson next month. Let's work together, in this lull after the election, to focus on a powerful strategy and a winnable race.It has created such interesting timing, that the election for Congress, District 2, in Louisiana was changed to December 6, 2008. And, we have one of our strongest Green Party candidates running in that race. In the vacuum of the November elections being over, this is a chance for green throughout the country to focus their energy in one place, on one candidate, who has the qualifications, resume and charisma to win.Malik Rahim has credentials. He was a member of the Black Panther Party. He was a founder of Common Ground, an organization dedicated to supporting poor and working class people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Malik's story has been in a variety of national media outlets. And, Malik's work after Hurrican Katrina is a story in Amy Goodman's book, "Standing Up To The Madness." Malike gave one of the most compelling and inspiring speeches at the Green Party National Convention in Chicago this summer. (Video of his speech is: here.)
gail collins is tragically flat-chested, single and homely. the unibrow doesn't help her. if that seems harsh, too damn bad. i never promised to be nice and the dog-face is lying in print today. gail collins is an idiot.
in her piece of trash column today ('thinking of good vibrations' - sort of picture her spending another lonely night with her vibrator, don't you), gail concludes her bitchy column with this:
finally, on behalf of the baby-boom generation, i would like to hear a little round of applause before we cede the stage to the people who were too young to go to woodstock and would appreciate not having to listen to the stories about it anymore. it looks as though we will be represented in history by only two presidents, one of whom is george w. bush. bummer.
dumb ass gail, barack obama is a baby boomer.
what an idiot you are.
i read that and it stood out immediately because the baby boom is a huge demographic and it was a rare ad campaign that didn't target that demo or some aspect of it. so i know the damn demography, gail collins - the ill-educated, flat-chested, spinister - doesn't.
1946 - 1964. that is the accepted period for any member of the baby boom to be born in. barack obama was born in august of 1961.
now maybe gail's hairy uni-brow blocked her vision and she didn't see what year barack was born in?
or maybe she's just such an idiot and so used to lying that she thinks she can get away with anything?
look at the other spinster aunt, banging around in the attic, maureen dowd. she's been so cowed, she can't even pull it together for 4 opening sentences. click here to read her garbage and note that this sentence does not fit: 'i don't know if w. was inside talking to the portraits on the wall.' ???? what?
she doesn't set that up in the sentences prior and it really requires that in the sentence before or after (or a compound sentence but maureen has trouble with those as well) and instead it just stands out like the eye sore it is. in the next sentence her 'or' is that maybe paintings talk?
no, modo, you idiot, that sentence requries an 'or' for bully boy. 'i don't know if he was inside talking to the portraits on the wall or if he was . . .'
what awful writers the new york times has. and ugly. david brooks, modo, gail collins, bob herbert, we're talking a lot of ugly. since they weren't hired for their looks, how the hell did they get hired because it certainly wasn't due to writing ability.
i mentioned i was tackling this and c.i. suggested i note the difference between modo today online and in print. that really requires me scanning so i'll do it tomorrow or take it over to 3rd for a short entry.
Thursday, November 6, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty maybe moves forward but American citizens cannot have any details, Iraqi Christians feel betrayed by those who promised representation, Joshua Frank explores the War Hawks considered for cabinet positions and more.
At the Vatican today, a conference of Muslim and Christian leaders came to a close today. BBC (text and video) quotes Pope Benedict XVI stating, "Muslims and Christians have different approaches in matters concerning God but must consider themselves members of one family." The Pope completed his remarks with a request (video, not in text), "Let us work with all people, especially the young, to build a common future." AP's Frances D'Emilo notes that Archbishop Louis Sako (from "the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk") was among the religious leaders present. Dr. Seyyed Damdad (Dept of Islamic Studies at The Academy of Sciences in Iran) and Tariq Ramadan were among the Muslim leaders attending. Asia News reproduces the joint declaration those attending agreed to. Last month in Iraq, the exodus of Iraqi Christians from Mosul following attacks and threats garnered some press attention. IRIN reports, "About 400 Christian families, (some 2,400 individuals) have returned to their homes in the northern city of Mosul after a spate of threats and killings led them to flee in early October, according to officials." Today the Kurdish Globe interviews Nechirvan Barzani, the KRG's prime minister (Massoud Barzani is the region's president and also Nechirvan's uncle).
Nechirvan Barzani: There is an unfortunate history of attacks against Christians in Iraq by terrorist groups since the liberation of Iraq in 2003. For example, in August 2004, churches in Baghdad and later in Basra, Mosul, and Kirkuk were targeted by terrorists. Christians were assassinated, abducted, and pressured to convert or pay ransom. Such things continued until nearly 50,000 Christian families had no option but to flee. Of these, 20,000 families fled to the Kurdistan Region and settled in the Duhok and Erbil governorates. Other families settled in the towns around the Nineveh Plain, and the remainder left Iraq for Syria and Jordan. The Kurdistan Regional Government has provided as much assistance as possible to these Christian families. This assistance has included employing them within the Kurdistan Regional Government, reconstructing approximately 100 villages, and helping around 10,000 families with monthly stipends. The KRG has been helping Christian families with assistance through churches and cultural and community centers. When the exodus of Christians became know, the KRG allocated 250,000 ID to each family to help them until the federal government in Baghdad can find a permanent solution. Other KRG institutions, like the Parliament and the governorates of Duhok, Erbil, and Sulaimaniya, have also offered financial and material aid to those in need, through churches and civil society organizations. The KRG Council of Ministers convened to condemn attacks against the Christians. Even before this, many KRG cabinet members, parliamentarians, and governors visited locations where the displaced Christian families have fled.
Barzani goes on to reject the talk that the Kurds were behind the assaults and threats on the Christians stating, "The Kurds would politically lose most from these incidents, since the Arab proportion of the population would rise. Those wishing to lay the blame for these incidents on our doorstep are enemies of democracy, enemies of a federal Iraq. They wish to make blatantly false claims in order to undermine the basic rights of freedom, democracy, and fair representation." That may be but those pointing the fingers at the Kurds were not claiming that the assaults were meant to push Christians out of the area for all time. The assertion was that Kurds wanted to send in the Pershmerga and had created a situation that only they could be the 'heroes' and 'saviors' of. This would, the accusations argued, allow the Kurdish region to get a stronghold in an area that is not widely seen as up in the air as to who has dibs on it. True or false, that was the accusation. (At this point, no group has been found responsible for the attacks and threats.)
Meanwhile Baghdad's Bishop Shlemon Warduni speaks with Asia Times which reports: "The auxiliary bishop of Baghdad had far harsher words for the 'slashed representation' of minorities in the upcoming provincial elections. On Monday 3 November the Parliament approved a resolution, by 106 votes out of 150, to reserve only 6 seats for all minorities: three for Christians (Baghdad, Nineveh and Bassora), one each for Yazidis and Shabaks in Nineveh and the last to the Sabei, in the capital. 'It is pittance -- dencounces Msgr. Warduni - but we don't want it. We want equal rights'. The Chaldean bishop recalls the battle launched by the Church 'for the reinstatement of article 50 of the electoral law', which would have guaranteed 15 seats (out of a total of 440) to minorities, 13 to Christians, one to the Shabaks and the last to the Yazidis. 'We met with Premier al-Maliki, the president and the Muslim religious leaders among them the great Ayatollah al Sistani, the Sheiks and tribal chiefs. All of them promised the article would be reintroduced based upon the principal, enshrined in the constitution that all Iraqis are equal and enjoy equal rights. Evidently they preferred to give us this pittance; but we won't accept it, we want equal rights'." Alaa Majeed (UPI) explains, "Elections are one of those factors of the Iraqi Constitution that rely on transparent principles as a guide for the people. Democratic elections are an achievement in Iraq that will enable the people to decide for their future. The upcoming provincial elections, scheduled tentatively for January, give reason for the people to participate in forming a solid foundation for their country." Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) noted yesterday, "The elections will feature political races heavily influenced by Iraq's complex and sectarian conflicts. They could exacerbate tensions in southern Iraq between U.S.-backed Prime Miniter Nouri Maliki's nationalist Islamic Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the two main Shiite Muslim parties in the country. The results of the internal Shiite rivalry are likely to determine whether Iraq is broken up into semiauntonomous regions or retains a strong central government."
But some will not be participating due to a number of reasons. For religious minorities, it's the seat assignment which they find insulting and which is less than Article 50 guaranteed them (before it was stripped) and less than what the United Nations was recommending. Qassim Khidhir (Kurdish Globe) reports that the bill is now before Iraq's presidency council and "Christians, Shabaks, and Yazidis have warned the presidency council not to approve it. Nevertheless, the Iraqi presidency spokesman stated that the Iraqi presidency will still approve the bill despite the warning. Mahma Khalil, a member of Iraqi Parliament from the Kurdistan Alliance list who is a Yazidi, threatened that Yazidis will merge their territories with Kurdistan Region if the bill is approved."
From the elections to the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. This morning AP reported that the US has 'officially' responded to Iraq's requests for amendments and Reuters quoted Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesperson for al-Maliki, stating, "America has responded and the Iraqi side has received the American response. They had some remarks on some of the amendments, which now requires meetings with the Americans to reach a common understanding." At the White House this morning, Dana Perino told the press, "We have gotten back to the Iraqis with a final text. Through this step we've concluded the process on our side, and now it is their court to move forward with their process." Asked about the ticking clock (December 31st the UN mandate expires), Perino responded, "We've been trying to get it done and we recongizne that there's a deadline for when the UN security mandate expires. But we're moving forward. Now they have our response to the request of the changes that they had. So they'll move forward now. I think their parliament is in session for the next two weeks. I don't know all the details in terms of how -- what the next steps are on their end, but we've returned a final text to them." Later this morning, the State Dept's spokesperson briefed the press. Robert Wood declared, "Yeah, we've gotten back to the Iraqis with a final text, and so the process has concluded on our side and we look forward to hearing back from the Iraqis. . . . We believe the process has -- on our side, has been concluded. So it's now the Iraqis' turn for them to move the document through their internal polticial process." He stressed that "the negotiating process has come to an end" but despite the US having 'finished' on their end ("the process has concluded") according to Wood, he refused to provide any details. He was no more specific on when Iraqis were informed of the official response: "Last night or early this morning."
Yesterday Ryan Crocker entertainined Iraqi officials at the fortress US Embassy in the Green Zone and Suadad al-Salhy and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) explain that approximately "250 Iraqi officials, diplomats and dignataries" gather "Wednesday morning" where they were served "green-tinted fruit punch" and a huge sheet cake (which was dry -- not a detail in the paper). Gina Chon (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) notes. "The U.S. embassy used the elections as the reason to have its first official function at the new embassy in Baghdad." Staying with so-called diplomacy, Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) examines possible cabinet members in Barack's administration and we'll focus on The Problem From Hell Samantha Power because that War Hawk is so rarely called out:
Samantha Power, cheerleader for humanitarian intervention, also has Obama's ear and may even entice him to put U.S. forces in Darfur. "With very few exceptions, the Save Darfur campaign has drawn a single lesson from Rwanda: the problem was the US failure to intervene to stop the genocide. Rwanda is the guilt that America must expiate, and to do so it must be ready to intervene, for good and against evil, even globally. That lesson is inscribed at the heart of Samantha of Power's book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. But it is the wrong lesson," writes author Mahmood Mamdani in the London Review of Books. As Mamdani continues: "What the humanitarian intervention lobby fails to see is that the US did intervene in Rwanda, through a proxy … Instead of using its resources and influence to bring about a political solution to the civil war, and then strengthen it, the US signalled to one of the parties that it could pursue victory with impunity. This unilateralism was part of what led to the disaster, and that is the real lesson of Rwanda … Applied to Darfur and Sudan, it is sobering. It means recognising that Darfur is not yet another Rwanda. Nurturing hopes of an external military intervention among those in the insurgency who aspire to victory and reinforcing the fears of those in the counter-insurgency who see it as a prelude to defeat are precisely the ways to ensure that it becomes a Rwanda."
Prior to Our Modern Day Carrie Nation visiting England and imploding, Amy Goodman was all over Power and how amazing it was and how she was going to be the next Secretary of State (and as bad as Goody was on DN!, she was far worse on WBAI airwaves as she yammered on about Samantha endlessly in one Friday's pledge drive) and of course Jeremy Scahill was all up in some Samantha Power because the Bloody War Hawk had been acting as one of his unnamed sources. But then Power went to England and imploded. She talked smack about Gordon Brown (which never got publicity here -- apparently the US doesn't give a damn if Power insults a world leader who is one of America's closest's allies), called Hillary Clinton a "monster" (which got all the attention) and told the BBC Barack's 'promise' that US troops would be out of Iraq in 16 months wasn't for real. Samantha Power was not called out for those March remarks. Instead, Tom Hayden showed up July 4th wanting to know why they were ignored. Ask John Nichols (busy lying that Samantha and Hillary were close friends to excuse the "monster" remark), ask David Corn who shot down Samantha's remarks repeatedly in press briefings with the Hillary campaign, ask ALL THE LIARS WHO REFUSED TO CALL THE WAR HAWK OUT. As irritating as Tom-Tom can be and as much as he's sold out in 2008, it does bear noting that in 2007, he was among the few willing to call out Samantha Power or her running buddy and fellow counter-insurgency cheerleader Sarah Sewall. Whatever happened to that Tom Hayden? As Bananarama once sang, "He was really saying something . . . "
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombing targeting "Awakening" Council members that left 2 dead and five wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left five people injured and another Baghdad bobming ("put in a rubbish bin") that resulted in five wounded, and a Mosul roadside bombing that left two Iraqi soldiers injured.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 person shot dead by US forces in Hawija. Corpses?
Yesterday (late) the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Center Soldier died of non-combat related causes Nov. 5." That brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4191.
Ralph Nader was this year's independent presidential candidate and Matt Gonzalez was his running mate. We'll note this from Team Nader:
Against all odds. We prevailed. On $4 million total -- what Obama raised in one day. Nader/Gonzalez overcame ballot access obstacles. We put our shift the power agenda on 45 state ballots. We set the world record for campaigning in 21 towns and cities in 24 hours during our Massachusetts Marathon. We exposed Obama and Biden for the corporate politicians they are. (And today, ABC News is reporting that Obama wants the militarist reactionary Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.) We drew the line. And together, we chose to make a stand. You stood with hundreds of thousands of Americans. Against the corporate militaristic machine. Our consciences are clear. Our hands are clean. We made the moral choice. History will look back and say -- those Americans back in 2008 who supported Nader/Gonzalez -- they were right. So, thank you fellow traveler. Thank you for your donations. And your hard work. It has been a joy -- standing with you. Fighting for justice. Onward The Nader Team
To which we could add his bellicose saber-rattling at Iran, his promise to roll back "Russian aggression" and extend war-triggering treaty protection to an aggressive Georgian regime (which cluster-bombed its own people, as we learned this week), his advocacy of destabilizing and civilian-shredding military strikes in Pakistan, his opposition to gay marriage (and campaigning with gay-bashing preachers), and his support for extending the death penalty to cover non-fatal offenses, and so on.Any one of these positions would be roundly condemned by "progressives" if they were taken or advocated by George W. Bush -- as in fact many of them have been. Indeed, one of the most remarkable things about this campaign is how Obama has managed to embody the deep and desperate thirst for change among millions of Americans -- hence the genuinely moving scenes of jubilation and revived hope that have greeted his victory -- while his actual positions in many if not most key areas track very closely with Bush's, if they are not actually identical with them.Take Iran, for example. Obama has taken what is regarded as a more nuanced position, holding out the promise of direct negotiations with Iranian leaders. Yet he has repeatedly stated what the outcome of these "negotiations" must be: Iran must "abandon its nuclear program." If it does not, then more and more draconian sanctions will be applied, with the clear threat of military action if these don't bring Tehran to heel. This is, chapter and verse, the precise policy followed by Bush, who has also repeatedly offered to "negotiate" with Iran as long as they agree to surrender on every point before talks begin.
1st
up, tacky, tacky, tacky. what else to expect from michelle obama but
that dress last night? omg. she already suffers from huge hips, no
waist and small breasts. wearing a black dress with read across the
hips and boobs only emphasized her faults. without the red it would
have been a fine dress. with the red, along with maximizing her flaws,
it made the dress look like a cheap t-shirt.
we'll leave out
what red might have meant just like we'll pretend closeted lesbian
katharine hepburn wasn't making a political statement by wearing pink
to decry mccarthyism.
we'll instead move onto another elderly actress.
8 of you e-mailed to ask why jane fonda is returning to broadway?
i got on the phone (and didn't call c.i. - to be clear, c.i. wouldn't have given me any dirt on jane).
fonda
has no career. georgia rules flopped like a dying fish and she is as
much responsible for that as crazy lindsay. equally true is that she
was calling out lindsay when the film was debuting and it's thought
that didn't help the box office.
she attacked hillary which
irritated a number of people and this was after she was box office
poison. as c.i. has noted, she took to hanging out with the wrong crowd
and that only lowered her further.
there were no film offers
and the only thing she had prospects of were t.v. roles (and not strong
1s). she's been insanely jealous of the praise estelle parsons has been
receiving.
she's put some of her own money into the production which helped guarantee the role.
now for non-gossip i did call c.i. because i've read 800 different things. c.i. cleared up the numbered items.
1)
jane was not a lead in strange interlude. it ran briefly on broadway as
a benefit for the actor's studio. jane had the small role of madeline.
the production starred geraldine page and others in the cast included
franchot tone, ben gazzara, pat hingle, richard thomas and betty field
(among others). jane is only in the last 2 acts and doesn't have much
to do in those acts. she wasn't praised for her acting. that was her
final broadway performance. (her only stage work since was reading
monologues in eve ensler's laughable vagina monologues.) repeating,
that was her last broadway appearance.
2) her 1st was there was
a little girl. the press gets this wrong as well. c.i. says joshua
logan directed and the playwright was daniel taradash and fonda was the
lead, a woman who was raped. c.i. says jane got huge praise for her
broadway debut. she won the new york drama critics award for this
performance.
3) jane next did invitation to a march. c.i. says,
'i know too many people - some now dead - in that cast so you list
every 1 or you don't list any.' fair enough. the cast was celeste holm,
madeleine sherwood, jeffrey rowland, eileen heckart, tom hatcher, jane
fonda, james macarthur and richard derr. and that was the order of the
billing. it debuted on broadway oct. 29, 1960 at the music box theatre.
arthur laurents directed and he was also the playwright. jane got
strong reviews for this play as well (c.i. says the new yorker's
kenneth tynan was among the strongest but also notes walter kerr) but
jane wasn't the lead and was playing 'the girl' in a heavy cast.
4)
jane's disaster that had her walk away from broadway is not mentioned.
while 2) and 3) ran for a few months and 1) was a benefit performance
that was not supposed to have a long run, jane signed for a comedy and
it was an outright bomb. in fact, c.i. says it is 1 of the biggest
bombs of its day and it's surprising that the press hasn't mentioned
it: the fun couple. as part of the publicity for this expected broadway
hit, the defense department named jane "miss army recruiting of 1962.'
she was the female lead and ben piazza was the male lead, the
supporting leads were a very young dyan cannon (a wonderful actress!)
and bradford dillman. jane wanted the director to be her then boyfriend
and drama coach, the bi-sexual andres voutsinas. the play was a bomb
(dyan got some nice notices). the new york post said of the bomb: 'the
most incredible thing about the play is that two such talented young
performers as jane fonda and bradford dillman were willing to appear in
the title roles.' they called it 'an epic bore.' ('they' is richard
watts. had to call c.i. back because i didn't write down the reviewer's
name.) the play was written by john haase and neil jansen. c.i. notes
that there is a documentary entitled jane that was made during the
lead-up to the fun couple. the new york herald tribune critic walter
kerr appears in the documentary because his review of the fun couple
included: 'i find it impossible to believe that the fun couple ever
went out of town. if they'd gone out of town, they'd have closed it.'
for the documentary, kerr told the camera, 'if you asked me for a list
of the 5 worst plays of all time, the fun couple would be on it.' the
lay opened october 26, 1962. its last performance was october 27, 1962.
yes, it closed that quickly. it was a huge bomb. the only 1 who
entertained the audience was dyan cannon. it was the end of andreas'
directing career (and really of jane and andreas' relationship) and the
end of jane's stage career. strange interlude, again, was a benefit
performance and an ensemble cast.
so there's some gossip for you. i wasn't going to do a heavy post tonight. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snaphot:'
Wednesday,
November 5, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the empire gets a new
ruler, Nouri al-Maliki claims credit, the treaty remains stalled,
Iraqis are far from overwhelmed and more.
Yesterday the US elected a new ruler for the empire, War Hawk Barack Obama. David A. G. Fischer (Dissident Voice) reports on an election night panel independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader took part in:
He
goes on to contrast his campaign with that of Obama as not having any
hoopla, hope or rhetoric; Ralph continues to campaign on the real
issues affecting the people in spite of overwhelming odds -- he is a
champion despite Obama's victory. Along the same line and with
applause, his lack of hoopla and rhetoric is still so out-of-sync with
the media cartel's disinformation campaign that he was once again
ignored by the mainstream. What we have here is a man who refuses to
sell out and complacently surrender to the status quo, he is a man
based on strong principle who perceives reality for what it is -- a
sham directed by the controlling institutions of power, of which Obama
is just another cog in their finely-tuned machine. But what do we
really know about Mr. Barack Obama? Here we have a candidate who
received hundreds of millions in campaign donations by corporate
America and Wall Street. Nader sensibly asks something I've pointed out
many times, "Why are the corporations investing in Obama?" By looking
at his voting record it is obvious who he supports with approbation for
illegal surveillance, a permanent presence in Iraq with a potential
spread to neighboring countries, offshore drilling which he used to be
against, an economic bailout lacking oversight and transparency, and so
forth. Where is this great change that he has been spewing forth to the
public for the past twenty months? It is likely just more of what the
public wants to hear, but it's apparent by voter turnout that they fail
to feel the hot air blowing by them. Part of the problem with
Obama, as Nader points out, is that while Obama is pulled to the right
by the corporate establishment, there are no demands being put on him
by organized groups such as labor and unions to pull him the other
direction and thus "make him better."
We
have learned that Black politicians and activist-poseurs have an
infinite capacity to celebrate not having engaged in struggle with
Power, and that the Black masses can be made drunk by the prospect of
vicariously (through Obama) coming to power. Having failed to make even
the mildest of demands on Obama in return for unquestioning support,
Black misleadership vowed they would press for firm commitments on
issues of importance to African Americans once Obama had passed the
final hurdle. (White progressives who were similarly self-neutered
during the campaign also promise to begin acting like real people's
advocates, any day now...just you wait and see.) We have already
learned that "Progressives for Obama" of all ethnicities, who failed to
put pressure on the candidate early on, when it might have made a
difference, are full of crap.
Yes, they are full of crap.
Including the Agency-fronted political closet case who has already
shown up with a pep-talk about how the economic crisis is a good thing,
a really, really good thing! Those in the closet politically might want
to check their language so they don't expose themselves by accident.
But lets' move to the economy. The San Francisco Business Times observes,
"A day after the United States made history by electing Barack Obama
president, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 486 points
Wednesday, ending at 9,139.27." The Phoenix Business Journal notes that news as well:
"The election is over and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has taken a
dive of nearly 500 points." No, there was no magical 'cure' nor was
there going to be. Any zowie-wowie article on the election today notes
in cautionary tales how things will have to be scaled back or dropped.
That's your preparation for expecting nothing from the man who promised
even less. Larry Pinkney (Information Clearing House) offers a list of things to expect:
In
relative short order - inside the United States itself - under a Barack
Obama presidency, the living conditions of the majority of Black,
White, Brown, Red, and Yellow peoples will continue to steadily and
massively deteriorate while the corporate Wall Street barons prolong
their glut of the every day people's finances, resources, hopes, and
dreams. Under an Obama presidency those non Blacks who stand in
opposition to Barack Obama's de facto pro Wall Street backers and their
blood-sucking policies will be branded as racists and traitors, while
those Blacks who oppose Obama's policies will be ignored and/or branded
as fringe radicals and traitors. Thus, the horrors of the U.S. Empire
will continue unabated, and in many respects, under Barack Obama,
actually worsen. The blame for the deteriorating economy and continued
war will of course quickly be laid by the Obama / Biden regime and the
Democratic Party Republicrats on the previous Bush / Cheney regime,
despite the fact that it was the complicity of the Democratic Party
itself with the Bush / Cheney Republican Republicrat regime that
facilitated the despicable policies and practices of the Bush / Cheney
regime. The fact is that the Democratic and Republican Parties are de
facto Republicrats with the objective of exploiting the majority of
people and maintaining U.S. Empire abroad.After the Democratic Party
Republicrats so-called election euphoria and celebrating is over, the
Obama / Biden Republicrat regime will get down to the business of
placing the ongoing exploitation of the every day people of this nation
on fast track. The masses of Black Americans, along with the oppressed
and exploited Brown, Red, Yellow, and White peoples of this nation will
learn first hand that, notwithstanding the deceptive Obama rhetoric,
exploitation nationally and internationally will be intensified. The
"clash between those who want freedom, justice, equality for everyone
and those who want to continue the system of exploitation" about which
Malcolm X referred, will be intensified under Barack Obama, with Obama
representing the interests of the oppressors. The political
contradictions in this regard will also be increasingly obvious.Those
so-called leftist and progressives who were and are collaborators with
U.S. Empire will, for a time, try to pretend that their support of
Barack Obama was not a sell out, and that they simply need more time to
persuade the U.S. Empire's colored corporate emperor to do the right
thing. Meanwhile, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, and White peoples will be
enduring an unprecedented rate of economic and social suffering. The
anger of the people will ultimately peak and explode, as a result of
having bought into false hope and raised expectations. This is
precisely why the U.S. corporate government has already made military
contingency plans to contain and massively quash dissention within the
United States. Barack Obama will serve to provide his corporate /
military masters with colored political cover for political repression
in this nation; and he will have already provided a small respite of
wiggling room for them in this regard. Nevertheless, as brutal reality
forces the proverbial scales of blindness to drop from eyes of the
masses, it will become crystal clear that the supposed "change" to
which Barack Obama referred in his campaign rhetoric, was nothing more
than a vicious ruse of double-speak by him, backed by his corporate and
military handlers. Indeed, the emperor will be shown to "have no
clothes." But what of the fate of millions of Black, White, Brown, Red,
and Yellow peoples inside the U.S.? How many horrible sacrifices will
have been, and will yet need to be made by the people in order to get
the boot of economic blood-sucking and political repression off their /
our necks?
"And
to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments
and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten
corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is
shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand." In other words: Don't worry, world. The bad old days of George Bush are over. "To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you." In
other words: Under my administration we Americans will continue to
simplistically conceptualize the existence of an enemy that is pure
evil and wants to destroy the world, and imagine we can "defeat" it
through the War on Terror.
Exit polls demonstrate that the
economy was the number one issue, ahead of the illegal war. Going
unnoticed is how Iraq was taken off the table by All Things Media Big
and Small. When the faux activists of CODESTINK are protesting Wall St.
-- not for the war machinery they manufacture and sell but over the
economic meltdown -- and Jodi's given everything but her uterus to
Barack's campaign, don't pretend anyone's being encouraged to give a
damn about ending the Iraq War. To really ensure that it be a
non-issue, did someone else take it off the table? Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reports
that Nouri al-Maliki is claiming to "close aides" that he gave the
election to Barack because "he took the Iraqi issue 'off the table' for
Obama by endorsing his timetable during his visit to Baghdad in July."
Don't be too angry with al-Maliki, CIA assets tend to face very violent
rub-outs when they've exhuasted their usefulness and al-Maliki's pretty
much squeezed out. al-Maliki reportedly believes he can get further
concessions from Barack on the treaty between the White House and the
puppet government. At the US State Dept today, Sean McCormack was asked
about the treaty and the spokesperson stated that the US has not yet
responded (officially) to the amendments suggested by Iraq and that US
Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will convey communications to
al-Maliki. As for whether the amendments will fly or not, McCormack
declared, "Well, again, I go back to what -- you know, what I've said
and what Dana Perino has said over at the White House in terms of the
bar for any changes. You know, it's a pretty high bar for any changes.
But again, we'll take a look at what is suggested. We're formulating
our responses. The Iraqis took some time to think through what they
wanted to provide us by way of comments, and we're taking our time in
providing that response back to them."
One thing Ambassador
Crocker already conveyed to the Iraqi government was, "While this
historic election has changed a great many things, we will also have
full continuity of policy and purpose as we move through our
transition." NPR's Corey Flintoff (All Things Considered) reported
that today and on the reaction of Iraqis to the election results with
Abu Osama stating, "We don't know whether he'll change now that he's
elected" and Rana Sa'ad Diyab stating she's not seen any
improvements in six years and "she'll wait and see whether Obama's
policies bring any changes in security or her family's standard of
living, but she doubts that will happen." Hameed Kamil Hilal tells Leila Fadel and Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers),
"We have seen nothing positive from any American president, and McCain
and Obama are two faces of one coin, one policy." Meanwhile Demetri Sevastopulo (Financial Times of London) explains
that it's not just Iraqis who are doubtful that any 'change' will take
place, "On Iraq, the Illinois senator campaigned on a pledge to remove
US combat troops within sixteen months, but some military officers
privately argue that he will show more flexibility on timing after
assuming responsibility for the war started by George W. Bush."
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad car bombing where the driver killed him/herself and 4 people
with nine more wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing where three people
were wounded and a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed 1 life with
three more wounded.
In
peace news, Cindy Sheehan ran for the US Congress from California's 8th
district. She lost to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday. While
others tried to hop a bandwagon and refused to challenge Democrats,
Cindy had the strength to stand up. At Information Clearing House she shares her thoughts:
This
past month, I kept on saying to my supporters, staff, interns,
volunteers and myself, that no matter what happened on November 4th
that we could hold our heads up high and be very proud of our campaign.
Until yesterday, I wasn't sure that what I said would be true, but I
feel an incredibly sense of peace and pride in our accomplishments.
There were so many victories over the last year that the American
paradigm of "winner-take all" just doesn't fit.We moved into San
Francisco a little over a year ago with less than nothing. We used
savings and credit cards to open our office and sometimes to keep it
open. We transformed a former "sex shop" to a fully functioning and
vibrant campaign office. Our "natural base" never materialized, so we
had to build a foundation in less than a few months.In August, we
historically gained ballot access as only the 6th independent campaign
in California history to do so. Our platform based on humane economics
was in place long before the recent collapses and resultant bailouts.
Our labor platform was hailed all over the world, while unions here in
SF supported the corporate "rescuer" Nancy Pelosi.Cindy for Congress
never once sold out our solid principles based campaign and would never
sell out the voters of San Francisco like Nancy Pelosi has. Nancy
Pelosi ran from my campaign and our demands to debate me and we
persevered and did so amazingly well after a near total media black out
and several attempts at political intimidation.We got to the end of
this stage with a barrel full of integrity and a boatload of dedication
and love. Dozens of activists came from all over the country to be here
to help us spread our progressive, peace based message and thousands
donated to help keep our campaign afloat.We have moved right through
November 4th because this is a movement for peace and against corporate
control of our political system. Movements can't stop, we must keep
moving.
November 4, 2008 from Matt Lavery: Both
the ”hope” and “change” elements of the Obama candidacy have been
roundly debunked by thoroughgoing progressives (i.e. ones who don’t
cave in on warrantless wiretapping, nuclear energy, continued/
ratcheted UP militarization, etc.), nowhere better than in Alexander
Cockburn’s powerful “Against Obama” in the last The Nation of October
(his too-quick slagging of Cynthia McKinney’s “5,000 post-Katrina
executions” aside). But with him looking very strong in the exit
polling and early EST reporting, it does seem time to talk more clearly
about how his election and a more empowered Democratic majority
(they’ve already picked up two senate seats, one in VA and one in NH)
could actually create some hope for progressives. Here’s my thought: a
strong marginalizing of the GOP should create an opportunity to really
push the Dems. to be more responsive to (a) progressive agenda(s). This
is a traditional “role” of third parties that can easily be lost as we
push to run more candidates. Reduced temptation to pander to the
“right”–which has kept Dems. from disavowing or marginalizing their own
progressive caucuses–should definitely give (especially) Greens hope
that we will have more influence to peddle in any upcoming new “New
Deal” body politic. We all know “on-the-fencers” who may even be
tempted to call themselves “Progressive Democrats” in the furor of an
Obama landslide. We mustn’t forget how to speak to them; how to make
them see that it is progressives whose votes may be lost to them in the
future as the country continues to turn blue.
that's from kimberly wilder's site and she's live blogging election night so you can visit on the wilder side for more. i agree with pretty much everything matt says about the future.
i
have no idea how long matt's followed politics but there will be no
'progressives' in congress. get over it. and i really loathe that term
which is nothing but something for political closet types to use.
here's what happens if barack wins and dems significantly increase their numbers in congress: nothing.
we're told 'that's great but we don't have the money.' and 'if it weren't for the economic crisis . . .'
as ava and c.i. documented sunday,
senator chuck schumer was on charlie rose last week bragging, delighted
that barack as president meant nuclear energy was on the table. that's
schumer.
more importantly, barack is the corporatist candidate
and all a win by him does is convince themselves to sell out even more
to corporate america.
people are really idiots and i'm not talking about matt in this section.
i'm
talking about liars like norman solomon who want to argue that you can
hop on board corporate train and the dems will be so thrilled they'll
support your needs. uh-uh. the lesson, the take-away, is that they need
to whore themselves out to big money even more - just like bambi did!
it's: whore yourself out cause where else are the people going to go?
so
get over the idea that there's about to be some left movement in this
country. it's not happening. the dems have caved non-stop since 2006
and even with the worst polling numbers, they held on to their seats in
congress. so quit lying to yourself that they're going to 'learn'
something from this election that is helpful to the people.
my
thoughts for tonight. check out kimberly's blog for her thoughts and
for other people's. she's following more than just the presidential
race, by the way.
Tuesday,
November 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the illegal war is not
ending anytime soon judging by most signals, Talabani and Barzani
continue to have conflict, the treaty is said to be progressing . . .
to a national referendum (?) and more.
In the US voting takes place today. It does not mean life stops or that the entire world does. Gina Chon (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) writes
of "Samir Ahmed, a government employee, said he had also once assumed a
different U.S. administration would mean a different policy towards
Iraq. The presidential race he was thinking of was between Bill Clinton
and the first George Bush. Mr. Clinton won, but continue a tough stance
against Iraq. Today, he expects that no matter who wins the current
race, American policy toward Iraq will remain the same." Mariam Toma
agrees and tells Chon, "Both of them will not withdraw U.S. forces. In
contrast, maybe the will actually find another reason to stay even
longer in Iraq." Meanwhile Stephen Farrell, Mudhafer al-Husaini and Abeer Mohammed (Baghdad Bureau, New York Times) did a snap-poll,
"an informal snapshot of Iraqis living or working in the Green Zone. Of
200 Iraqis spoken to after they streamed out of two Green Zone exists
into the 'real' Baghdad on Monday, just over a third of them wanted the
Americans to leave Iraq as soon as possile while just under half wanted
them to stay. The remainder offered options somewhere in between."
These are Green Zoners and they do fear the fall of the Green Zone and
the puppet government. They're protected while, everywhere else, Iraqis
aren't so lucky.
Meanwhile Germany's increasingly pathetic Der
Speigel (which has been justifying and supporting the illegal war for
sometime if you'd bothered to pay attention) runs the craked musings of
Peter Ross Range who just knows Barack will win
the presidency and calls for him to "revise" the 16-month 'plan' for
'withdrawal.' PeePee Ross Range is a DLC-er (Der Spiegel calls him
"moderate") and he cheerleader the illegal war before it started and
justified it for years and years. As late as July 22, 2005, he was
whining that 'liberals' and 'progressives' needed to praise Saddam
being disposed and be less criticisl ("Liberal's War" published in the
DLC bible). January 8, 2004, he was writing that the US shouldn't
withdraw or even "pull-back" ("Remembering the Middle Class," ibid).
October 21, 2005 PeePee was whining, "Many war opponents, often still
traumatized by Vietnam, are preoccupied with what invading Iraq says
about America rather than what it does for the Iraqis" ("War of
Conscience"). Der Spiegel's become an embarrassment but for those who
know PeePee's work, it's probably worth a chuckle -- September 30,
2002, he was wondering if Germany was "Anti-American" or "Anti-Bush"?
Translation, the two deserve one another.
Barack's 'plan' for withdrawal? Are we actually back to that lie? Droping back to a Third editorial from June:
Here's the interview Panhandle Media couldn't tell you about: Stephen
Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops]
when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is
a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a
commitment is it?Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in
whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances
are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is
up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not
rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as
a US Senator.
When Power gave that interview, she was still his
foreign policy advisor. And backing up her claims that promises weren't
really promises, here's Barack speaking to Candy Crowley June 5th on CNN when asked about his 'promise' to withdraw (combat troops): Well,
you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in
which I'd change my mind." 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. In April Power tells the BBC that
Barack's 'pledges' and 'promises' on Iraq are non-binding and, if
elected, he'll decide what to do then. June 5th, Barack echoes that to
CNN. And Panhandle Media works overtime to ignore reality. And if you
like being played, you'll love what they have planned.
--- End
of excerpt. Get it. No 'plan,' no 'promise.' That's reality. So why is
PeePee asking Barack to rethink a non-pledge? Because PeePee's audience
isn't Barack, it's you. PeePee wants to soften the public up to the
idea that Barack in the White House doesn't have to mean an end to the
illegal war. If elected, Barack can't break what so many wrongly
believe was a 'promise' on his own. He needs a lot of liars who can
soften up public opinion.
There's no rush to leave Iraq or even
a desire. That needs to be grasped. Iraqi General Nasier Abadi made
that pretty clear during Sunday's press conference in the Green Zone.
Questioned by the Washington Post's Mary Beth Sheridan as to when the
Iraqis would be able to handle "their own internal security . . . how
many years are you away from reaching that goal," Abadi tried to
distract by listing duties before declaring, "We have no duties or
missions to protect the air on the borders of the country. But in case
we have this responsibility, there is a brief that -- to the minister
of defense, if he ask us to -- task us with that, a reportw ent also to
the Prime Minister, what are the capabilities and the army's specifics
to do those duties?" Asked how many years again, he responded,
"Building an aerial force, building an Army is not easy, but it's still
easier than building naval and air force. The naval force, as I said
before, that the first ship will come in 2009 and the fourth will
arrive in . . . at the end of 2011. In regard to 200- . . . Air Force,
the first aircraft we will receive in 2011 until 2015. And that depends
on the support and the help that the coalition forces can secure to
Iraq so we can be able to maintain and defend our airspace and
territories. Without that, there will be also agreements with the
neighboring countries on the security of Iraq. But it's possible that
we will go with those missions without having an air force or naval
force because this is a common battle, it's not just an army's duty."
Setting aside the naval force and focusing only on the air, if the
period they'll be taking possession of aircraft will last from 2011
through 2015, how likely is it that they will be prepared to handle
their own airspaceby the end of 2011?
At the Pentagon today,
spokesperson Bryan Whitman informed reporters that there was a plan in
place for transition from the Bully Boy to the winner of today's
election. A comparison was rightly made between LBJ and Tricky Dick.
Nixon didn't end the illegal war, he only continued it. Whitman
declared, "One of the important components of this is ensuring that
we've identified and highlighted some of the key department events,
actions, milestones that a new administration will face in its first 90
days."
Turning to the topic of the Status Of Forces Agreement masquerading as a treaty, CNN reports Sami al-Askari (Nouri al-Maliki adviser) states
that the White House "has signaled to Iraqi officials that it is
seriously considering proposed changes to an agreement that would set
the terms for U.S. troops in Iraq". Al Jazeera notes
that al-Askari has no official response from the White House and that
Iraq's Sunni vice president Tareq al-Hashemi is advocating that the
treaty be put up for approval to all Iraqis (not just the Parliament),
"This agreement is an important and sensitive subject . . . Iraqis
should have their say." Khalid al-Ansary, Missy Ryan and Kevin Liffey (Reuters) add
that al-Hashemi is indicateing that the agreement be placed on the
ballot with "provincial elections scheduled to take place by the end of
January." At which point, who would be in Iraq? The United Nations
mandate that governs the occupation expires December 31st at which
point, if no new agreement has been reached, there is no legal
authority for foreign forces to be on Iraqi soil. The White House has
attempted political blackmail insisting that they will cut off this and
that if Baghdad won't sign off on the treaty. Richard Tomkins (UPI) notes,
"Iraq, with no air control capability at present, nonetheless would
have to take over air traffic control and also assume total
responsibility for guarding its borders." Al Bawaba notes
that today's "Baghdad edition of the London-based newspaper Asharq
Al-Awsat said the Americans had agreed to three of the five latest
changes proposed by Iraq. It said, quoting unnamed sources, that
Washington had dropped the clause that authorises Baghdad and
Washington to seek an extension for retaining troops in the cities
beyond 2009 and in the country beyond 2011." Maria Appakova (UPI) explains:
However,
Americans are in no hurry to raise this question at the U.N. Security
Council. Staying in Iraq in accordance with an international mandate is
one thing, but having a strategic partnership treaty and receiving
dividends from it is quite another matter. Yet Washington has no
choice -- it cannot take offense at Iraqis and pull out its troops from
Iraq. It won't be able to attach the blame for withdrawal to Russia,
since Moscow does not mind Americans continuing their presence there
for a while, and Russia is not in favor of an upsurge of terror in the
region, after all. [. . .] [US} House Armed Services Committee
Chairman Ike Skelton stated that he is "deeply concerned" with what he
heard. Skelton is referring to the agreement's provisions that recently
leaked to the press, which include, for example, the Iraqi government's
ability to put American servicemen and private security companies'
personnel on trial for cirmes they committed while on leave and outside
military bases. It must be said that if this provision really has been included in the draft, it is quite a victory for the Iraqi government.
Meanwhile Gulf Daily News notes
continued conflict between the Baghdad government and the Kurdish one
with the country's President Jalal Talabani stating the US cannot set
up bases anywhere in Iraq "without the approval of the central
government" in Baghdad which was a strong rebuke to KRG president
Massud Barzani who stated last week that, should the US and Baghdad not
sign off on a treaty, the US could just set up bases in the Kurdish
region. The tensions between the Kurdish region and Iraq are never not
on display. Last Wednesday, at the White House, Barzani was being translated when he cut in to correct the translator:
Translator: And in terms of SOFA, we do believe that it is in the interest of the Iraqi government --
Massud Barzani: Iraqi people.
Translator:
-- it's in the interest of this country and we have been and we will
continue to support it and support its ratification.
Hoda Abdel-Hamid (Al Jazeera) notes
that the US popularity in the Kurdish region is sinking (after years of
sucking up) and quotes Barzan Mohamed stating, "America was not honest
with the Kurds. They've let them down in the past and they only follow
their interests. They can leave the Kurds any time and I don't trust
having an alliance with them or even friendship. Yes, they rid us of
dictatorship, but they came here to control the region and the Middle
East." Iran's Press TV states
that Talabani made a point to praise Iran Sunday for their help with
Iraq's security and that Talabani also cited Syria and that, on the
treaty, Talabani "said that Iraq is a unified country and no one has
the right to object the Iraqi government's decision, should it refuse
the security deal. Talabani was referring to a recent interview by
Massud Barzani, the president of the local government of Iraq's
Kurdistan during which he said that the Kurdistan region would provide
the U.S. with military bases if Baghdad refuses to sign the security
deal with Washington."
We've noted the Iraqi Air Force twice
in today's snapshot. 1) It's not due to be ready until 2015 at the
earliest and 2) the US is using the lack of one to threaten Baghdad
into signing off on the treaty. For those not grasping how "shambles"
is too mild a word to be applied to IAF, let's drop back to October
24th. M-NF trumpeted "Iraqi Air Force celebrates another milestone."
Sounds good, right? Yeah, as long as you don't go beneath the headline.
If you do, you find: "The Iraqi Air Force surpassed another milestone
Oct. 22 when an all-Iraqi flight crew took to the air in the King Air
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance aircraft for the first
time in support of an Iraqi Special Operations Forces training
exercise." Five years after the start of the illegal war (six this
March) and that's where the IAF is? They've just finished their first
"all-Iraqi flight crew" flight?
Moving on to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad sticky bomb wounded three people (all family members),
another Baghdad sticky bombing reulted 1 person being killed and seven
more wounded, a third Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left
five wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing resulted in 4 deaths and eight
people being wounded and another Baghdad bombing claimed 7 lives with
eighteen people wounded. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) updates the seven dead by 4 for eleven and notes that the bomb was "hidden in a car at a bus stop" (wounded rose to twenty-one). Reuters notes
a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left one person
wounded and another Mosul roadside bombing resulted in five people
being injured and a Mosul "suicide car" bombing left four police
officers injured.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
1 Iraqi police officer was shot dead in Baghdad (three more wounded)
and 1 "Lieutenant Colonel working for the ministry of interior affairs"
was shot dead in Baghdad. Reuters notes 2 police officers was shot dead in Mosul while 2 civilians were shot dead in different incidents.
Today Michael Birnbaum (Washington Post) reports
that DoD "announced yesterday the death of Pfc. Bradly Shane Colemn of
Mratinsville, VA, who had been serving in Iraq" and whose October 29th
death is under investigation. His death brings the toll to 14 for the month of October.
As Katharine Q. Seelye (New York Times) points out,
"The fact is, there is plent of mystery -- nad there is only one poll
that counts." It is election day and anything can happen. Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) will
live blog the election tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. EST. So check out
her site which will go beyond the D and R to include other letters in
the alphabet. Including "G" (Wilder is a Green.) Starting with independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader and his running mate Matt Gonzalez. Team Nader notes:
We're having a party! A Nader/Gonzalez party! Tonight, we celebrate. If you are a skeptic, you might be asking -- what, pray tell, are you celebrating? To which we answer -- The power of the people. The power of you -- our loyal supporters. Against all odds -- and in the face of a major media blackout -- together, we have given the American people a choice today. For the Nader/Gonzalez shift the power agenda. With eight months of hard work, we have put that agenda on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia. Ralph has campaigned in all 50 states. And
together we have organized a network of American citizens to press
onward for single payer health insurance, a living wage, a cut in the
bloated, wasteful military budget, for a reversal of U.S. policy in the
Middle East -- everything the Nader/Gonzalez campaign stands for. So, today, if you haven't already done so, vote with pride for Nader/Gonzalez. And then, no matter what the outcome tonight, celebrate! Congratulations! With the coming disintegration of two party domination of our politics, you have chosen to be on the winning side of history. So, celebrate tonight! And while celebrating, follow Ralph's results on the net or television. (Unfortunately,
most of the major news outlets apparently will not include third party
and independent candidates in their result totals -- but Fox News' map
apparently will (fair and balanced?) -- county by county and nationwide. Check it out here. And finally, only 500 copies left! Let's move them today! Get one of the last copies now! It's autographed by Ralph! And is bound to be a collector's item! Of
course, we're talking about the 40th Anniversary edition of Unsafe at
Any Speed -- Ralph's classic expose of the American automobile industry. And we have only 500 copies left! If you donate $100 or more today
-- up to the legal maximum of $2,300 -- we will ship to you one of the
last copies we have of this classic -- autographed by the man
himself.Let's move the last 500 copies today -- and hit our goal of $4 million by midnight tonight. Onward
What is your opinion of Obama? "Clever." What is your opinion of Palin? "Developing." How much money did you raise for your campaign? "Insufficient." Why do you keep running for president? "Justice." Will you be elected president? "No." When do you think you will win? "Sometime." What should Bush do on his last day in office? "Surrender." Will Obama be able to provide tax cuts to 95 percent of the population? "Impossible." What is your opinion of the media? "Servile."
John
McCain is the Republican presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is his
running mate. John and Cindy McCain have four children and Meghan
McCain is the one who blogs online (at McCainBloggette.com and has also
written a book for children about her father) and she notes today:
What
a long strange journey it's been. Dad I love you so much and am so
proud to be your daughter every day. If you need to know why you should
vote for Dad, click here.
Thank you to everyone for everything... And yes, we will be posting
about election night. You didn't think I would leave my loyal readers
hanging, did you? Now get out and vote!
After
campaigning coast to coast on Monday, Sarah Palin caught a few winks on
a red-eye flight to her home state, where fresh snow glistened in the
early-morning moonlight as the temperature hovered around 14 degrees.
Palin voted early this morning inside the tiny City Hall building where
just six years ago she presided as mayor of this once unknown frontier
town outside Anchorage. Proudly donning her "I Voted Today" sticker,
the Alaska governor delivered a short statement to reporters and took a
few questions before she heads to Phoenix to find out whether she'll
become the first female vice president of the United States. It's been
a whirlwind couple of months for Palin, who has fallen under perhaps
more scrutiny than any vice presidential candidate in the nation's
history. But as usual, she portrayed an almost mystifying sense of
calm, considering all that she has been through in such a relatively
short time.
And Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) notes,
"Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will be spending
Election Night with California Congressional Candidate and Peace Mom
Cindy Sheehan. There will be live streaming here starting at 8pm."
I
have never been able to identify with the Republican Party. I struggled
with the Democratic party, identifying more with them - but still not
feeling quite right about it. Even as a young teenager I had distrust
for our politicians and our media. Some struck me as empty people,
others seemed like outright liars to me. I never understood the whole
concept of labeling people as either conservative or liberal. I have
varying views on different topics - where do I fit in?
By 1997
when I was 18 years old, I realized that the labels were another way to
manipulate and control the populace, a way of saying "Who do you hang
with?" So the 2000 election came and I felt the need for change. It was
the first time I got to vote! Al Gore seemed like a nice guy but I cast
my vote for Nader feeling that he was honest and a man who could get
things done. To my horror I watched our whole democratic process fall
down around us as Gore won the popular vote but Bush still took the
election. I had never felt so trapped in my life. Wasn’t this the
country of choice and freedom? Where was the peoples’ voice? Why was no
one doing anything? How could the Democrats sit back and let this
happen?
I was living on Long Island, NY, when 9/11 happened, and like every other American I was glued to my TV.
I was so shocked, angry and saddened. A few days went by and an
overwhelming feeling of panic came over me as I realized something
wasn’t right with our media. I just felt that something was being left
out, something wasn’t right. Since then I have watched in disbelief as
Bush has committed crime after crime.
Our representatives and
media have let him get away with it with minimal protest, and so have
many of our American Citizens. 2004 came and went, and again my vote
went to Nader with many family and friends telling me that I was
throwing my vote away. I took these arguments passively and still
watched politics as an observer. I would raise awareness of issues, but
always with a feeling of defeat and complacency.
2008 has been
my breaking point. I am in my 29th year of life and in April I gave
birth to a beautiful baby boy named Quentin Michael. I have never felt
the need to protect our future the way I do now. I can’t have him grow
up in a world where he is just another cog. He deserves freedom and a
clean environment. I can’t just do my part at home and quietly stand by
while others abuse this world and kill it for their own personal wealth
and greed.
I have always felt that Nader was someone who truly
stood for the people - but now I say it loud! We need to take our
rights back and really change the course of this country. Our children
deserve it. The theme of this election year has been about change and
hope and that is why I am voting for Nader/Gonzalez for 2008. I am
voting for my son. I am voting for the future. Thank you Ralph Nader
for giving me a choice.
—Maureen Nicholson Schramm
I
have been at my breaking point for several years now. I am 26. I
graduated from college with a Bachelors of Music degree. Thanks to
hefty student loans, I couldn’t afford to work an internship and live
at the same time. The interest on my loans was 95% of my monthly
payments and I had (have) to work dead end jobs just to break even. I
feel myself further and further off the path I started down when I was
in college, and I have a void inside. I am finding myself too depressed
to listen to or write music. Add to this the fact that I have no health
insurance. My wife and I can barely afford the bare necessities and I
have to hear arguments on the semantics of the word "recession" on the
radio. I can’t afford to get sick, or worse, hurt.
Now there are
$700 billion dollars for bank bail outs? I have been dying to start my
own business for years and I can’t come up with capital to start it,
and now credit markets are dry. What am I supposed to do? Be depressed
forever?
HELP!!!
—Zack Passman
Photo above provided by Tom Gibbons.
If you haven’t reached your breaking point, visit www.breakingpoint08.com. Send me your Breaking Point story to share at loralynne@votenader.org, so the growing numbers of independent voters can join our voices, and together, we can change the system.
Loralynne Krobetzky Communications Director Nader for President 2008
and
remember you can make a point of letting robin morgan know how damn
little she matters by voting for ralph nader whom robin loathes and was
ripping apart not all that long ago. pull the lever for barack and
you're saying, 'suck on it, robin!'
As
the two major-party presidential candidates traveled the country with
huge media entourages on the final day of the campaign, Ralph Nader was in his Washington headquarters, giving interviews by telephone and complaining about being ignored. "I
believe in a competitive democracy," he said after his staff quickly
put him on the phone, "and a competitive democracy cannot occur without
the Fourth Estate giving it a chance to have a chance." Nader, 74,
is making his third consecutive run for the presidency, and, according
to his campaign, is hopeful that he will receive his largest number of
votes ever. One campaign aide said that Nader is hoping to receive at
least 1 million, and that he would not be surprised if he garnered 2
million. Both totals would outpace Nader's tally of slightly less
than 500,000 four years ago but would be less than the nearly 3 million
votes he received in 2000, when some Democrats believed he cost
then-Vice President Al Gore the election. Toby Heaps, Nader's spokesman, said the campaign has been encouraged by several developments.
so hopefully that article will grab some attention and remember he is on the ballot in d.c.
in
fact, for those who may not know, you can vote for ralph in any state
except ohio. if he's not on the ballot, he is a write-in in all states
except ohio. let's stick with ralph for this from team nader, 'The Election of 1844:'
Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Toby Heaps, 202-441-6795
Why Third Parties That Might Not Win Elections Still Matter: The Crucial Role of Third Parties in the Abolishment of Slavery
An
important third party candidacy for abolishing slavery took place in
1844. James G. Birney, of the Liberty party ran against James K. Polk
of the Democratic Party and Henry Clay of the Republican Party.
The
Democrats were running on a platform of immediate territorial
expansion, war with Mexico, and the continuation of slavery. The
Republicans, knowing the popularity of territorial expansion took a
very nebulous stance. They were for territorial expansion, but only
gradually. Slavery -- either abolishing it or maintaining its legality
-- was not on their platform.
James G. Birney ran on the Liberty
ticket with an anti-slavery platform. He’d run in the previous
election, winning only 0.4% of the vote. But in 1844 he did
significantly better with 2.3% of the vote.
The election was close:
Candidate James K. Polk Henry Clay James G. Birney Party Democratic Whig Liberty Platform Invade Mexico Now Invade Mexico later Anti-slavery (Pro-Slavery) (More liberal slavery laws) % of Pop. Vote 49.54% 48.09% 2.30% Electoral Vote 170 105 0
The
election is close. Some scholars charge that James G. Birney got enough
votes in New York to tip the election for Polk. In that state, Polk
beat Clay by little over one percent. James G. Birney had 3.25% of the
vote there. Henry Clay would have won the election if he had New York’s
36 electoral votes by a margin of 7 electoral votes (141-134).
If
the election happened today, Birney would have been lambasted as a
"spoiler" for taking a principled stance on slavery and "stealing"
votes from Clay.
As history shows, the strong third-party
showing in the elections from 1844 through 1852 led to tumult in the
Whig party that eventually broke it in two. The Whig party divided over
the issue of slavery. The "Cotton" Whigs went to the pro-slavery
Democrats. And the so-called "Conscience" Whigs went on to Free Soil,
and eventually the newly formed Republican party.
If those who
voted for Birney, instead decided to cast a "strategic" vote for the
Whigs, the party may have held together longer than it did. Birney’s
strong showing proved that the abolitionist movement was not something
politicians could ignore if they wanted to stay in office.
Without
the third party run that agitated the Whigs, who had become a party
that was closely aligned with the Democrats, abolition may have taken
much longer. Only 21 years after that, the 13th amendment, banning
slavery, was added to the Constitution. A marginal candidate’s platform
became the law of the land.
i went with that 1 because
- as i've admitted here many times - in 2004, my attitude was 'ralph's
a spoiler!' and c.i. really talked to me about that nonsense. c.i.
voted for (and donated to) john kerry in 2004 and that was among the
reasons her words registered. i knew she wasn't just sticking up for
her candidate. i also know c.i. and how important fairness is to her.
i'm
really excited to be voting for ralph this year. i hope you're excited
by who you are voting for. that's what it should be. if some 1 doesn't
excite you, if they don't really speak for you and share your issues,
why are you voting for them?
that's the question you should ask
barack supporters but they won't be able to answer so don't even bother
with it. it will only confuse them. you really can't use logic with a
cult member. their programming has prevented free thought.
Monday,
November 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty is still
iffy, Syria still wants answers, Article 50 comes back . . . maybe, a
Democrat 'explains' Barack's mentor, and more.
Starting with the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) quotes
Iraqi news editors Ahmed Abdul-Majid ("Out coverage of the U.S.
election is not heavy because we believe that the result of the
elections will not have a direct impact on the future of Iraq") and
Adbul-Halim Saleh ("In the end, strategic policies made in the United
States will not be affected by the changing of the administrations") on
the US election and explains, "The agreement, under negotiation for
months, would keep American troops in Iraq for three more years but
give Iraqis a greater role in deciding U.S. military operations."
China's Xinhau notes
al-Sabah (Baghdad newspaper) is reporting three of the five amendments
have been agreed to by DC. Among the rejected are supposedly the issue
of immunity for US troops and among the agreed to changes is that US
forces would leave in 36 months and that the treaty will be called
"agreement on withdrawal of US forces." Indo-Asian News Service adds,
"British Ambassador in Iraq Christopher Prentice told the Kurdish
newspaper al-Taakhi that Britain was keen on reaching an agreement with
the Iraqi government since 'very little time remains until the end of
this year'." The United Nations mandate allowing foreign forces to be
on Iraqi soil expires December 31st. Without something in place, there
is no legal authorization for foreign forces on Iraqi soil. This
mandate covers the occupation, there was no mandate that allowed for
the illegal invasion. The UN Wire notes
the Washington Times story that "American officials are looking to the
UN Security Council to extend the mandate for U.S. troops to remain in
Iraq beyond Dec. 31 as direct negotiations with Iraqi officials on a
deal remain plagued by 'numerous' differences." At the White House
today, spokesperson Dana Perino addressed the negotiations and talk of
seeking an extension on the UN mandate:
We are working towards
responding to the Iraqis. Our negotiating team, led by Ambassador
Crocker, is finalizing that and we expect to be talking with the Iraqis
over the next week. And I think that their parliament is back in
session starting next Tuesday, so hopefully we'll make some progress
soon. And I think reports about us looking at an alternative are
overwritten. We are focused on getting this agreement done. I think the
Iraqis recognize that it is their interest, and it's certainly in
America's national security interest for us to finalize it. So we're
working through all the requested changes that they had, and there
might be some that we can support, there might be some that we won't be
able to support. I'll just let the negotiators work that out with them
privately.
At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Robert Wood
said of the SOFA, "Nothing new to report. We're taking a look at the
material we got from the Iraqis last week, and we'll be replying in due
course. But I don't have anything further than that." Iran's Press TV maintains
the treaty allows for attacks on foreign countries: "Under the US
-sought agreement, American military and civilians planes will be able
to use Iraqi airspace without Baghdad's oversight." The treaty faces
more hurdles as a result of the US creating a crisis two Sundays ago by attacking Syria, AP reports
that Walid al-Moualem, Syria's Foreign Minister, has used the word
"painful" to describe the responses from Syria to the US should the
White House and its agencies continue to stonewall regarding the
attack. Iran's Press TV quotes
al-Moualem stating: "Syria may resort to more painful measures if the
United States does not give an official explanation for the attack."
Meanwhile AKI reports
that the US Embassy in Syria reopened yesterday (it was closed Thursday
due to protests and closed Friday as well although the State Dept
maintained that was due to a holiday). The US school has been closed
and Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) explains,
"A belated victim of the United States raid on Syira on October 27 was
the American school in Damascus. The institution has been a
controversial satellite of US interests in Syria since its founding
more than a half-century ago, and it has often been featured as
political football during the two nations' turbulent, often bitter
relationship." In the US, the White House, Defense Dept and State Dept
have refused to speak publicly about the attack -- despite the fact
that the US is supposed to be a democracy with leadership answerable to
the people -- and Phil Sands (UAE's The National) explains that the stonewalling has taken place in Baghdad as well:
US
officials would stand in the safety of the Green Zone and lecture
journalists -- lecture Iraqis -- about all the progress that was being
made even as, out there beyond the concrete barriers, the country
collapsed and descended into a sectarian chaos that has claimed tens of
thousands of lives. Regardless of what was actually said, however, the
Americans were at least willing to stand up and publicly answer
questions. It was something. Last week, however, they finally made a
mockery of even that basic principle. The usual press conference was
held, as planned, on Wednesday afternoon and was attended, as always,
by the dwindling Baghdad press corps. Brig Gen David Perkins, the US
military spokesman for Iraq, sat down in front of an American flag and
read out a bland statement. It mentioned the Status of Forces Agreement
negotiations, interference by Iran and progress in training Iraq's
security agencies.He failed to address just one small issue: the
cross-border attack into Syria by US forces that took place on the
Sunday before. Given that the airborne assault, which left at least
eight people dead, was carried out from Iraqi soil and supposedly
targeted an al Qa'eda figure who was helping launch attacks inside
Iraq, you might consider it worth talking about. In light of the fact
that it was technically an act of war by both the US and Iraq on Syria
and made international headlines, you might imagine something would be
said. Instead, there was a deafening silence. After reading his
opening statement, Brig Gen Perkins asked if there were any questions.
One of the Iraqi reporters duly asked about the attack on Syria. The
officer's response was brief and to the point: "Umm," he said, "I've
nothing to add on that." A few minutes later, another reporter, this
time an American, asked about the poor quality of water supplies in
Iraq and the US attack on Syria. Brig Gen Perkins entered into a
lengthy treatise on the improving security situation and reconstruction
efforts, before stating: "I have nothing to add on any other subjects." In
the course of the press conference, two more reporters asked about the
raid inside Syria and Brig Gen Perkins simply pretended as if the
questions had not been asked. He did not so much as acknowledge them.
The
US Embassy in Syria remains the only US outlet issuing statements. Last
week, it announced the Embassy would be closed due to protests (and
later that day the State Dept refused to confirm that announcment).
Today the Embassy's website
displayed: "Public Announcement, November 3, 2008 In response to the
Syrian government's request, the American Cultural Center is
unavailable to the Syrian public as of October 30, 2008 until further
notice, and classes at the American Language Center have been cancelled
until further notice." Asked about it and if that meant that the
Cultural and Language centers were only closed to Syrians, Robert Wood
declared, "Well, that's right. It is closed to the Syrian public. But
we still -- we have, you know, officers, officials there." Associated
Press' Matthew Lee pursued this.
Matthew Lee: What if you're not
Syrian? What if you're -- if you're not a Syrian citizen and you happen
to be living in Damascus, can you still go to the American Cultural
Center?
Robert A. Wood: Well, if -- it's closed to the general -- the Syrian general public and so --
Matthew
Lee: Yeah, but I -- you know, I'm sorry. When the Syrian government
came to you, they didn't just say to close it to the Syrian public, did
they? They said to close it down.
Robert A. Wood: Well, it's --
let me just say, Matt, it is closed to the Syrian general public, as
far as I know, to the general public at large. But our work continues.
We have people who are there who work at the Cultural Center, and
they'll continue to do their business. But it is closed to the public.
Matthew
Lee: So your interpretation of their request is not that they told you
to close the thing down, but rather they just told you to close it to
the public.
Robert A. Wood: THe only thing I can say, Matt, is it is closed to the public.
Meanwhile IranVNC reports
that country's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, visited Syria
today for a meet up with Bashar al-Assad (Syrian President) and Faroq
al-Shar'a (vice president) during which he declared, "Instead of being
a show of American strength aiming to weaken Syria, this action
demonstrates Washington's own weakness and desperation." Yesterday
Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced:
"Syrian Foreign Minister Waleed Al Moallem, made a phone call with His
Excellency Foreign Hoshyar Zebari on Saturday 1st November, 2008. Both
sides discussed the ways to encircle and contain the repercussions of
U.S. military raid against the Syrian region Albu Kamal. The two sides
stressed their joint keenness to support and strengthen the bilateral
relations between both brotherly countries and peoples and the need to
pass the tension on the relations after the raid. The understanding
between both sides was discussed on the practical measures to correct
the path of Syrian-Iraqi relations and placing those relations in its
proper frame to serve the interests of both brotherly countries."
The
unrest comes at a time when the puppet government tightens the economic
belt (around the neck of the average Iraqi) and when the security
situation grows more iffy internatlly. Yesterday the New York Times
finds Suadad al-Salhy and Katherine Zoepf explained
the price of oil per barrel going up and slightly down has Iraq's
concerned about their budget for next year and have cut it by $13
billion dollars. And what do they plan on cutting? It's not detailed;
however, Liz Sly (Chicago Tribune) reported:
"The Iraqi government plans to cut salaries for the estimated 100,000
members of the Awakening movement whose revolt against Al Qaeda in Iraq
played a key role in bringing about the sharp fall in violence in Iraq.
The move is certain to aggravate building tensions between the Sunni
volunteer force and the Shiite-led government, which assumed
responsibility for the Awakening movement from the U.S. military
earlier this month."Sly notes $300 is how much members were paid but
leaders were paid $400 to $500 a month and that both are being cut. Gen
David Petraeus (now over Centcom but until recently the top US
commander in Iraq) has credited the "Awakening" movement with the fall
in violence as has US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. October 1st, the
central government in Baghdad took over payment of approximately 50,000
"Awakening"members and one month later (next checks go out November
10th), they can't even maintain the payment level. It's not as if they
didn't know how much the US was spending. So obvioulsy, just as they
never planned to absorb the "Awakening" into police, military and
security forces, they never intended to pay them. Sly notes the hopes
of one "Awakening" who believes the US will pick up the difference.
However, that's not going to be the case according to the article.
That, however, was supposed to be the case when the handover was made.
That was one of the promises the US made to the "Awakenings." Not even
a month later and the handpicked and handtrained "Awakenings" are
seeing the US go back on their word.
Now might not be the best
time for Iraq to monkey around with it's internal security. Iraqi
Christians have been under attack since they protested the dropping of
Article 50 in the provincial elections law. Hurriyet reports:
"Iraq's parliament voted on Monday to guarantee religious minorities
seats on provincial councils to be selected next year, but drew ire
from Iraqi Christians by setting aside fewer spots than a U.N. proposal
had urged." China's Xinhau provides
the breakdown the vote (106 out of 150 MPs voted for it) and notes that
it's six seats: "A seat will give to each Christians and Sabeans in
Baghdad, and a seat for each Christians, Yazidies and Shabak in
Nineveh, and a single seat for Christians in Basra." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
that the religious minorities say the number is too small and quotes
Yonadem Kanna (Assyrian Democratic Movement) stating, "They failed in
the examination of democracy. . . . Getting nothing is better than this
insult." On the topic of Iraq's Christians, CNN reports
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has promised $900,000 (US
equivalent)will be spent in some manner on protecting Iraqi Christians
and that the distribution of the money will be supervised. Saturday in
London, there was a demonstration in support of Iraqi Christians. Independent Catholic News reports
protestors marched to No 10 Downing St on behalf of Iraqi Christians. A
petition was presented and citizens and residents of Great Britain who
wish to sign the petition can click here.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad bombing not far from Sahib Salman ("under secretary of the
oil ministry") which wounded Salman and "one of his guards," 4 Baghdad
roadside bombings that claimed 6 lives and left twenty-nine people
wounded, 2 Baghdad sticky bombings that wounded five people, 2 Mosul
roadside bombings that claimed 2 lives and left four wounded and a
Baquba roadside bombing that wounded nine people.
Turning to the US presidential election. To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports) notes, "The only prediction I have made, and with which I shall stick, is that Tuesday is going to be a long, long night." Erbe also notes, "If nothing else is obscene about this presidential election (and plenty is IMHO), then the fact that together the candidates will be spending $8 per vote
to win the White House clearly meets and exceeds the obscenity
descriptor." Erbe's referring to the Democratic presidential ticket and
the Republican ticket only. There are other candidates. But starting
with the Republican presidential ticket, John McCain is the nominee and
Sarah Palin is his running mate. Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports
Palin's agenda today was "six cities in five states" and that she flies
late tonight back to Alaska to vote Tuesday morning only to fly to
Phoenix later Tuesday. At the McCain - Palin '08 blog, Matt Lira offers:
Cindy McCain (disclosure, I know and like Cindy) is John McCain's spouse and they have four children -- one of whom, Meghan McCain (McCainBloggette), wrote the following at her site yesterday: "America
is worth fighting for" is my favorite line of my father's speech. I
think it is so poignant, and essentially, it captures the reason why I
have always loved, supported and believed in my father. It is why I
believe he would be the best President for our country now, at a point
where we face many challenges abroad and also at home, where so many of
our fellow Americans are going through difficult times. The fact that
our country is and always will be worth for fighting for is the essence
of why I have been so inspired to participate in this campaign, and
throughout this process I have been even more inspired by the people
and the places I have encountered along the way, around our great
country. We are truly the luckiest people in the world, and I have
been very fortunate to be a part of this experience on the campaign,
and to be able to share it with so many of you. The next three days
will fly by and no doubt be pretty crazy, so let me just say thanks
right now for getting involved too. This is what was at the heart of
what I hoped to achieve with my blog, and it has gone beyond my
expectations. Stay tuned for more from the trail tomorrow!
John and Cindy McCain issued a statement today:
"We offer our deepest condolences to Barack Obama and his family as
they grieve the loss of their beloved grandmother. Our thoughts and
prayers go out to them as they remember and celebrate the life of
someone who had such a profound impact in their lives." Meanwhile Brian
Montopoli (CBS News) reports that Democratic Party presidential
candidate Barack Obama finally found an 'issue' he could sink his teeth
into: "Having said that, brothers should pull up their pants. You are
walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear showing.
What's wrong with that? Come on." Come on, indeed. Barack with an issue
that matters to him and finally a concrete plan for an issue. It only
took until the day before the election for the fashionista and Men's
Vogue cover boy to find an issue.
Harold Evans (at Guardian of London) notes the media's attempt to elect Barack: But
the press bias towards Obama doesn't represent a simple revulsion for
the Republican party. It was on display in the Democratic primaries
with the persecution of Hillary Clinton. Worst of all, in the
primaries, the press let the Obama campaign get away with continuous
insinuations below the radar that the Clintons were race-baiters.
Instead of exposing that absurd defamation for what it was - a nasty
smear - the media sedulously propagated it. Clinton made the
historically correct and uncontroversial remark that civil rights
legislation came about from a fusion of the dreams of Dr Martin Luther
King and the legislative follow-through by President Lyndon Johnson.
The New York Times misrepresented that as a disparagement of King,
twisting her remarks to imply that "a black man needed the help of a
white man to effect change". This was one of a number of manipulations
on race by the Obama campaign, amply documented by the leading
Democratic historian, Princeton's Sean Wilentz. Clinton came close to
tears in a coffee shop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which many thought
helped her to win an upset victory there. MSNBC television gave a
platform to the Chicago congressmen, Jesse Jackson Jr, where he
questioned her tears and claimed that she'd not shed any tears for the
black victims of Katrina, and that she'd pay for that in the South
Carolina primary, where 45% of the electorate would be
African-Americans. In fact, MSNBC ran a non-stop campaign for Obama
propelled by the misogyny of its anchors, Chris Matthews, Keith
Olbermann and David Shuster. Chelsea Clinton joining Clinton's campaign
prompted Shuster to report she was "pimping" for her mother.
Meanwhile Democrat Jerry Nadler raised the issue of Jeremiah Wright in Florida. Jake Tapper (ABC News -- link has video) quotes
Nadler stating, "Think of the history here. You have a guy who's
half-white, half-black. He goes to an Ivy League school, comes to
Chicago . . . to start a political career. Doesn't know anybody. Gets
involved with community organizing -- why? Because that's how you form
a base. OK. Joins the largest church in the neighborhood. About 8,000
members. . . . Why did he join the church? . . . Because that's how you
get to know people. Now maybe it takes a couple years [before Barack's
thinking] 'Jesus, the guy's a nut, the guy's a lunatic.' But you don't
walk out of a church with 8,000 members in your district. . . He didn't
have the political courage to make the statement of walking out."
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Marc Abizeid, 202-471-5833,
marcabizeid@votenader.orgTUESDAY, NOV. 4 - Nader to Hold One-Word
Response Press Conference *NOTE CHANGE OF DATE Special
questioning/interview opportunities for members of the foreign mediaIn
deference to the sound bite journalism that dominates presidential
political media coverage, independent presidential candidate Ralph
Nader will host a press conference at which he will only issue one-word
responses to questions for the first 30 minutes.Who: Ralph NaderWhat:
Special One-hour Press Conference. For the first half of the Press
Conference, Mr. Nader will answer all questions with just a one-word
response. For the second half of the press conference, foreign press
credentialed media will be given priority.Where: National Press Club,
Murrow Room, 13th Floor - National Press Building, 529 14th Street NW,
Washington, DCWhen: 12 Noon, Tuesday, November 4
Many people will be breaking the two-party strangle-hold. Team Nader periodically highlights voices who have made the break and here is the latest: My
name is Pat and I am a resident in Nutley, N.J. Today, I took my ten
year old son to the Nutley Public Library, where a mock election was
being held for all elementary school students. Over the last two weeks,
flyers came home with my son's homework about the event. The flyer
promoted the event to kids and told them they could have their photos
taken with their favorite candidate. My son, who is aware of my
support for Mr. Nader, said me "Dad, I bet they don't have a picture of
Mr. Nader there at the library." I agreed with him and he deceided he
wanted to participate in the mock election on November first. We
left for the library with our camera in hope of seeing Mr. Nader. Upon
arrival, we were directed to the Stockton Room, where the election was
being held. As we entered the room, two life sized cardboard cutouts of
Sen, Obama and Sen, McCain were in the center of the room. I laughed to
myself when I saw that Sen. McCain was standing on the left and Sen.
Obama on the right. Mr. Nader's cardboard cutout was nowhere to be
found. We were greeted by two women and a young girl, who were poll
workers. They greeted us and asked my son his name. They had him
sign his name in a book and proceeded to give him a ballot. This ballot
contained only two names: John McCain and Barack Obama. Again, Mr.
Nader's name was not on the ballot. The children were not even given a
place for write in candidate. After giving my son the ballot , he was
directed to one of three voting booths, where he could make his
selection. From behind the cutrtain my son called to me, "Hey Dad, how
do you spell independent." I told him I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T. He told me
he wrote that below the other choices and placed a large check mark
next to the word. He also wrote down Mr. Nader's name and placed his
ballot in a collection box. Upon emerging from the voting booth, my
son was asked if he would like to have his picture taken with his
candidate. He said he would and he stood off to the far left away from
the two cardboard cutouts, next to an American flag standing in the
corner. As, I flashed the picture, the two women said, "No, stand next
to your candidate and take the picture" With that my son said, "But my
candidate is not here" All we heard from the women was a puzzled "Oh!!" Teach civics in the schools. -- Pat Sweeney Nutley, NJ
Obama's
job is to present a benign, even progressive face that will revive
America's democratic pretensions, internationally and domestically,
while ensuring nothing of substance changes.Among ordinary Americans
desperate for a secure life, his skin colour may help him regain this
unjustified "trust", even though it is of a similar hue to that of
Colin Powell, who lied to the United Nations for Bush and now endorses
Obama. As for the rest of us, is it not time we opened our eyes and
exercised our right not to be lied to, yet again?
And finally,
Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and Rosa
Clemente is her running mate. We'll again note Kimberly and Ian
Wilder's "Vote Green Party On Tuesday!"
(On The Wilder Side):November 1, 2008This is an exciting time for us!
The Green Party has never been as relevant as it is today. As Congress
offers trillion-dollar bailouts to Wall Street, people living on Main
Street struggle to stay in their homes and pay for basic needs. Why is
Congress bailing out corporations while the public slides into economic
insecurity? Because the industries that will benefit from the bailout
are some of the largest campaign contributors to political
campaigns.But never fear because you can VOTE GREEN on Tuesday and
choose People Power over corporate power. Support Cynthia McKinney for President andRosa Clemente
for Vice President; and, support other Green candidates running in your
community. Greens are running for office across the country for 60
types of office. Check them out! To find out who's running in your community, click here.Once
elected, Greens will not betray the public interest for corporate cash.
We accept no corporate money because we believe corporate influence is
what's wrong with politics.If you believe healthcare is a right for
all, not to be governed by the profit motive of insurance companies,
support the Green Party and our campaign for Single Payer Healthcare.If
you believe offshore drilling furthers our national addiction to fossil
fuels; and want to see positive solutions like renewable energy, local
food production, local businesses and better public transportation-
Help elect Greens who will make it a reality.If you believe every vote
must be counted, that higher education should be available to everyone,
that climate change is real, that the war on drugs is racist, and that
the privatization of public goods and services is wrong and that we
need to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW stand up and support the party that
will stand up for you The Green Party.If you want to see a clean, healthy future for our children, make sure we have a strong Green Party today
so it is thanksgiving. the 2nd 1 for my baby. yes, we dressed her up again this year and, yes, i took a ton of a pictures. flyboy and i along with trina and her husband took the kids (the baby and trina's grandbaby) out for an hour of trick or treat early in the evening. that will be more fun next year when both will be 2-years-old plus. but it was fun for the adults.
there was a nader article i was going to quote. if you want to read it, click here. everytime i try to copy and paste an excerpt, the page starts loading and re-loading.
and i just saw something and had to call c.i. ap reports the dallas, texas area had an earthquake today:
A 2.5-magnitude quake at 11:25 p.m. Thursday near Grand Prairie was followed by a series of other small earthquakes in the Dallas suburb, then a 3.0-magnitude quake at 12:01 a.m. Friday in nearby Irving, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
so i called to c.i. to see if she heard anything about it from any the texas community members. she has and the members who have e-mailed have actually found it amusing (no 1 was harmed). she said i could put in that sabina and domingo are writing a piece on it for polly's brew so check that out sunday. when i saw that, i freaked out. 1st afraid something might have happened to a community member, 2nd because who ever heard of earthquakes in texas? i have never heard of such a thing.
meanwhile the idiots at hullabaloo are raving over war hawk rachel maddow and war hawk barack obama who did a circle-jerk on msnbc:
It's a fascinating, and utterly refreshing, experience to listen to an American politician answer direct questions in a reasonably direct way. One hopes she gets a chance to sit down and talk to him many, many more times. These two are meant for each other.
yes, the 2 are meant for each other. they're both frauds.
i always laugh at the liars who just discovered rachel. were it not for the idiot rachel and bird-brained lizz, i wouldn't have started this site. but the 2 jerks went after 1 of my friends and not only did i start this blog as a result, i saw it as my duty to call them both out.
rachel uglies up the world a little bit at a time. give her 1 year, and she will have no viewers. the same way she ran off listeners with her ugly and restrictive views on unfiltered. there was rachel maddow on the 'left' air america radio arguing week after week, monday through friday, that the u.s. could not and should not leave iraq.
people don't know her real history. they don't grasp that's she's a war hawk and actually highly conservative. i've heard her crap, i know who she is.
she's repackaged by msnbc and she'll fool people for maybe a year - maybe that long. then it's over for madcow.
sherry e-mailed saying she would scream if this never ending election did not end soon. she also asked if there's a more annoying man on pbs than charlie rose?
charlie rose is pretty disgusting. i'll pass on to ava and c.i. your irritation factor and see if they can tackle some of his garbage sunday. i know they're thinking of working in tavis' pbs program because they watched the labelle reunion on his show. i tivoed it (they have a disc of it) because it aired tonight and, obviously, i wasn't in front of the tv. labelle is patti labelle and sarah dash and nona hendrix. they had many great recordings and most people know at least 'lady marmalade' if nothing else. of the many recordings of their's that i love is gonna take a miracle, the album they did with laura nyro.
i just scrolled up thinking i had written a ton and, sadly, i hadn't. i always think i've written a ton and then after realize i barely wrote anything.
Ralph Nader is the next best man to vote for. He is on the ballot in 45 states. He is for constitutional government. Dominic Cuchara
i haven't voted yet. i keep getting e-mails asking if i've early voted. i honestly don't know if that option is even available in my state? i'm sure it is. but i believe in voting on election day. i think fly boy's early voted (but he's registered at his family home's address and votes in another state). i will be voting for ralph.
Friday, October 31, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty remains in doubt, four US Senators speak out on behalf of Iraqi Christians, and more.
Starting with Iraqi Christians. The Saudi Gazette notes that Professor Ekmeledding Ihsanoglu (Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference) declared, "As we have consistently demanded that the rights of Muslim minorities be respected all over the world, we do emphasize the need to respect the rights of all minorities across the Islamic world." UPI reports that US Senators Sam Brownback, Bob Casey, Carl Levin and Mel Martinez have "called on Iraqi President Jalal talabni and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take the steps needed to end the violence plaguing the Christian community in nothern Iraq." This is the press release in full from Levin's office:
In a letter spearheaded by U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Mel Martinez (R-FL) today urged Jalal Talabani, President of the Republic of Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq, to take all necessary measures to end the violence in the north against Iraqi Christians. According to the United Nations, thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled Mosul in reaction to the increased violence and intimidation. "This violence is emblematic of a larger pattern of severe persecution by extremists that threatens to deprive Iraq of her non-Muslim citizens. It also highlights the possibility of increased violence ahead of provincial elections," the Senators wrote. They went on to write, "We urge your government to take all necessary measures to increase security in the north on behalf of all Iraqis." Full text of the letter is below: Dear Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister: We write to express grave concern over the recent violence in Mosul that has driven away large numbers of Iraqi Christians. This violence is emblematic of a larger pattern of severe persecution by extremists that threatens to deprive Iraq of her non-Muslim citizens. It also highlights the possibility of increased violence ahead of provincial elections. We urge your government to take all necessary measures to increase security in the north on behalf of all Iraqis. To this end, we welcomed statements of support from Prime Minister al-Maliki's office calling for an end to these vicious attacks and committing the Iraqi security forces, particularly the additional security forces sent to Mosul, to protect all Iraqis regardless of sectarian affiliation. These actions send a strong signal to the extremists that they will not succeed in spreading division, hatred, and mistrust among Iraqis. We also hope the Iraqi Parliament will seriously consider the issue of minority representation in the provincial elections law. We believe Iraq's leaders can play a critical role in ensuring that the Iraqi government remains a representative body of all of Iraq's people, including its minorities. For over one-thousand years, Iraq has been home to people of many faiths who have lived and worshipped side by side, including Shiites, Sunnis, Jews, Yazidis, and Christians. This long and proud tradition has made Iraq a cradle of human civilization. It is a tradition we hope will be restored. Sincerely, Robert P. Casey Jr. Carl Levin Sam Brownback Mel Martinez
Meanwhile, UPI reports that many "Christian communities in northern Iraq are setting up ad hoc militias to secure their neighborhoods, rights advocates said Wednesday." In the last few weeks many Christians in Mosul have fled for safety (and very few have returned). International Medical Corps announces they have "delivered 142 tons of emergency food rations, hygience kits, and household items to more than 2,000 families, or 8,044 displaced persons" and they note "International Medical Corps' most recent reports from field monitoring teams indicate that approximately 173 families have returned to Mosul, 106 families to Hamdaniya, and 67 families to Tel Kef. The Government of Iraq is offering displaced families and returnees financial assistance; however, fears of further violence have prevented many from returning." This page contains links to a slide show of photos from that assistance mission as well as to their [PDF format warning] report entitled "Forced from Their Homes: Mosul Emergency Response Action Report." The report includes a day by day synopsis starting with October 8th:
IMC Iraq's Baghdad headquarters was alerted by field staff in Mosul that groups had been using loudspeakers to intimidate Christians in the western and central areas of this district and that Christians were fleeing the area. IMC's humanitarian programs manger confirmed this report with IMC staff in other locations in Ninewa Governorate and learned that at least 40 families had arrived unannounced in Tel Sqof and were staying at the Assyrian Aid Society, with some families campaing in the facility's garden.
Assyria Times reports that tomorrow in San Jose, there will be a support rally for Iraqi Chrisians (from one p.m. to three, Courthouse and Federal Building): "The support rally will exhibit a unified stance for the reinstatement of Article 50 of the Iraqi constitution; a key clause whose original intent was to erserve seats on Provincial Councils for Christians and other minorities."
And let's stay with Iraqi politics for news of the SOFA, Article 50 and more. First, Abeer Mohammed and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) explain that Iraq's Defense Minister Abudl-Kader Jassem al-Obeidi has instituted a policy of being "politically neutral" which is thought to be in response to Iraq's Minister of the Interior Jawad al-Bolani and his Iraqi Constiutional Party. Meanwhile on Article 50, UPI reports that provincial elections could be delayed even further: "The Iraqi Independent High Electoral High Commissions Thursday said, following a meeting with officials from the U.N. Assistance Mission to Iraq, that lawmakers needed to address the articles for minority representation before Wednesday, Voices of Iraq reported." That's the issue of religious minority representation, Article 50, which was pulled. UPI notes this may delay the elections "in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces." From provincial elections to the treaty the White House wants to force off on the puppet government in Baghdad. The Tehran Times reports that Nouri al-Maliki, in conversations with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council chief) has stated, "We do not call agreement with America a security agreement, but (we) call it a pact of retreating of (US) troops and regulating their presence during the specified time." Iran's Press TV quotes Hoshyar Zebari (Iraq's Foreign Minister) stating, "We must clarify some points such as that on jurisdicition that is to say that the American law has precedence inside their bases but not in the streets. . . . And finally, the sovereignty of the country is at stake over certain aspects such as that of the air space which, for the time being, is still under their control."
Did someone say sovereignty? Sunday the US attacked Syria. Jordan's Al Bawaba reports Syria has announced it is severing "diplomatic ties with Iraq". Iraq's Alsumaria adds, "However, Government spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh denied in a statement to Alsumaria reports about cutting off relations with Syria hoping it would not reach that point." Farrah Hassen (Asia Times) reminds that 8 Syrians died ("including a farmer, three children, and a fisherman") and that while "numerous questions" continue, no answers are provided. Hassen notes, "By violating Syrian airspace and apparently not consulting the Syrians about its supposed intelligence on Abu Ghadiya ahead of the attack, the Bush adminsitration has confirmed, yet again, its disdain for international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter." Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) observes that an agreement allowing cross borders raids is one thing but, "Breaking into the borders of any country without a similar agreement is considered a hostile act and a violation of this country's sovereignty, besides being a breach of international laws. This attack raised many questions about its targets and content. First, the US never carried such attacks when the Syrian-Iraqi borders were almost open and Syria was accused of allowing hundreds of militants to infiltrate into Iraq to carry out vandalism operations. However, the situation has changed lately as these accusations decreased and Syria was no longer the country that allows militants into Iraq. Syria has also taken steps to mend its relations with Lebanon and France, which should bring it closer to the US, not the opposite." Yoav Stern (Haaretz) notes, "The Syrian government has demanded Washington apologize for the strike of the Abu Kamal border community and earlier this weeek threatened to cut off cooperation on Iraqi border security if there are more American raids on Syria territory." Atul Aneja (The Hindu) speaks to the fallout, "The news of the attack has strongly echoed in neighbouring Iraq, whose territory was used to mount the raid by U.S. commandos, who used military helicopters for the strike. Analysts say the raid has reinforced the argument within the Iraqi political circles, who have been insisting that an agreement for extending the stay of American forces in Iraq beyond 2008 should be considered only if Washington accepted the condition that it would not use Iraqi soil to mount military strikes against neighbouring countries."
At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Sean McCormack declared, "We did have -- our charge Maura Connelly on the 29th so that's two days ago -- was called into the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We reported that and I think we talked about that. And she received a verbal demarche communicating the Syrian government request that the Damascus Community School known as -- known in Damascus as 'the American scool' be closed by November 6. We are considering our response to that demarche. It is the weekend in Damascus right now. These facilities, in any case, wouldn't be scheduled under normal circumstances to reopen until Sunday."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bicycle bombing that resulted in no deaths or wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left one woman and three Iraqi service members injured and another Mosul roadside bombing that left two people injured
Shootings? Reuters notes a Mosul shooting that left a police officer injured.
After defending Sarah Palin, I heard from a member of the angry left who wrote: "Your (sic) from a Third World country, or your family is, stop trying to be white." I also heard from baby boomer activists who regret -- as they see it -- yanking me off that landscaping crew and sending me to the Ivy League. Or as one put it: "Unbelievable that you can sit there and defend Sarah Palin. I broke down doors for you to have a foot into the society you now participate in." When I praised McCain, a liberal asked: "What are you, the Uncle Tom of Latinos?" She advised, "Make your people proud because you are shaming them." When trying to assert control over freethinking Latinos and African-Americans, the liberal catchword is "disappointed." Lately, I've received dozens of e-mails from readers who use that word to describe how they feel about me. In the liberal tradition, most of the missives are condescending. Like this: "At one time, your articles were interesting to read but ... it seems you have lost your way." Or this: "You are feeding the ignorant and twisting truths so badly they become lies ...One day my words will resonate, sorry you lost your way in the meantime." To read their complaints, it seems the last time I had my bearings was -- coincidentally -- the last time I wrote something with which they agreed. It's part of how broken our political discourse has become. We're not allowed to say that we think either Obama or McCain would make a fine president. We can't agree to disagree; we have to destroy the other side. We're trapped in an all-or-nothing paradigm where partisans demand complete agreement and undying allegiance.
It would probably be very wise for certain White Anglo 'helpers' to grasp that they do not control the world or anyone else. That's a point Marcia makes regularly at her site (including this week with White Tim Wise attempting to tell the African-American community what their lives are like). It is offensive and it needs to stop. Something else that needs to stop is Robin Morgan's public tantrums. It's an election, Robin, and you are not ruler of the universe. Robin's back with more nonsense at (Democratic) Women's Media Center and the latest garbage is entitled "Moose, Mousse, and Spalinism". No surprise, there's no attempt by Robin to apologize for her GROSS FACTUAL ERRORS (also known as LIES) in her previous writing on Palin. It's just more scattered, bitchy comments from a woman who truly should know better but apparently will bow and scrape before any man until her dying day. Wally and Cedric grabbed the previous crap from (Democratic) Women's Media Center this week [see their "Women's Media Center -- fact free for most of 2008..." and "THIS JUST IN! KEEP HER AWAY FROM A KEYBOARD!"] because I was too enraged to tackle that 'historian.' Now Robin shows up for one last cat-fight. It's all so damn pathetic.
But if any actual feminists are concerned about the effect on Women's Movement institutions and energy of this clutch of "formers" (a former chapter official of a national feminist organization, a former editor of a feminist publication, former Democratic funders, former Hillary supporters, and so forth), let me reassure you. The "trust date" had already long expired on these women, who'd been voted off feminist leadership posts, or fired, or quietly asked to resign. Some are confessed consultants to the campaign whose candidates they now--surprise!--endorse. I never imagined I'd see a "feminist" mercenary. But then I never heard of rats climbing onto a sinking ship, either.
I think Joni Mitchell best dealt with crap like Robin's churning out when noting of Rickie Lee Jones, that Rickie thought she could own jazz and it was her own private sidewalk. Robin writes as if feminism belongs just to her but she will dole it out in morsels to whomever she deems worthy. That's not how it works. Robin's got to have a screaming tantrum again because things aren't working out the way she wants. Someone needs to correct her on her sense of entitlement. She does not own feminism.
There will never be an excuse for Robin's actions in the last three months. She has chosen to attack Sarah Palin repeatedly and she's done so with lies. There's no excuse for her shameful behavior. Certainly not 'an election.' And love Joe Biden though I do, let's stop building him into "feminism salvation." But possibly when you're as frail and pathetic as Robin's become, you need a man to save you.
I'm not voting for McCain - Palin. That's been stated before Palin was on the ticket but, unlike Robin, I at least have enough ethics not to try to tear Sarah apart with lies. Unlike Robin, I have enough sense not to join in Bash the Bitch and, unlike Robin, I realize that actions like Robin's aren't about feminism or empowerment (they're about whoring yourself out to the patriarchy). All week, numerous strong women (many I know) have stepped foward and I've kept it out of the snapshot but let's bring it in since Robin wants to have her tantrum. Elaine Lafferty is one of the unnamed women Robin's hissing at. Yes, Robin is hissing at Elaine. In public. That's how pathetic Robin's become. That's how decreipt and useless Robin's become. Elaine wrote "Sarah Palin's a Brainiac" (The Daily Beast):
For the sin of being a Christian personally opposed to abortion, Palin is being pilloried by the inside-the-Beltway Democrat feminist establishment. (Yes, she is anti-abortion. And yes, instead of buying organic New Zealand lamb at Whole Foods, she joins other Alaskans in hunting for food. That's it. She is not a right-wing nut, and all the rest of the Internet drivel--the book banning at the Library, the rape kits decision--is nonsense. I digress.) Palin's role in this campaign was to energize "the Republican base," which she has inarguably done. She also was expected to reach out to Hillary Clinton "moderates." (Right. Only a woman would get both those jobs in either party.) Look, I am obviously personally pro-choice, and I disagree with McCain and Palin on that and a few other issues. But like many other Democrats, including Lynn Rothschild, I'm tired of the Democratic Party taking women for granted. I also happen to believe Sarah Palin supports women's rights, deeply and passionately.
First, although I disagree with several of her positions on social issues, I do not fear that she is a threat to the rights we have as Americans. As Governor of Alaska she vetoed a bill that would have denied hospital rights to gay couples because the bill violated the Alaska constitution. In her debate with Joe Biden, she clearly stated her tolerance, with the same position on gay couples as her opponent. Although she is personally pro-life, Palin has proven she will uphold the law of the land. Like McCain, she will work with a Democratic Congress on acceptable judicial appointments. It is time to stop allowing the Democratic Party to scare voters into believing only they can protect a woman's right to choose. Second, the attack on Palin's qualifications is sexist, a bias abetted by the media. On CNN, Obama contrasted Palin's experience to his own by saying Wasilla has only 50 employees and a budget of $12 million a year while his campaign has 2,500 employees and a budget of $36 million per month. Excuse me, but she is Governor of a State with 29,000 employees and a budget of $11 billion. She has actually reduced taxes and cut spending.
The party I believed in wouldn't look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations. Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don't have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems--big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies--is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding? That's not exactly the philosophy of a Democrat. Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton "dishonest." They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over "Bros before Hoes" or "Iron My Shirt." Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She's human. But here we are about a week out and it's déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin's wardrobe? Where's the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?
First, with the candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won 18 million popular votes from the people of the United States and was ridiculed, marginalized, and put in her place when she wasn't even offered the vice presidency slot. But the really big attack on women occurred when John McCain selected only the second woman in history to be on a major-party ticket. He chose a governor of a state critical to our energy crisis. She is a very popular governor with an 80-percent approval rate. She was elected on her own merit without previous political ties. She is her own political creation, not the wife, daughter, sister or mistress of a politician. I thought Americans would be proud of her nomination, whether we agreed or disagreed with her on the issues. Was I in for a shock. The sexism that I believed had been eradicated was lurking, like some creature from the black lagoon, just below the surface. Suddenly it erupted and in some unexpected places. Instead of engaging Palin on the issues, critics attacked attributes that are specifically female. It is Hillary's pantsuit drama to the power of 10. Palin's hair, her voice, her motherhood, and her personal hygiene were substituted for substance. That's when it was nice. The hatred escalated to performers advocating Palin be "gang raped," to suggestions that her husband had had sex with their young daughters, and reports that her Down syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter. One columnist even called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her virtue. Smells a little like Salem to me. I was present at an Obama rally at which the mention of Palin's name drew shouts of "stone her." "Stone her"? How biblical. Or take the one and only Linda Bloodworth-Thomason. From Reuters:
Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters. "We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats. Bloodworth-Thomason even suggested a defense of Palin and her supporters should be written into TV programing, just as she went out of her way to portray Southern women as smart in her hit TV show "Designing Women."
Now grasp that all these women and more are "wrong" and only Robin is right. In Robn's mind that's how it works. She really needs to stop embarrassing herself in public. Instead of scraping and bowing before a man, WomenCount is calling on action: The next president, whomever he or she may be, should "create, withint the first 100 days, a presidential commission on women that will bring together the best thinkers from all backgrounds, sectors, and political parties, to impact the future of women in our nation." Or let's take The New Agenda where Cynthia Ruccia writes:
As women, we have several positions that we fall back on. One is exhaustion, which is where I believe many find themselves now. How can we not be tired when everywhere we turn these days there is one heinous example after another of our national disease: Misogyny. Unlike racism, which we are growing to tolerate less and less in America, sexism is absolutely acceptable. If this campaign year has proven anything, it is that Americans not only tolerate discrimination against women, in many instances they revel in it. Another position we women take is denial. And why not deny? Who wants to spend a lifetime screaming about this inequity? It's exhausting, and let's face it, joy is a much more pleasant way to live. But our best position by far is when we decide we are all in this together and we rise up against this injustice. Believe it or not, we have so much to be grateful for having watched these two courageous women, Hillary and Sarah, buck the system. By going where no woman has gone before, they have been human targets, willing to take the incoming fire. Although what Hillary withstood has receded a little in our memories, we have the spectacle of Sarah being eviscerated with glee by the Democrats. They are taking her apart with great creativity and total impunity. Why? Because as a society, we still permit the exercise of sexism without shame. I could list many examples of what Governor Palin has endured--the ridiculous clothing flap (who cares?), the trashing of her family (after all, women must pay for their sins of the family—Geraldine Ferraro did and Hillary paid for the sins of her husband), the c**t t-shirts that the creators wore with glee (they got more "attaboys" for having the courage to do it than shame for having done it), the constant minimizing of her accomplishments, since, after all, she's only a woman. The list goes on, day after day, on and on and on. And on. At first we're mad, then we can't stand it and hide, and then we realize that since NO ONE is stopping it, we must make that step ourselves. But once again I note how lucky we have been to have two brave women, Governor Palin and Senator Clinton, who have shown us what courage is. And if they can summon this courage, so can we.
Imagine that, the notion that women matter. A notion Robin no longer subscribes to which is why she hisses and snarls from (Democratic) Women's Media Center in attempts to bully the (small number of) readers into voting her way. She doesn't respect women. We're stupid -- in Robin's eyes. If it weren't for Robin, we wouldn't know how to vote. Or that's what she likes to kid herself. The failed child star who's hold on reality has become increasing fragile (never a good thing for a writer or non-fiction) is going out in one of the most embarrassing slow fades. Robin's hardly the only one embarrassing herself. Kim Gandy's doing a delightful job, such an 'amazing' job that she may be responsible for NOW losing its tax status since NOW's not allowed to endorse a candidate. (NOW PAC is, NOW is not.) As Mike pointed out last night, Kim Gandy's latest scribble promotes a 'scary' theme at NOW's website: dressing like McCain and Palin. This follows, as Elaine pointed out last month, Gandy using NOW's mailing list and official NOW stationaiy to promote Barack Obama's campaign.
Turning to Kim and Robin's crush Barack Obama, Jake Tapper (Political Punch, ABC News) reports: "The Obama campaign has told three reporters they have to drop off the campaign plane this weekend. All three work for papers that endorsed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.: the New York Post, the Washington Times, and the Dallas Morning News." Tapper explains St. Barack got a little snitty over the fact that the editorial boards of all three papers endorsed McCain. Tapper explains the Post and Times importance but skips Dallas. The Dallas Morning News is the paper with the largest circulation in Texas. Not only that, pay attention Cult of Barack, it (actually Belo) also owns cable and broadcast channels in the area -- including WFAA Channel Eight (which also reaches as far north as into Oklahoma). The reporters for the Dallas Morning News are expected not only to file text reports, they also provide reports for the TV channels. In addition, they supply to the the paper's Spanish language paper as well as to the freebies (such as Quick). To the north of Dallas county, to the south of Dallas county and to the east of Dallas county, the broadcast channels and the paper are widely available. As far to the east as Smith County, the Dallas Morning News is the dominant paper (Tyler has one paper under two names, it is not the dominant paper in Smith County -- under either name). (The Dallas Morning News' reach to the west is non-existant due to the understanding it and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram worked out to avoid another paper war -- the sort that allowed the Morning News to take out the Dallas Times Herald.) So this was a vanity move on the part of the Cult of Barack that effects a huge number of people. If the Cult wants to reduce it to 'voters,' no Barack's most likely not going to carry Texas (no Democrat has since Jimmy Carter in 1976) but for a candidate who claims to stand for reaching out, it was a really petty and juvenile move.
Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports Mike Ditka of Chicago Bears fame campaigned in Pennsylvania with Governor Palin today and explained, "I'm not here because I'm a Republican, which I am, and I'm not here because I'm a conservative, which I am. I'm here because I am an American. It's time in this country you put party lines on the backburner and you put your country first." Meanwhile, the Latino vote was never Barack's -- not in the primary and not in the general. But he didn't really want to compete for it and his Cult in Panhandle Media was too busy ignoring Latinos. Point, the campaign is freaking out about the new numbers (which don't just include Florida where Barack's own polling says he's losing the Latino vote). This as McCain-Palin '08 announces:
Today the McCain-Palin campaign announced the endorsement of Maria Conchita Alonso, a Latin American actress who has starred in television and film for three decades. Alonso, who was born in Cuba and raised in Venezuela, recently appeared on CSI: Miami and Desperate Housewives and starred alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger in The Running Man. "As a Latina and a new American citizen, I believe in this country and its people, and I believe that we need more than just 'change.' We need a leader who can bring about the right kind of change, and John McCain has the experience and judgment necessary to lead us in these uncertain times," Alonso said. "I grew up in Cuba and Venezuela, and I am appalled that Barack Obama apparently wants to emulate the "spread the wealth" economic policies of those countries and negotiate with their leaders. For me the choice is clear, and I believe it is my duty to share my views even though it might not make me popular in Hollywood." After a successful career in Venezuela as a beauty queen, telenovela star, film actress and singer, Alonso emigrated to the United States from Caracas, Venezuela in 1982. She has appeared in dozens of films and television shows since then and was the first South American star to star on Broadway. Apparently Marica Conchita Alonso, like many women, do not take their marching orders from Robin Morgan. Someone help Robin off the floor. Let's see Robin's insulted all religious people, she's insulted Ralph Nader specifically and all third-party candidates and she's insulted a lot of women. At some point, in a functioning feminist movement, she would have been pulled aside and told to cool her damn jets. She would have been informed just how ridiculous she looked and just how much damage she was doing to the movement. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Robin Morgan thinks you're an idiot and an awful person if you vote for him too. So reject Robin Morgan, make it clear to her that she is not in charge of America's vote. Declare your independence from Robin Morgan -- a declaration that's necessary only because her ego is greater than her intelligence (or her reach). Matt Gonzalez is Ralph's running mate and Team Nader notes:
Happy Halloween. Today, you can help us Freak Out the Corporate State. How? Donate $4 to Nader/Gonzalez now. Why? Ralph Nader is pulling four percent among registered voters in the latest CNN poll in battleground states. Four percent in Arizona. Four percent in Nevada. Four percent in Ohio. Four percent in Pennsylvania. Let's say the predictions are right and 130 million Americans vote. And let's say the four percent holds up. That's 5 million voters for the Nader/Gonzalez shift the power agenda. From the corporations back into the hands of the people. That's enough to freak out the corporate state. Even the thought of that this Halloween is enough to freak them out. But to get there, we need to hit our last fundraising goal of $4 million by election day. And we're $170,000 away. So, today, Halloween, 2008, let's freak out the corporate state. We need 4,000 of you -- our loyal supporters -- to hit that there donation button. And donate $4 now. We're driving toward a winning election day. When we send a strong message. We're here. We're near. We're not going anywhere. Get used to it. Onward to November and beyond. Public TV notes. On most PBS stations, NOW on PBS begins airing tonight but check local listings. The topic for the latest broadcast is:What Women Voters Want[Streaming video of this program will be available online after broadcast]Election 2008: Tough decisions for undecided women voters in the swing states.There are roughly eight million more female voters than male, and more women than men say they are still undecided. Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Sarah Palin have undoubtedly changed the debate for many women voters, but the question is: how will they ultimately respond in the booth?This week, NOW on PBS travels to the swing state of Colorado to get insight from a diverse group of women. These pro-choice, pro-gun women don't fit into neat categories, but they do respond to issues built around working moms: pay equity, family leave, and child care. On the show, NOW also interviews former Vice Presidential Candidate Geraldine Ferraro for her take on the role of women in this election.Will the women's vote decide the election?Also on PBS (begins airing Friday on many stations, check local listings) Washington Week where Gwen sits down for a ghoulish chat and chew with Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), David Broder (Washington Post), a mystery guest who shows up costumed as a Bobbsey Twin and, as a special treat, Time's Karen Tumulty offers up her impression of Bette Davis from Beyond The Forest. Watch in wonder as she really digs into the line, "What a dump." Marvel as truer words were never spoken. Oooh. Scary. That's the trick, the treat comes Monday, on commercial TV: Cher makes her first appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show.
posted by Marcia @ 11:00 PM
posted by Marcia @ 9:28 AM