It is what it is

"Kat's Korner: Linda Ronstadt, the very best" went up today.

It's a piece on The Very Best of Linda Ronstadt. E-mails I've read so far seem to enjoy it.

I should say a huge thank you to C.I. who sat down with me and went through thirteen and a 1/3 legal pad pages of long hand writing. That's a little trick I've re-learned. I used to do it years ago. I do it now. Write everything. Somewhere in there, that's something worth sharing (hopefully). What went up wasn't the main part of the longhand.

C.I. asked me, "Are you comfortable including the stuff on ex-es?" I was and C.I. said, "I really think that's the piece then." Which was true.

I had things in there (I have EVERYTHING IN THERE -- in the handwritten draft) about original versions verus Ronstadt's version. I was discussing the keys the original were arranged in as opposed to the keys Ronstadt's were. I had talked about some production values on some songs.

But the strongest part really was the ex-boyfriends. The intro was from page 11. I was groaning that I had to write an intro of some form and C.I. said, "No, no, look, this right here, this is in the intro." By using that for the first paragraphs, I just had to write about two sentences in that section. I said to C.I., of a sentence included, "Okay, but I do not want to mention the name of the guy I'm judging the worst. I don't want his head to be inflated." (I hadn't included it in the longhand draft.) C.I. said, "That's fine, don't put it in. But it sets up what the piece is. Right there in the first paragraph, you're quoting an ex so when you start going into some past relationships, you've set it up." The conclusion is a sentence from several paragraphs. When it was all edited down, I read over it and couldn't believe it.

I don't want to judge it 'good' but it really does work now and I wasn't sure it would when I finished writing in longhand on the plane Thursday night. So a big thank you to C.I. who panned for gold and found it. I really do like it, I'll leave it to others to judge its merits, but I do like it.

The plan was to do three CD reviews over the weekend.

If you missed it, that changed.

If it's a problem with the community, let me know and I can do three one-paragraph reviews for Hilda's Mix (of CDs that weren't worth a full review).

If you missed it, some 'helper' in Canada wrote a nasty and rude e-mail to C.I. accusing C.I. of writing things that C.I. never wrote. In addition (and Ruth found this out -- see "Nut Job and other irks" -- because C.I. didn't go back over what was written -- why should you when you wrote it and will know whether or not you wrote it), the things he was saying needed to be raised and C.I. failed by not raising them? C.I. raised them. C.I. was surprised by that because the topic was supposed to be used at Third (as C.I. noted repeatedly -- and it would have been until Friday morning when C.I. saw that e-mail).

But it was just this nasty, vile, little e-mail and it has pretty much soured all of us. I didn't think C.I. was going to do a snapshot Friday. This 'helper' (trying to speak for all of Canada) accuses C.I. of writing things C.I. never did, mocks and screams and it just abusive in the e-mail. (And let me repeat what Ruth found out, the guy's 'you should have' list of items? All noted by C.I. in those original entries. Long before Corey Glass was speaking about the IRR, long before a reporter was noting it, C.I. was writing about. And writing about the spin and the need to get anything in writing.)

You read something like that (and I read the e-mail), and it just pisses you off. It pisses me off big time. Someone (maybe Trina) said it was a slap in the face to C.I. but also to all of us. That really is true because The Common Ills is a community and we're all members (whether we have websites or not, all members took a slap in the face with that). Wally and Cedric have gone back and forth on what to do. They're plan was to post on Friday morning and then post after the Friday evening posts. They took Thursday off. Wally's out here (at C.I.'s) and he learned about the e-mail when C.I. was reading it. I'm told he hit the roof. (I was at my place. When we got back from the airport, I wanted to go over to C.I.'s but knew I'd end up sleeping over because I was about to fall out. So I came home, took a bath after I posted, fell asleep in the tub, went to bed and slept until about nine in the morning. At which point I went over to C.I.'s and the first thing Mike tells me is, "Be careful around Wally." Then he explains how mad Wally was. C.I. was furious about that e-mail; however, Wally was enraged.)

So Wally and Cedric were on the phone back and forth Friday and ended up deciding they weren't posting. They might post Saturday, was their decision, but when they did post, unless it was Ehren Watada or an American organization, they weren't including (in "FROM THE TCI WIRE: . . .") anything on Canada. Wally told me he feels bad because the e-mail wasn't from a war resister, it was from a 'helper.' But his attitude is, "You don't appreciate a damn thing, I'm not going to help your cause."

And, in similar words, that's pretty much the attitude community wide. We did a roundtable for Maria, Miguel and Francisco's newsletter because Maria said she's gotten a ton of e-mails about what happened? In that, Marcia brought up a point we're all familiar with and I'm glad someone said it. Marcia pointed out how we all repost the snapshot. And how there are 'readers' who have trouble reading and will miss "This is C.I.'s 'Iraq snapshot'," or whatever identification we put on it (with a link) and assume we wrote it. And some 'helpful' 'reader' will e-mail to advise us that there's good stuff in the snapshot but the war resister stuff is a 'loser' and we should drop it. As Marcia pointed out, including that stuff on war resistance doesn't help C.I. I added that always starting with it (to give it prominence) doesn't help either. (I've had many e-mails about the snapshot I've written -- again, they can't read, C.I. writes the snapshot, recommending I drop the war resistance or move it to the end.) So Marcia's point was it's not like it helps C.I. to include it. (And in the public account, there are always screaming right-wingers and centrists and, yes, leftists saying, "They deserted! They should be executed!" So including it also clogs up the public e-mail account.)

But when The Nation (2004), Democracy Now! (2006) and everyone else moves on from war resisters, C.I. has continued to cover the topic, has made it the first thing covered, has kept attention on the issue. And, offline, C.I. has begged, screamed and pleaded with friends in the MSM to cover war resistance.

And here's this person screaming at C.I. over something C.I. never wrote? And he's 'representing' the 'helpers' in Canada? And we're supposed to want to do anything to help that ungrateful 'spokesperson' or the 'movement' he represents?

Since Corey Glass, check Technorati (as Rebecca notes in the roundtable), was told he would be deported and C.I. has emphasized that non-stop daily, The Common Ills has gone from 164 other sites (non-community sites) linking to The Common Ills to a little over ninety.

Now C.I. doesn't give a damn about being linked to (obviously) but covering Corey Glass made a lot of people who avoid war resistance stop linking to The Common Ills. So let's not pretend that covering war resistance has been a 'boost' or anything helpful to The Common Ills. (Rebecca's got a chart of each day's drop off since Canada announced they were deporting Glass. There was one day where C.I. picked up Matthis Chiroux and emphasied that heavily which meant there wasn't time to include any Canadian war resisters by name in the snapshot. That was the one day that there was a spike -- it went up to 139 -- increase of other sites linking to The Common Ills.) If Ava and C.I.'s TV commentaries are the calling card for Third, covering war resisters who went to Canada is the loss-leader for The Common Ills.

Again, C.I. doesn't give a damn. It's never been about "I must be linked to!" But some idiot from Canada wanting to make false accusations and claim C.I. wrote something that C.I. never wrote, wants to rip into C.I. and be abusive when C.I.'s put war resistance front and center and gotten angry e-mails about that, gotten e-mails begging that the topic be dropped, been dropped by over sixty sites that were linking?

Talk about ignorance and lack of gratitude. Amy Goodman interviewed Matthis Chiroux last month. He's the first war resister she's found time to interview since 2006. (And she did a BAD interview where she didn't even know the basics.)

I don't know where the 'helper' thinks attention is coming from because C.I. is generally the only non-organization driving attention.

For that reason alone, if C.I. had written something that was wrong, I would assume you'd nicely point it out. But, in this case, not only was the e-mail not 'nice' by any means, it accused C.I. of writing things that C.I. never wrote, screamed, abused and lectured.

And that is a slap in the face to C.I. and to all of us in the community.

The 'helper' is not a big 'leader' (he grabs a bit of press attention every now and then). But his e-mail reads like he's speaking for all. And if that's the attitude, my attitude is not all that different from Wally. If you don't appreciate what we do (and it's largely C.I. doing it), screw you, you're on your own.

The Canadian 'helpers' are largely an ignorant group (as C.I. documents so well in the reply to the e-mail) that has WASTED five years arguing that because Canada once let in draft evaders (during Vietnam), today they should let in deserters. The argument they make it: We let in draft evaders now, we should expand it to deserters today.

But the reality is the DUMB ASSES are STUPID. Canada let in deserters in Vietnam. You don't have to ask them to do anything different today or 'expand' who will they will welcome. You just have to ask that they do as they did during the US' last illegal war.

Instead, the 'movement' in Canada has wasted all this time arguing that it's not an official draft, it's a poverty draft! F**k the draft. F**k arguments about the draft. Canada let in deserters during Vietnam, welcomed them. You don't need to bring some dumb ass argument about the draft into this. All you're doing is repeating false 'facts' and giving the right-wing in Canada the opportunity (which they repeatedly use) to respond, "Well, it was different with draft dodgers. There was a draft. These people today decided to go into the military!" So did many of the deserters that were welcomed during Vietnam.

So the 'movement' has WASTED five years with nonsense and I agree with C.I. "Don't police me when your own movement doesn't even know the historical facts and makes a case based on begging."

So anyway, that's soured us all. Betty's not posting this weekend. Her attitude is (a) she has better things to do and (b) the piece the idiot's complaining about was something Betty cross-posted at her site. Her attitude is, "Until I blog again, it's at the top of my site and that's where I'll keep it. Maybe the idiot will go back and read it more closely. Or put down his crack pipe and grasp what he thinks C.I. said was never said. Maybe he'll apologize, maybe he won't, but I'll be damned if I'm busting my butt to do anything right now." And it's because it is a slap community wide.

So Wally and Cedric are working on a joint-post right now. They're only including C.I.'s things from Thursday and Friday's snapshots about the race for president. They both say that unless it is Ehren Watada or a war resister in the US, they probably won't include anything on war resistance from the snapshot in their joint-entries.

Betty stressed that it's not just the lack of gratitude (which a lot of us are angry about) or the bad manners (which is what has C.I. pissed off) or even the fact that C.I.'s been falsely accused. Betty says it's about time. She points out we all have other things to do and that's offline and online. If this is what covering war resistance is going to bring, why bother with it? And she's also pissed off that the guy thought he could "talk to C.I. or anyone of us like that."

She brought up a correction and an alteration to the snapshots. An alteration was made when a war resister was named publicly at another outlet. After that went up, an e-mail came in (I think to Trina) stating that the war resister wasn't public. So Trina told C.I. and Trina changed it at her site (replacing the name with "***") and C.I. got everyone's passwords and went in and changed it at all the other sites. That wasn't a screaming e-mail. That was a request. It was made and we were all fine with it. The correction was a newspaper reported someone who'd been in the military and was now criticizing the Iraq War had served in Iraq. The man e-mailed to explain he had not told the paper that he had served in Iraq because he had not served. C.I. did a note in the next snapshot noting the paper was wrong and the guy was attempting to get the paper to cover it. (As of last month, the paper never did.) That guy would have had no reason to scream at C.I. but would have had reason to scream and if he'd screamed at C.I. we would have seen it as he was upset and not taken it personal. But for someone to scream at C.I., some pompous little jerk, about something C.I. never wrote (and to scream that C.I. should have written stuff that, as Ruth proved, C.I. did write when covering Corey Glass this week), I mean who needs that crap?

It's a loss-leader for The Common Ills to cover war resisters. It drives down links, it drives down traffic. And, no, C.I. doesn't give a damn about that but let's be honest that it does and let's stop pretending that covering it means C.I. on the 'best loved' lists. There are other things C.I. could cover and get far less grief over. So when someone wants to 'represent' the Canadian helpers and go off on C.I., the attitude really is, "F**k you." And for those of us who are not C.I., it means we're not interested in the topic of war resisters in Canada right now. For some, like Marcia, that's a few weeks and then she'll decide. For others, right now, the attitude is, "You damn ungrateful asshole, how dare you?"

C.I.'s going to continue to cover it. The rest of us are most likely putting it on hold. If that's how the 'helpers' act, who wants to help them. They've done a s**t poor job for five years now. And C.I. has bit the tongue and not called them out. Elaine has called them out at her site and, general rule, if Elaine's writing something, that's what C.I. thinks as well. Elaine and C.I. think just alike. C.I. is never going to disagree with Elaine. So all this time, C.I.'s merely noted their actions. Never called out their mistakes. Just noted the actions. Linked to them. Cheered them on and then some self-representing 'helper' wants to attack?

F**k you.

And that's why I'm not interested in doing three CD reviews this weekend as I had planned to. I had already written the Linda one. Two more? Why? So someone can come to the site because I mention ___ group or ____ group, and after they read my review, they click on the home page and learn about war resistance in Canada? I'm going to help promote the 'helper' and his 'movement'? After that e-mail? Don't think so.

My plan is to do the other two reviews later this month. I'll cover music here, any war resisters in America that make the news (which probably means none because war resisters aren't really a topic these days and though C.I. will continue to cover it in the snapshots, I know for a fact that Ava's presenting C.I. with the issue that they don't need to -- Ava and C.I. -- work their friends in the media on this topic -- Ava's attitude is there are other Iraq related stories that need to be in the news and with that abuse and ingratitude, why bother helping?) and the Nader campaign.
I can't imagine wanting to write about a Canadian war resister. Even if I quote him directly (as C.I. did), I'm still at risk of a nasty e-mail from a Canadian 'helper' who thinks he's a leader of the movement. Maybe in August but life's too short for me to waste my time and I'd be wasting it this month by covering something that's pissed me off.

Jim was really excited about the feature C.I. was carrying over to Third. (The one mentioned this week over and over at The Common Ills. C.I. was biting the tongue to let Third have that. And that's why, until Ruth researched it, C.I. wasn't even aware that the topic of the feature -- if you piece together three entries -- was staring you in the face.) Now Jim's asking, "Do we want to take a week off?"

Third's never missed a week before. But that's the impact the 'video artiste' who fancies himself the leader of the Canadian 'movement' has had on the community. A feeling of, "Why are we knocking ourselves out when this is the 'thanks' we get?" Dona and Jim are really ticked off because the whole thing but primarily the nonsense about "You wrote . . ." about things that C.I. never wrote. Like C.I., Third has always covered war resistance. And, due to the s**t poor job the 'movement' in Canada was doing, C.I. took the historical features over to Third so Third has been revealing the realities (as opposed to the nonsense the Canadian 'movement' puts out) on war resistance during Vietnam. Jim will tell you that Nader and war resistance were the only thing that got him excited about Third these days. That's not a slap at Ava and C.I.'s TV commentaries which Jim loves but he doesn't write those. Rebecca and C.I. have been talking about Nader's campaign at length and devising things that need to be done there in our coverage. And that had Jim excited.

But Jim goes, "What's next? A slap down from Ralph where he e-mails to say, 'How dare you stupid idiots write ___' about something we never wrote?"

It's the abusive nature of the e-mail, the fact that C.I.'s accused of writing things that C.I. never wrote and the whole self-representing himself as the leader in Canada. It's just really soured us all. Wally and Cedric will have a post shortly (Wally's on the couch next to me and working on the phone with Cedric as I type) but I can't promise you that there will be anything new up at Third. Jess and Ty's attitude is that if there's not, like Betty's site, Third's top post will be C.I.'s entry on Corey Glass (which was cross-posted there as well).

Elaine (she and Mike are here at C.I.'s for the weekend) will tell you that C.I. can shake off the nonsense and focus on what needs to be done. That's a gift. Sorry but the rest of us don't have that gift. Hit us in the face with a 2 by 4 and we're not going to take the high road.

And let me just talk about this site for a moment. When I am home, I am taking photographs to pay the bills for most of Saturday. Saturday night through late Sunday morning, I am working with Third. Monday through Friday (except this week when we came home Thursday due to the holiday), I am on the road with Ava and C.I. (Wally's been on the road with us since the primaries ended and others come along as well). We're speaking to women's groups, labor groups and students groups about the illegal war. We're on year-round school campuses (I hate the notion of year-round school, just FYI). We're talking to summer school classes. I honestly thought, "School's out for summer!" I thought our schedule would lessen. At a bare minimum, I speak to five groups a day. I generally bail on the evening speeches. (My time at this site is in PST. For a change, I'm bloggin while in the PST time zone. That's in response to an e-mail about my blogging at "8:00 pm" and being tired. I wasn't home when I blogged, I was either in the Central Time Zone which would mean ten o'clock or the Eastern Time Zone which would mean eleven o'clock.) I'm too drained. I'm not as young as Ava and don't have C.I.'s never ending supply of energy. So I go back to the hotel (or a friend of C.I.'s -- sometimes we stay with friends of C.I.s) and generally sit for a half hour to an hour. Sometimes in silence. Sometimes I have a TV on. Then when I have enough energy to blog or think, "Blog and you can go to bed already!" I log on and blog.

Now take what I'm doing and amplify it. Because C.I.'s doing multiple entries at The Common Ills Monday through Friday. Arriving back at the hotel well after midnight (Ava does as well, she always goes to everything, just like C.I.). Spending the lunch hour putting some links into an e-mail, saving that to draft. Making time to call a friend and dictate the snapshot. On the phone with friends in the news business throughout the day asking both what they have on Iraq coverage wise and asking them to look into this topic or that topic.

I'm exhausted and I rarely post at this site on the weekends. I get that time 'off' at least. C.I. doesn't. So we're all offended that some piss ant wants to accuse C.I. of writing things that were never written. We're all maxed out on time. And no one has the patience for this crap.

And, speaking for me, I'm damn sick of all the people showing up in the public e-mail account of The Common Ills asking for attention to their rally or their demonstration or their action or their writing and never giving a damn thing back to this community. They don't link to any of us. That's permalinks (e.g. a blog roll) as well as to things we've written. But they all want our help promoting their wares. And then they write again. Not to say "thank you." They never say "thank you." They write again to get something else promoted.

It's like BuzzFlash which technically banned C.I. when C.I. stuck up for the then-14-year-old boy that was spied on by an internet outlet and whose adult 'leadership' attempted to get 'dirt' on. The kid was bullied. And C.I. called it out and Buzz went into cower mode. Suddenly, no matter what C.I. wrote, Buzz wouldn't link. Buzz supporters (meaning people who spent money on that site's premiums) would write in asking them to link to something by C.I. and Buzz would play dumb. Wouldn't even include it in their mailbags. And the whole time, Buzz is e-mailing C.I. asking for links to their editorials and links to their headlines and links to this and to that. And C.I. gave them. C.I. didn't care and would say, "It's not about links." (Meaning it's not about links to The Common Ills.) But that pissed a lot of us off and still does. (Buzz can't catch a link today. When they were repeatedly e-mailed about a piece that we all wrote and refused to link to it, on a holiday when there was nothing new to link to across the web, C.I.'s attitude changed because it was no longer about not linking to The Common Ills it was about not linking to a piece we'd all written.) (C.I. has a thick skin and also doesn't need to be 'famous' online. But when it was presented to C.I. as, "This isn't about you. Ava worked on that, Jim worked on it, Cedric worked on it, . . . ." It became, "Buzz will never be linked to again.")

But for something like eight months after Buzz would no longer link to The Common Ills, C.I. continued to link to them (and also had them on the permalinks/blogroll) in entries everytime they e-mailed asking for links. By the end, it did no good because members weren't going to click on those links. They were well aware that Buzz wanted links but didn't want to give back. The New York Times can blog about (and has) The Common Ills and Rebecca's site but these piss ants asking for favors, asking for links, can't even offer up anything in return?

So when a Canadian 'helper' writes, it goes into that context as well. It goes into a site in Canada, for example, that wrote The Common Ills and is linked to by all sites (except mine). Would you link to my site, I've just started it -- went the e-mail -- I'll link to you. Jess replied to the e-mail and said sure, said, he'd advise everyone to do so. And everyone did (except me, I know this song and dance better than anyone except Rebecca). That was a year ago and he never added one site to his blogroll. I've argued (as has Rebecca) that we should delink. I argue that (and name the site) in the roundtable for Maria, et al. And everyone but C.I. now agrees with me so, come Monday when people start posting, don't be surprised when the site vanishes. (C.I. did agree not to link to it in the snapshot. Because everyone felt like I did and because everyone reposts the snapshot, C.I. said the link -- currently in the snapshots -- will be taken out starting Monday.) I'm tired of users and I'm tired of abusers.

I'm tired of people showing up begging for a favor that get the favor honored and never say thank you but can somehow manage to get to their keyboards for the next favor.

I'll name another site. MakeThemAccountable. It's no longer on the permalinks/blogroll at The Common Ills. Jess went in and removed it. The site contacted C.I. via the public e-mail account. Jess replied and said he was sure C.I. would link to it so he'd go ahead and add it right now. Carolyn at MakeThemAccountable got her link on the permalinks. She got links in the entries C.I. did. She never gave a thing back to the community. She never linked to C.I., she never linked to Third, to Rebeca, to Elaine to anyone. This was when Hillary was in the race and the primaries were going on. Ava and C.I.'s weekly coverage of the gas bag shows alone should have gotten a link. But nothing was ever good enough for Carolyn apparently.

You can ask for a link and get it. Show up every day (and still does) at the public account asking for more links and you think you can never give back? No, that's not how it should work. Jess (who is as sweet as C.I.) tried to talk us all, back then, into linking to MakeThemAccountable on our blogrolls and, in fact, offered to go in and do the links for us if it was a time issue. It wasn't a time issue. It was a lack of gratitude issue.

We knew how this was going to play out. The same way it always does. Or Susan UnPC at No Quarter will try to pick Ruth's brain in an e-mail and then, hitting a stonewall on a fishing expedition, blow her off. That's why we don't link to No Quarter anymore. That and two attribution issues. There's another site with attribution issues but C.I.'s asked ("I'm begging") us not to go after it.

There's actually more than those two. There's C.I. doing a favor for a friend and linking to a mutal friend's blog. I don't know the woman's name. She's with Off Our Backs. C.I. linked, in June, to a post she wrote in May. Another site, in June, just happens to discover that post and just happens to write what C.I. wrote? C.I. made a mistake in the link. The woman had switched her blog and transferred all her posts over to a new site. C.I. didn't realize that and couldn't find the post that the mutual friend had recommended for the longest. C.I. finally found it and linked to it. But made the mistake of linking to the old website.

So we're to believe this blogger just happened to stumble across a weeks old post a day after C.I. includes it in the snapshot (that is reposted at all sites), just happens to make the same points about it C.I. does, and just happens to link to the old site and not the new site? If that blogger went to that woman's site (that blogger never linked to the woman before), it would be to go to the new site. The whole thing was a rip-off. From C.I.'s words on down. And, yes, that's a site that has e-mailed and asked for links and never given a damn thing back.

So the gratitude issue is one I don't take lightly. And the way this community is repeatedly used by others to promote their own wares while the beggars never want to give a damn thing back isn't something I take lightly.

I've spoken about the following in this post:

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

I came back to add the "I've spoken about" thing. I also remembered one other thing I should add because it is on topic. I cost C.I. a link. C.I. got delinked from a website covering fluff and fluff (yeah, you know the one I mean) because of what I wrote here. When Jess found, he pulled the link at The Common Ills and all community sites followed suit. When I found out, I went to C.I. and started apologizing. C.I. stopped me and said it was not big deal. Said not to even worry about. And meant it. Meant it so much that I don't think I've ever even thought to blog about that. But it is on topic and I'll own it. I don't regret what I wrote here but, if I'd known it would be take it out on C.I., I wouldn't have written it. And when I said that to C.I. the response was, "That's how you should always write. We never should write from fear. It's just a link. My life didn't end. I didn't lose my home. Invitations [offline] didn't stop coming in. It's just the web, it really doesn't matter."

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:

Friday, July 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue (if little reported), .Barack can't eat his waffles but he can waffle, Ralph Nader takes his presidential campaign to the people and more.

Starting with war resistance. Brett Clarkson and Jason Buckland (Toronto Sun) report US war resister Corey Glass, scheduled to be deported from Canada July 10th, is believing nothing "until he receives a DD 214 -- a form from the US department of defence that confirms he has been discharged from active duty service -- he can still be charged when he returns to the U.S." Lindsey Weibe (Winnipeg Free Press) reports that supports of US war resisters staged a sit-in at the "Pembina Highway office of Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge yesterday".


In the US, Courage to Resist is planning "July 9th actions at Canadian Consulates nationwide:"Join a vigil and delegation to a Canadian consulate near you on Wednesday, July 9th to support war resisters! On the eve of Corey Glass' possible deportation, we will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide by the June 3rd resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" More details and cities to be confirmed soon!
Washington DC - Time TBA - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace. Info: TBA San Francisco - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info: 510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net Seattle - Time TBA - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info: 206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com Dallas - Time TBA - 750 North St Paul St (map). Sponsored by North Texas for Justice and Peace. Info: 214-718-6362; hftomlinson(at)riseup.net New York City - Noon to 1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters' League. Info: 212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org Philadelphia - Time TBA - 1650 Market St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info: 215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org Minneapolis - Time TBA - 701 Fourth Ave S (map). Info: TBA Los Angeles - Noon to 1pm - 550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA. Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com Help organize a vigil at one of these other Canadian Consulates: Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Anchorage, Houston, Raleigh, Phoenix, or San Diego. Please contact Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559. Veterans for Peace issued a joint call with Courage to Resist and Project Safe Haven for July 9th vigils at Canadian Consulates: "Dear Canada: Do Not Deport U.S. War Resisters!" Contact us if you can help organize a vigil, or can otherwise get involved. Locations of the 22 Canadian Consulates in the United States.Recently on June 3rd the Canadian Parliament passed an historic motion to officially welcome war resisters! It now appears, however, that the Conservative government may disregard the motion. Iraq combat veteran turned courageous war resister, 25-year-old Sgt. Corey Glass of the Indiana National Guard is still scheduled to be deported July 10th.We will ask that the Canadian government respect the democratic decision of Parliament, the demonstrated opinion of the Canadian citizenry, the view of the United Nations, and millions of Americans by immediately implementing the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other current and future war resisters. Join Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, and Project Safe Haven at Canadian Consulates across the United States (Washington DC, San Francisco, New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles confirmed--more to be announced).We mailed and delivered over 10,000 of the original letters to Canadian officials. Please sign the new letter, "Dear Canada: Abide by resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" http://www.couragetoresist.org/canada

To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.

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

It's Fourth of July weekend. Reuters made it through it without filing a single "Factbox" report of the violence. Not everyone had the day off . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings resulting in four people being wounded. And dropping back to Thursday, MNF announced today, "Two local nationals were killed and one was wounded when an explosion occurred near the Yarmouk Hospital in west Baghdad at approximately 8:55 p.m., July 3."

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Iraqi civilian shot dead and two more wounded by US forces as they were driving on a highway and that they shot dead the a six-year-old girl, wounded four of her brother and her mother as they stormed into the home of Hasen Atiyah al-Iqabi in Baquba.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Turning to the US presidential race. Barack Obama? Arab News notes, "For Obama, who recently changed his positions on campaign finance and a wiretapping law, the suggestion that he was also changing course on a central premise of his candidacy holds particular peril. While Obama has long said he would consult commanders in the field when withdrawing troops, that point might have been lost on many Democratic primary voters who supported his call to end the war." What's going on? A bit of reality on War Hawk Barack. Suzanne Goldenberg (Guardian of London) puts it this way, ".Barack Obama was yesterday fending off charges from right and left that he had abandoned the core premise of his candidacy - the withdrawal of all US combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office - in an attempt to attract voters from the political centre." Suzanne's a little out of it. So were Katrina vanden Heuvel and Arianna Huffington on ABC's This Week last Sunday. Withdrawal in 16 months? That's 'so January 2008.' Barack promised withdrawal of all (combat) troops within 10 months in a speech in Houston, Texas. Always one to carry water for Barack, Tom Hayden immediately penned "End the War in 2009" (which popped up online at The Nation, Feb. 20th and elsewhere a bit later). Hayden: "In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009, a new commitment that parallels recent opinion pieces in The Nation. Prior to his Houston remarks, Obama's previous position favored an American combat troop withdrawal over a sixteen-to-eighteen-month timeframe. He has been less specific on the number and mission of any advisors he would elave behind." (The Texas primary was in March. Barack was in Texas campaigning, for any more confused than usual by Tom-Tom's bad-bad writing.) Texas community members saw the 10 month 'promise' pushed in advertising as well as on the campaign trail. Those were his words (and Tom-Tom notes 'words matter') so let's all drop the nonsense that Barack's plan was 16 months (or at least leave the lying to Katrina who's become so very good at it). Goldenberg's uninformed, ignorant or lying -- take your pick. In her piece (dated tomorrow), she traces the uproar to Thursday when Barack said he might 'refine' his Iraq 'plan.' If that's when the uproar started, is Arianna Huffington psychic? Arianna was calling him out for 'refining' on Iraq Sunday on This Week. More water carrying from the allegedly 'independent' Guardian of London (which never wrote about the Downing Street Memos because 'independence' did not include informing people that Tony Blair lied England into an illegal war -- no time for 'truth-telling' while Blair was in office at any rate.) CNN reports that presumed GOP presidential candidate John McCain and the RNC are calling Barack a "flip-flopper" and they quote Barack's 'clarification' where Barack lies and says he has always said 16 months. No, Barack, you went to ten months in February. AP reports he celebrated the 4th of July in Butte, Montana (Kansas, he's done with you, he got what he needed) eating a hot dog. Tom Baldwin (Times of London) observes, "Grassroots activists whose energy and donations have helped to propel Barack Obama towards the White House are suddenly choking on the bitter pill of disillusion.
In less than a month since clinching the Democratic nomination, he has performed a series of policy pirouettes to assuage concerns about his candidacy among a wider and more conservative electorate." Geoff Elliott (The Australian) points out, "Barack Obama has started a dramtic reversal of the policies that helped him defeat Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination, softening hardlines stances on the Iraq war and troop withdrawals.
Campaigning in North Dakota, Senator Obama said that while the US could not sustain a long-term presence in Iraq, his trip to the Gulf nation this month might prompt him to "refine my policies" on the war." John Bentley (CBS News) quotes Brian Rogers of the McCain campaign stating, "Today, Barack Obama reversed that position, proving once again his words do not matter. He has now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground. Now that Barack Obama has changed course and proven his past positions to be just empty words, we would like to congratulate him on taking John McCain's principled stand on this critical national security issue. If he had visited Iraq sooner or actually had a one-on-one meeting with Gen. Petraeus, he would have changed his position long ago." Jonathan Weisman (Washington Post) terms it Barack exploring "the possibility of slowing a promised, gradual withdrawal from Iraq". NPR has two audio reports here. How bad it is? A friend just called to laugh at ____'s latest nonsense. In place of a now killed feature for Third, we may address ____'s latest nonsense and his plethora of lies throughout the campaign. Poor ____, it's even harder to airbrush out reality today than it was following his expulsion from the Red Family commune in his "smash the state" days (when he fancied himself Chris Jones in Wild In The Street).

Ralph Nader is opposed to the illegal war and has always been opposed to it. He called it before it started and throughout. He has not waffled like Saint Barack. Yesterday he spoke at the University of Hawaii-Manou. Craig Gima (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) reports:

In a news conference before the speech, Nader said Hawaii voters are being marginalized by the major candidates.
"When political candidates do not campaign in a state, voter turnout suffers," Nader said, adding that he has campaigned in all 50 states in the last two elections.
Nader said he supports the Akaka Bill and native Hawaiian rights, and said Hawaii should be a model for the rest of the country in renewable energy.
"This is the only place in the world where every form of renewable energy occurs," he said.
Nader also said that if elected he would push for universal health care, an increase in the minimum wage to $10 an hour and the repeal of what he called the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act.

Derrick DePledge (Honolulu Advertiser) notes that no presidential candidate has campaigned in Hawaii since Richard Nixon in 1960, notes Nader is already on the ballot in Hawaii for the presidential election and quotes him explaining, ""I didn't start running for president until the doors started closing in Washington against consumer, environmental, labor and other citizen groups. So when you don't have a chance to have a chance to improve your country on Capitol Hill and before the regulatory agencies, you either close up shop and go to Monterey and watch the whales or you go into the electoral arena." Third Party Watch covers it here. Ahead of the apperance KHNL, AP and KITV reported on it. Thursday the Reno Gazette Journal reported Nader's campaign had turned in their signatures to be on the ballot in Nevada. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that the campaign collected 12,000 signatures -- far more than needed to qualify. KRNV reports that if the Democrats attempt any of the manuevers they did in 2004, the Nader campaign will fight it.

The Nader Team notes:


Declare your independence from the flip-floppers McCain and Obama.
Drop $4 now on Nader/Gonzalez for the Fourth of July weekend.
Thank you.
As you enjoy your Fourth of July weekend with friends and family, keep an eye on Nader/Gonzalez:
Ralph Nader will appear on CNN and C-Span this weekend.
Steve Scully's interview of Ralph will run on C-Span twice on Sunday night at 6:30 and 9:30 p.m. EST. You can also watch on line now here.
CNN's Rick Sanchez interview with Ralph will run on Saturday night.
Ralph is a huge sports fan. Check out Dave Zirin's recent interview with Nader on sports here.And Dan Patrick's Sports Illustrated interview here.
When Ralph Nader was growing up in Winsted, Connecticut, his hero was Yankee slugger Lou Gehrig. Gehrig was known as the Iron Horse for his stamina and persistence. (Now you know where Ralph gets it.)
Ralph is campaigning in Hawaii this weekend. See story here.
Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in Nevada. See story here.
We here at the Nader/Gonzalez campaign are pumped about the possibilities this summer.
Ralph is polling at 6 percent.
We'd like to bump it to ten percent and get Ralph into the Presidential debates.
We're shooting for 45 states by September.
And the possibilities of a three way race.
Two flip floppers.
And the real deal.
So, drop four dollars now on the real deal.
And declare your independence from the flip-flopping, corporate controlled McCain and Obama.
Together, we are making a difference.
Have a safe and happy holiday weekend.
Onward
The Nader Team