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

Amy Goodman, selling it for the Aspen Institute

As C.I. noted this morning, I intend to do album reviews this weekend at The Common Ills. What am I reviewing? That's the big e-mail question I'm seeing.

I'm hoping to have a review up tomorrow (probably late) that will cover a greatest hits collection. Then I would like to do a review of a band's album on Saturday and another band's album on Sunday.

I wrote one on the plane ride back. Or I wrote non-stop. C.I. said, "Just get it all out and I'll help you edit." Which I appreciate more than you know. So at some point tomorrow I'll carry my lengthy thing over and C.I. and I will sit down and go over it.

If I do manage three over three days, I probably will not do another one until mid- to late-August at the earliest.

Did anyone catch Democracy Now! today? Is anyone else wondering WHEN THE HELL Amy Goodman intends to mention Corey Glass?

We are all aware that she's not covering that story, right?

We are all aware she hasn't mentioned him once.

That's segments, that's headlines.

Hey, Amy, when the HELL do you plan to break the sound barrier on war resistance?

Or do we really need your embarrassing Aspen crap? I'll get back to that.

This is a standard C.I. pasage appearing in entries including the snapshot: "May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Corey Glass is an Iraq War veteran and a US war resister. He went to Canada seeking asylum -- the kind of welcoming Canada provided to war resisters ("draft dodgers" and "deserters") during Vietnam. After being told he was being deported, he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. Today is when Russell Goldman (ABC News) reports the development. In "Canada Ready to Deport U.S. Deserters" . . ." I include that in case your new to Corey Glass. Do you grasp what's gone on? And none of it has ever been NEWS for Amy Goodman. She has consistently refused to note Corey Glass even when Amnesty International issued support for him last month.

I'm really getting sick of her trash.

And I don't care for the fact that she's turned her program into an embarrassment this week and I can't believe most of the audience knew what was going on. Aspen Institute. That's what she was doing, that's what she was promoting. Was there an agreement that if she promoted those losers, they'd invite her? Maybe they'll shortly announce she's a member. Her, Maddy Maddie Albright, Elliot Cohen, David Gergen, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan (remember when Bully Boy was photographed holding hands with him as they were walking?), neocon Robert Kagan, Jane Harman, Richard Armitage (the 'leaker' of Valerie Plame's identity or at least the fall guy for Dick Cheney), Eliot A. Cohen, Henry Kissinger and many more. What the hell is Amy Goodman doing hob-knobbing at the big Apsen Institute get-together?

She's not doing her damn job. She's trying to advance herself -- not through journalism, but through 'cozy' relationships. Click here for SourceWatch on the Aspen Institute if you're new to that creepy group.

So while she can't cover Corey Glass AT ALL, she can cozy up to a group that's nothing for the left to get excited about? Do you remember her little s**ty attitude towards Lesley Stahl for being friends with her sources in that first book Goody wrote with her brother? Now Amy's in Aspen for the Aspen Institute and did anyone find that out by watching the show? No, she never mentioned it once.

Strange when you consider this 2000 segment:

AMY GOODMAN: Before we move on with the main body of our show, a letter that Gore Vidal reads to the next President of the United States and a speech given by Lani Guinier on proportional representation, we are going out to Boulder, Colorado. This weekend hundreds of people protested the fiftieth anniversary of the Aspen Institute. James Wolfensohn, head of the World Bank, was there. Henry Kissinger was scheduled to speak but was replaced by New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman. The Aspen Institute has been deeply involved in US foreign policy issues for decades.
We go now to Nell Geiser, who was an intern at Democracy Now!, with us at both the Republican and Democratic Conventions, then took a caravan back from Los Angeles and went to this protest. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Nell.
NELL GEISER: Thanks, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Nell, by the way, is one of the many thousands of young people who have participated in protest, from Washington, D.C., the World Bank/IMF protests, as well as organized her own zine in Boulder, Colorado, in her high school called Co-Motion. So, Nell, tell us what happened this weekend.
NELL GEISER: Well, there were protests both Saturday and Sunday outside of the fiftieth anniversary summit that the Aspen Institute put together. It was looking at globalization and the human condition. It brought together a whole host of luminaries in various fields, policymakers, Nobel Peace Prize winners, journalists, various kinds of people to discuss these issues.
But the problem was that protesters had with this summit was that, for one thing, it cost $750 to get in to be an audience member, and for another, these high-level policymakers and leaders, world leaders, were not discussing the many problems that we, as a grassroots movement and as people affected by corporate globalization around the world, have with the direction that corporate globalization is taking right now.
So what happened this past weekend was very, very successful and definitely declared a victory for activist forces. It should be a victory for activist forces everywhere. A new local organizing group in the mountains, calling themselves Mountain Folks for Global Justice, created an alternative people’s summit on globalization, Alternatives to a Corporate Vision, and they organized a teach-in and march on Saturday in the spirit of the anti-corporate globalization protests of Seattle, Washington, D.C., in April, and also the protests at the Democratic and Republican Conventions this summer. In fact, as you mentioned, the protests did draw activists returning from LA in caravans, as well as from Denver and the Front Range. About 250 people marched Saturday along with Kevin Danaher from Global Exchange, who spoke at the teach-in, Peter Hart from FAIR, Njoki Njehu from 50 Years Is Enough, various other folks who came to look at the many issues involved in this process of wealth distribution to the top end in corporate globalization.
So these—this action involved marching through the town and to the Aspen Institute, actually getting close to the Aspen Institute, marching. About fifty of us marched through the parking lot and got closer to the tents. So James Wolfensohn, the president of the World Bank, was speaking at that point, giving the keynote on the first night, could hear us loud and clear, talking about the protesters who were talking about the problems with the World Bank, and then we had a fair amount of media attention and the next day came back to the next summit, the next workshop called “Globalization and its Discontents,” and made sure that they raised the discontents.
AMY GOODMAN: Is it true that participants in the Aspen Institute’s fiftieth anniversary event wear togas?
NELL GEISER: Well, I don’t think they were wearing togas this week, Amy, but the business executives who come up for weeklong workshops at this venerable Aspen Institution do continue to wear togas for a couple days of their stay. They don them to remind them, I guess, of the times of Socrates that they’re studying, looking at the great masters, as well as the issues of the day. And I’m not sure if Wolfensohn and Friedman were wearing togas, but it’s possible.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Nell, we have to wrap up, as we move on to Lani Guinier, but any final words about this protest, and were there others who were your age? I mean, we’re talking about protests all over the country that are increasingly drawing young people, not only from college, but like you, from high school.
NELL GEISER: Yes, there were quite a few high school students and many college students. It was a very multi-generational experience, and it was quite ironic that it was held in the city of Aspen with some of the greatest beneficiaries of globalization, where they spend their leisure time. The average house there costs three-and-a-half million dollars. Workers in Aspen can’t afford to live there. So, we really wanted to bring out the fact that the beneficiaries of globalization and those speaking at this summit were not paying attention to the grassroots voices and to the voices that are not listened to in this process, and so we of the Mountain Folks for Global Justice charged $7.50 to get into their people’s summit, ‘cause they couldn’t afford to pay $750.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you for being with us, Nell Geiser—her zine is called Co-Motion—speaking to us from Boulder, Colorado.

C.I. just called. I mentioned what I was writing about and said, "People are not going to believe this." I knew about because C.I. and Ava have talked about it all week and how sick and trashy it is. C.I. said, "Hold on. Okay, check your e-mail." I did. C.I. e-mailed me an article from The Aspen Times:

Goodman is in Aspen as part of the Ideas Festival at The Aspen Institute, and her visit is part of a nationwide tour. She has been broadcasting from stations across the county, including the Free Speech TV station in Denver on Tuesday, before Wednesday’s satellite broadcast from Aspen.

I believe the word to describe Amy Goodman now is "whore." I don't bandy that term around loosely and I'm not talking about her sex life. I'm talking about someone who has WHORED themselves out for the Barack Obama campaign and who has WHORED out every belief she had. In 2000, the Aspen Institute was something to cover. This year, she gets an invite, does her crap-ass show from Aspen and never tells her audience. She never says the words "Aspen Institute" from all her Aspen broadcasts. Whore is the only word. She has sold everything she PRETENDED to believe in. Whore. Say it with me, "Amy Goodman is a whore." And it's time KPFA listeners said enough to that whore. I'm not joking here. She can take her crap-ass show where ever she wants. But KPFA is my area and I'm damn sick of that whore using up two hours every weekday to LIE.

Again, the word is whore. She called out Lesley Stahl. She did this whole song and dance about how you shouldn't be cozy with the people you cover. In 2000, a protest at that 'think tank' was worth covering. In 2008, she participates at the Aspen Institute and doesn't even tell her audience that she's doing that? Whore.



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

Thursday, July 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, war resistance in Puerto Rico (long going on) becomes more public, the White House continues to twist arms in Iraq, sexism watch and more.

Starting with war resistance. Corey Glass is a US war resister in Canada. Yesterday, Russell Goldman (ABC News) reported: "Unbeknownst to him and his legion of supporters, Glass, 25, was actually discharged from the U.S. Army shortly after he went AWOL in 2006. . . . According to U.S. Army documents and officials Glass was discharged from the California National Guard on Dec. 1, 2006, four months after he arrived in Canada and six months after he failed to show up to a required muster." Matthew Campbell (Globe & Mail) reports, "Like thousands of other discharged American soldiers, once back in the United States Mr. Glass coulld still be called up as part of the Indvidual Ready Reserve, a program in which former soldiers can be forced to re-enter service." War Resisters Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofsky terms the announcement by the military "spin." David Wylie (Canwest News Service) notes that the announcement did not derail a planned event tonight in Toronto where supporters are to gather at the May Robinson Building. UPI notes the recent poll which found 64% of Canadians are in favor of allowing US war resisters safe harbor status. Workers World files "Iraq veteran faces deportation, wins support" observes, "The struggle to make Canada a sancurary for war resisters takes on greater importance as more soldiers refuse to return to Iraq. The increasing support for resisters demonstrates widespread opposition to the war and determination to stop it the simplest way: by helping the troops refuse to fight." They also note that IVAW chair Camilo Mejia wrote a letter of support for war resisters in Canada which noted that "it is because of what we saw and experienced [in Iraq] that we support our brothers and sisters seeking a new home in Canada. They are avoiding participation in a criminal, illegal and immoral occupation so that other families can live in peace in their own land. They are doing the right thing! . . . We call upon the Canadian government to implement the motion stopping all deportations of U.S. war resisters and allowing them to stay in Canada, not only because it is your duty to the people you represent to heed to their will, but also because it is a clear statement of support and solidarity for the people of Iraq."

As Camilo's letter makes clear, Corey Glass is not the only US war resister in Canada and he is also not necessarily in the clear. But all war resisters in Canada (and in the US) deserve support. 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 http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=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 http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=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.

And in the US, AP's "Mothers of 2 US soldiers say their sons left bases to hide in Puerto Rico," addresses Maria Santiago and Luz Eneida Morales -- two women in San Juan, Puerto Rico who have stated their two sons are there, not going back to the US military and that the police need "to stop searching" for the men. Hiram Lozada is representing the two families. Santiago states she went to Fort Campbell ("last March) and she and her son returned to Puerto Rico while Morales went to her son's base in Colorado and returned to Puerto Rico with him.

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).



Friday is July 4th, in the US, the day of independence. Kelly Dougherty (IVAW) reflects, "Just a few days ago Independence Day came and went, and did anyone notice? June 28th was the day the US returned sovereignty to Iraq in 2004, and it should be a day of celebration, a day when Iraqis mark their equal status among nations, just as America did more than two centuries ago. But even when, finally, the Iraqi people are truly able to steer their own course and run their country as they see fit, I doubt that June 28th will be celebrated as a true Independence Day in Iraq. Would we be celebrating if our Declaration of Independence had been edited by King George III? What if Britain maintained troops and military bases inside our major cities? Would we mark the day this 'independence' began with fireworks and parades?"

As Dougherty explains, there is no independence in Iraq for Iraqis. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reporting on the efforts by the White House to push through a treaty and notes that the complications include "political currents in both countries. Iraqi officials facing elections in the fall do not want to be seen as capitulating to the United States." The White House is pushing the notion that they want a "Status Of Forces Agreement" and not a treaty. By not calling it a "treaty," they hope to bypass the US Senate and the Constitutional provision that the Senate must ratify all treaties. In Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki already stated he would follow Iraq's Constitution and send the treaty to Parliament. (However, this is the same al-Maliki who pushed through last year's United Nations renewal of the authorization for the occupation -- after promising the Parliament that doing so in 2006 was a mistake he wouldn't make again.) With the White House timeline now 'iffy' (they want the treaty by the end of this month), Rubin reports that Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbari has began pushing the notion of a "memo." Doug Smith and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report that (regardless of what is called) the Iraqi Parliament isn't too high on the agreement and quote MP Rashid Azzawi stating, "He was like an American negotiator and not an Iraqi one. He didn't specify many details" and MP Nassar Rubaie declaring, "It is an unequal convention between an occupier and an occupied country." Again, as Kelli Dougherty noted, the Iraqis have no independence today. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) quotes Mirembe Nantongo ("U.S. Embassy spokeswoman") stating that the White House and it's occupied, client-state of Iraq are speaking to one another with "a constructive spirit." Raghavan also notes Zebari's excitement over the possiblity that Iraq might maybe, fingers-crossed, deep breath, control their own airspace . . . if the White House lets them. Hiba Dawood (UPI) surveys the landscape and notes an Al-Basaer editorial entitled "Al-Maliki's dilemma between Tehran and Washington" which Dawood sums up as: "Maliki, the paper said, is in a state where he must choose between his old ally and main support, Iran, or his new ally that placed him at the premiership, the United States. The influential Sunni newspaper said that satisfying the United States means accepting the establishment of 50 permanent military bases, handing over Iraq's oil wealth to American companies, granting amnesty to thousands of U.S. troops and security contractors as well as granting the United States authority over Iraq's land and airspace. The paper said that among the various Iraqi political blocs opposing the status-of-forces agreement, only the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front supports it because it would deter Iranian influence in Iraq." While everyone pretends the White House is playing it above-board on this issue, James Glanz and Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal" (New York Times) details Henry Waxman's House committee's findings that the US State Dept, despite denials to the contrary, actively assisted Hunt Oil in their contract with the Kurdish region of Iraq -- a contract called out by the central government in Baghdad and one that benefits Ray L. Hunt ("a close political ally of President Bush"). Meanwhile Reuters notes that the TSCs (technical support contracts) that were no bid, that the US State Department had a role in (despite denying) and which still have not been signed are in jeopardy with "payment terms" being one of the issues for the Iraqi Parliament.

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

Bombings?

The Turkish Press notes a Baghdad car bombing outside Al-Yarmukh Hospital which claimed 4 lives and left ten people wounded. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad home bombing targeting Iraqi Parliamentarian Shatha al-Musawi (of the "majority Sunni bloc") which "destroyed the house" (the house was empty), "damaged two adgjacent houses and injured four civilians" and a Nineveh Province roadside bombing left two police officers injured. Reuters notes a Tikrit roadside bombing that left five convoy guards injured, and a cafe bombing outside of Hilla claimed 4 lives.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that "late Wednesday" unknown assailants shot dead a police officer in Nineveh Province and left another person wounded. Reuters notes 2 people shot dead in a Mosul armed clash, another person shot dead in Mosul "inside a computer games arcade" and 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul as well.

Kidnappings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Diyala Province was the location for two kidnappings on Thursday, 1 cab driver and 1 truck driver.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes the US military says the bones of 2 corpses were discovered in Samarra but that local officials state it was "14 decaying corpses" and they note (with no conflicting accounts) 2 corpses were discovered in Suwayra.

On the sexism front, notice the new target? We don't highlight Maureen Dowd at this site. I'm not a Dowd fan. But, if you missed it, it's time for Bash the Bitch and it's Dowd's turn. Maybe you didn't notice that? Maybe you think David Brooks or Frank Rich just isn't deserving of calling out for their own problems -- which really do exceed Dowd's. (And for the record, leaving facts aside, Dowd can out-write either of them -- both of whom also leave facts aside.) It's brewing. You saw Judith Miller take the fall not just for her own bad work but for Michael Gordon and a hundred others. Now it's time to throw another woman on the fire and it appears it will be Maureen Dowd. Can ____ honestly say he's referred to a male journalist being "spanked" before? Can ____ pretend that they've focused on any male the way they're focusing on Dowd now? Watch them try to if anyone calls them out. More than likely, no one will. Dowd's not above criticism. But we're not talking about criticsm. We're talking about (nod to Blondie) "Rip Her To Shreds" and note the "her." Dowd's got a twice-weekly column. Are we honestly supposed to believe that anything she could do the MSNBC no-stars don't out do her on? There's a free floating rage over a number of issues and it appears it's about to glom on Dowd. As usual, the woman's male peers will remain exempt. And let's see when anyone will stand up and say: "That's about enough." I doubt they will. And this nonsense of you have to like Dowd to defend her is nonsense. All you have to support is fairness and equality. But that's never existed online and let's stop pretending it will by magic. In the meantime try to pretend that Dowd's actions are worse than Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, et al. And try to pretend that sexual degredation that's aimed at her would be used to 'critique' a man. (That's not a tone argument. We came up with Todd S. Purdum 'cupping' the story here in response to all the 'knee pads' nonsense about Elisabeth Bumiller. It's noting that, regardless of the 'tone' you choose to use, you apply it fairly regardless of gender or you're a sexist pig.) If it's summer, it's Bash The Bitch.

Turning to the US race for president, Dominic Lawson (Independent of London) reflects on Primary Barack and the flip-flops that have ensued of late, "Those who actually supported Obama during this process now divide neatly, if unevenly, into two groups. The first, smaller, group is full of buyer's remorse. The blogosphere is hissling like a catherine wheel with their anger with Obama, obviously, but above all with themselves. The second, much bigger group, continues to buy Obama's story. They argue that everything and anything is justified if it helps to get a Democrat back in the White House; some of them add that 'of course' Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the 'redneck states' and that once in the White House he will revert to his 'true beliefs'. To this group we must address a simple question. How do you know what Obama really believes in, other than his own destiny -- and, of course, his conscience?" As Brian Montoli (CBS News) observes today, "What a difference a presidential campaign makes." Yeterday, Montopoli was noting Time's report of the religious right coming together in Denver to support Senator John McCain (the presumptive GOP nominee).

Meanwhile Hillary Supporters Vote Nader lists four reasons why: "(1) Single Payer Health Care will be back on the table, (2) The Wasteful, Bloated and Secretive Military Budget will be brought back to the forefront of the American People's minds. (3) Renewable Energy and American Jobs back on the front burner. (4) Persecution Protection From Corporate and Political Criminals will be spotlighted. This includes: Net Neutrality, Telecom Spying and the outrageous lies that put the American and Iraqis People in harms way, destroyed the US economy and our children's future. McCain and Obama have taken all these issues off the table." This as Honolulu's KITV notes Ralph Nader will be at the University of Hawaii tonight while Barack "has no immediate plans to campaign here" and the McCain campaign says "Hawaii is not on his schedule."

Team Nader announces:

Ralph Nader said on ABC's This Week that the Nader/Gonzalez campaign will be on at least 45 states in November.
Well, time to get it done.
Need a summer job?
We've got one for you.
Become a Roadtripper for Ralph.
Collect signatures to put the Nader/Gonzalez team on the ballot.
Optimum profile for a Roadtripper for Ralph - energetic, youthful spirit, personable, fun loving, adventure seeking, democracy warrior.
Check out Ralph making the pitch for more roadtrippers in this video.
Interested? Contact mark@votenader.org.
By the way, in case you didn't notice, on Saturday, we launched our campaign to raise $40,000 in ten days - by July 6.
You did it in six days.
Kaboom!
Thanks to you, Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in ten states, as promised, by July 6.
Our goal - 45 states by September 15.
We must now thank all of our roadtrippers. (Pictured above - our Illinois road trip crew turning in their signatures last week.)
You help fund them.
But they go out - day in and day out - and collect the necessary signatures to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot.
Our nationwide team has been busting it all around this country.
Today, our crew in Nevada will turn in 12,000 signatures - more than twice the 5,000 needed.
As they say - what was collected in Nevada, stays in Nevada.
And as a result, Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in that key swing state.
Thank you and congratulations Nevada road trip crew.
Finally, why we are doing all of this?
We are doing this because we have no alternative.
McCain is the candidate of perpetual war.
Obama is the corporate Democrat and panderer in chief. (Still doubt it? Check out this article in the New York Times documenting his flip-flop on telecom immunity and the political fallout.)
Let's keep our eye on the ball.
And get it done.
By the way, Ralph is in Honolulu, Hawaii tonight for a campaign speech and rally. If you are in the area, please stop by.
Onward


TV notes. Bill Moyers Journal will reair the program revolving around Tomas Young, an Iraq War veteran and a member of IVAW, including interviews with Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue who made the documentary Body of War which tells Young's story which is strong way to note the Fourth of July. NOW on PBS notes: A reminder: There is no NOW on PBS on July 4, 2008. However, on the website we do have an insightful interview with a North Korea expert commenting on the thawing of relations between our country and North Korea, including a look ahead and analysis of McCain's and Obama's reactions.

iraqcorey glassworkers world
iraq veterans against the warmatthew campbelldavid wyliebrett clarksonabcrussell goldmanellen spirophil donahuemichael winshipbill moyers journaltomas youngpbsnow on pbsjames glanzrichard a. oppel jr.the new york times
alissa j. rubinthe los angeles timesdoug smithraheem salmanthe washington postsudarsan raghavan
brian montopoli