Please read Rebecca's "music" from last night. We were on the phone today laughing about the fact that we both wrote about music and both linked to articles in the Los Angeles Times. While I wrote about Carly Simon, she was writing about the Mamas and the Papas, whom I also love.
What I don't love are busy bodies. This is from Bob Egelko's "Same-sex couples told to avoid lawsuits" (San Francisco Chronicle):
Gay and lesbian couples from around the country who flock to California to get married in the coming months should try to win support from friends and neighbors when they return home but refrain from filing lawsuits, which could backfire, nine advocacy groups said Tuesday.
"One thing couples shouldn't do is just sue the federal government or, if they are from other states, go sue their home state or their employer to recognize their marriage or open up the health plan," the organizations said in a joint message to their members.
Couples are likely to lose such lawsuits, creating precedents that will take a long time to overturn, and in the process may alienate people the movement needs to win over, the groups said.
Who are these groups? Reading on, the ACLU is one. As Marcia noted yesterday, the first time a same-sex marriage case went through the courts (appealed all the way to the Supreme Court) the 'brave' ACLU elected to sit it out.
Who the hell cares what the ACLU wants? History shows over and over these timid types saying "You must wait!" No, you don't have to do any damn thing you don't want to. Besides, didn't Michelle Obama tell America -- over and over in January and February -- that people told Barack it wasn't his turn and he'd have to wait? He didn't wait. Why should others?
I would hope that the ACLU wasn't selling out gays (again!) for an election. Gay Americans have waited and waited for recognition. Anyone coming to the state to get married should decide what to do in their home state on their own. Without the 'help' of the ACLU. (I like the ACLU and support it. But they are very backward looking on many issues and gay rights is one of them.)
Other than some really good friends, I don't have any vested interested in the issue of same-sex marriage. (Well, I'm an American and I believe we are all supposed to be equal and treated fairly, so there's that as well.) So I'm looking at from a distance. From where I stand, I know too many times in our history where a group was told, "Oh wait, don't upset things!" Sometimes you have to ignore those voices. If those voices weren't ignored, everyone wouldn't have the right to vote today, we would still have slavery in the US, we'd still be in Vietnam, you name it.
You have to take a stand on some issues. If you're a couple that comes to California to get married and you want to test the system immediately, that's your decision. Most likely, whether someone tests immediately or waits awhile, the first cases will all be rejected. That's part of the process. You have to get the ball rolling for anything to ever happen.
By the way, this is Gay Pride Month. There's no irony in the ACLU telling same-sex couples to 'law low' during Gay Pride Month. Here's a good article on why marriage equality is important.
A new column in The Berekeley Daily Planet includes this slug line: "Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer. He can be reached at bobburnett@comcast.net." A printing error must have left off "He is also an idiot." He appears to lie throughout but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was just stupid when writing about the popular vote:
There were three crucial problems with this line of reasoning: it ran counter to party rules; it included the flawed Michigan primary where Obama and other candidates honored an agreement to take their names off the ballot, whereas Clinton did not; and, it did not count certain caucus states.
"Obama and other candidates honored an agreement to take their names off the ballot"? There was no agreement. Candidates decided on their own. Edwards and Obama took their names off to showboat for Iowa and New Hampshire. Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and Clinton left their names on the ballot. There was no "agreement." The DNC rule was they couldn't campaign there. A lot of idiots live in the Bay Area, I'm sure, but I always feel like the idiots get more outlets. Trust me, we aren't all that stupid. The popular vote did not run counter to party rules. And Barack never got the needed number of delegates. He never earned the magic number. Super delegates are not even supposed to be endorsing during the primaries and they only vote on the convention floor. As for caucus states, those are their estimates. The same ones Barack was including when he was claiming to be in the lead on the popular vote. Now let's take the most famous caucus state (every election): Iowa.
Stupid Burnett, why don't we know the total?
The idiot would probably say, "It's a caucus! No one knows the total!" That's what an idiot would say. The Republicans releases the actual number from their Iowa caucus every time. The Democrats refuses to release the numbers. That's not Hillary's fault.
I could go through the entire column which is nothing but MSNBC garbage passed off as facts. Burnett's an idiot and The Berkeley Daily Planet is less and less worth reading each issue because they continue to publish so many gas bags as opposed to people who can back up what they say.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, June 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Canadian Jonathan Kay needs a history tutor to explain war resistance to him, a guilty plea is entered in a US court, and more.
Starting with war resistance, the BBC had US war resister Corey Glass and Jonathan Kay of Canada's National Post debate and have posted it today. The winner of the debate? Corey Glass. In fact, Glass didn't have to say one word to win. Not when conservative Jonathan Kay doesn't think a debate requires knowing facts. Kay argues: "There's no draft in the United States -- as there was in the Vietnam era: No one forced him to put on a uniform. Why should Canadians help this deserter go back on his freely given word?" Why did Canada do it during Vietnam? See, Jonathan Kay is only the latest in a long line of Dumb Asses who wants to hop on a soapbox without ever knowing what the hell he's talking about. Let's toss out some basics for everyone. January 1969 was an important month for Canada. Why? The issue of deserters.
Not the issue of draft dodgers, the issue of deserters. The US wanted Canada to refuse to give them asylum. At that time, pay attention Dumb Ass Jonathan Kay, both groups (deserters and draft dodgers) qualified to become Canadian citizens or permanent immigrants. Canada's Dept of Manpower and Immigration informed the world on January 30, 1969 that Canada was considering refusing deserters. In July of of 1968, the Canadian government had already encouraged immigration workers to begin refusing applications from anyone who was active duty meaning deserters could be refused. By January 1969, it was so bad that deserters in Canada (who had not already been granted either citizenship or permanent immigrant status) were being encouraged to apply in areas far from the borders because applying at the border could result in a "no" and being escorted back to the US side of the border (where an arrest would take place). Prior to that, Canada -- much to the LBJ administration's displeasure -- was regularly granting citizenship and permanent immigrant status to deserters and draft dodgers. As a result of the above, it became harder for deserters (but not for draft resisters).
That's why the new policy, explained May 22, 1969 by Allan J. MacEachen (Canada's Minister of Immigration) was so significant: "If a serviceman from another country meets our immigration criteria, he will not be turned down because his is still in the active service of his country. The selection criteria and requirements applying to him will be the same as those that apply to other applicants." Get it? There was a tiny move in July of 1968. January of 1969 there was a move to make it policy that deserters would be rejected/ejected. By May of 1969, that was no more. The draft was never the issue for granting war resisters asylum in Canada during Vietnam.
We can go as deep into this as we need to but, possibly, Jonathan Kay and other Canadians might just be so ashamed at this point -- that an American knows more about this aspect of their own country's history than they do -- that they decide it's past time for them to try brushing up on the facts?
Here's Corey Glass speaking from the BBC:
Last week I was in Ottawa, when the House of Commons passed a motion saying that the Canadian government should make it possible for conscientious objectors to get permanent residence in Canada. The motion also said that all deportation proceedings against us should be stopped.
But I may be deported anyway. On 21 May I was told that my last chance to stay in Canada had failed, and I must leave by 12 June (since extended to 10 July). I know that if I return to the US I will face imprisonment and possibly a criminal record.
I don't think it is fair that I should be returned to the United States to face unjust punishment for doing what I felt morally obligated to do. I am hoping that Canada, which stayed out of the Iraq War for reasons similar to my own, will reverse the deportation order and let me stay, as parliament has urged.
To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Iraq. Treaties. April 10th, US Senator Joe Biden outlined the basics:
We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the "vision" -- his phrase -- of our bilateral relationship with Iraq. One agreement is a "strategic framework agreement" that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled "What the United States will do for Iraq," because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction -- promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country. We're told that the reason why we're not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don't want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is. The second agreement is what Administration officials call a "standard" Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces -- for the purposes of Iraqi law -- to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don't know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.
On the Status Of Force Agreement, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that "member of the two ruling Shiite parties" in the Iraqi Parliament are stating "the United States is demanding 58 bases" and quotes Jalal al Din al Saghir explaining, "The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abdominable that occupation. We were occupied by the order of the Security Counil. But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far." Rob Corbidge (The Scotsman) cites the bases as "the most obvious physical legacy". The Status Of Force Agreement is to replace the 2004 UN authorization which neither the White House or the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, wants to renew. (al-Maliki ignored the Parliament and the Constitution twice to renew it previously.) That authorization ends at the end of this year. Were it not renewed, there would be no cover for the US to remain in Iraq. As Nazila Fathi and Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) point out that the SOFA has "become a major political issue, further splitting Shiite allies of Mr. Maliki and the political movement of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric." al-Sadr has made clear his opposition to the SOFA and is calling for demonstrations every Friday to show objections to it. AP reports, "The Bush administartion is conceding for the first time that the United States might not finish a complex security agreement with Iraq before President Bush leaves office. Faced with stiff Iraqi opposition, it is 'very possible' the United States might have to extend an existing U.N. mandate, said a senior administration official close to the talks. That would mean major decisions about how U.S. forces operate in Iraq could be left to the next president, including how much authority the United States must give Iraqis over military operations and how quickly the handover takes place." Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) maintains that a big obstacle is the "growing economic and political relationship" Iraq has "with Tehran" that's become the obstacle. As Ashraf Khali (Los Angeles Times) points out, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki concluded a three-day visit to Iran after meeting Monday with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who warned that the continued presence of U.S. troops was 'the main obstacle on the way to progress and prosperity in Iraq'."
Dropping back to the August 28, 2007 snapshot:
Today James Glanz and Eric Schmitt (New York Times) report . . . "federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchasing and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other materiel to Iraqi and American forces" -- "the largest ring of fruad and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here". Among those under investigation is "a senior American officer [Lt. Com. Levonda Joey Selph] who worked closely with Gen. David H. Petraeus in setting up the logistics operation to supply the Iraqi forces when General Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping those forces in 2004 and 2005". The reporters cite an August 18th interview with Petraeus where he explained "he made a decision not to wait for formal tracking systems to be put in place before distributing weapons". There is no tracking system for the tax payer dollars and no tracking system within Iraq where the weapons were apparently passed around like candy. (US arms already glut the blackmarket in Iraq.) Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted that the "investigation includes the Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Department of Justice, the FBI and others. The senior officer, Lt. Col. Levonda Joey Selph, worked closely with General Petraeus to set up logistic services for Iraqi forces." And in response to that, Pauline Jelinek (AP) reports, "The Pentagon is sending a team of investigators to Iraq because of the growing number of cases of fraud and other irregularities in contracts involving weapons and supplies for Iraqi forces."
November 11th, Eric Schmitt, Ginger Thompson, Margot Williams and James Glanz (New York Times) reported on the latest when Levonda Joey Selph's was visited by the paper at her Virginia hom and "Selph would say only that she was not guilty of any wrongdoing, and she said she was under orders not to speak to the press." AP reports Selph entered guilty pleas "to bribery and conspiracy in U.S. District Court" today and that "Selph admitted she leaked confidential government information about the contract to the head of the winning contracting company and helped him submit phony bid packages on behalf of six separate companies he controlled 'to create the appearance of competition, when, in fact, no competition existed.' In return, she was paid $4,000 by the contractor and took a trip with his wife to Thailand during which he paid $5,000 for Selph's airfare and accommodations." Everyone lives high on the hog except the Iraqi people. As Naomi Klein has documented, the Iraq War, for the White House, has been very much about""Baghdad Year Zero" -- where they would take an existing system, reduce it to rubble and rebuild it into their neocon, economic wet dream. [Also see Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism.] One of the non-stop efforts on the part of the US has been attacks on the rations system. Prior to the illegal war, Iraqis had ratiions card that the guaranteed the people basic necessities. Attempts to do away with them weren't working out so it's been a process of chip away bit by bit. Dropping back to the December 4th snapshot for the most recent attack: "The United Nations' IRIN reports that Abid Falah al-Soodani (Trade Minister) announced yesterday that, starting next month, 'the quantity of national food rations delivered freely to all Iraqi families will be futher reduced -- from 10 to five items.' Now let's be clear, this isn't just halfing the food supplies. He told the Iraqi Parliament that the five items provided will be provided in lower numbers. Here's what's getting cut out: tea, beans, children's milk, soap detergent and tomato paste. Here's what's getting reduced: rice, sugar, cooking oil, flour and milk for adults. What a way to say, "Welcome Home!" And to be clear, despite the lies, this has nothing to do with a government 'shortfall.' This is about ending the subsidies which Paul Bremer already tried once. The Iraqi government has more money than they spend at this point (though a great deal ends up in personal pockets) and this claim that they can't afford to supply children with milk is nothing but a lie." Today IRIN reports that Iraq's Ministry of Trade is floting a new plan that will mean more cuts but just of "those with high incomes". In the midst of an ongoing, illegal war and in a country with unemployment rates in excess of 60% since 2006?
Turning to readily acknowledged violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded four police officres, while another wounded two civilians and a Salahuddin Province roadside bombing claimed the life of "[t]he tribal leader of the AIBu Nasir clan" and wounded the leader's driver and two bodyguards. Reuters notes a grenade bombing on a home that left four family members injured and a Suq al-Shiyukh roadside bombing that claimed the life "of a member of the provincial council" and left four bodyguards injured.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants attacked an accountant in Salahuddin Province and stole $60,000. Reuters notes 2 people shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Turning to US politics. This morning (no links to trash) Taylor Marsh declared that Senator Hillary Clinton had released her delegates -- no release took place -- and instead of saying, "Oops! My bad!" she wants to insist this afternoon it doesn't matter. The word "release" has a particular meaning in this context and if Marsh isn't smart enough to grasp that or how to say "My bad!", she really needs to find a topic other than electoral politics to cover. She also has taken it upon herself to act as if she's speaking for the Hillary campaign and for Hillary herself. Taylor Marsh is not speaking for the campaign or for Hillary. Elaine addressed Taylor Marsh last night and, as Elaine points out, Marsh is no feminist. No delegates have been "released." The convention is in August. A candidate would be very foolish to release delegates. In 2004, Dennis Kucinich gave a lot of promises and kept none of them at the convention. If he'd had a significant number of delegates, he could have made a difference. Any candidate would hold on to their delegates if only to ensure that issues will be addressed.
Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports) points out: "The Democratic National Committee either doesn't get it or refuses to admit it. Nothing short of a lengthy, detailed mea culpa by the DNC and by Obama himself, directed to Clinton supporters for the sexist name-calling and personal, nasty characterizations Clinton was alone forced to endure, will do. Even that may not persuade these voters to consider supporting the party this fall. The DNC, Democratic Party leaders in Congress, and Obama should have been at her side, calling her treatment by the media (and even by some Obama supporters) unacceptable." Erbe points out that Barack misses the point appearing on CNN and also note the rush on the part of the media to say that it's all water under the bridge. And she points out the obvious: No one knows what Hillary supporters will do this fall if she is not on the ticket.
Though the media and the Obama campaign want to pretend this is over, there's no reason to hold that belief. Hillary gave a great speech Saturday. That helped Hillary. Her supporters waited to see some positive feedback from Barack and the DNC 'leaders' . . . and waited . . . and waited. This went beyond Hillary a long time ago. Probably around the time the thugs (Robert Scheer, Robert Parry, et al) went after Gloria Steinem and then thought they could turn Robin Morgan into part of the circus as well. Around that time it became 'acceptable' for White Males to show up with columns lecturing women that they shouldn't vote for Hillary -- as the PIGS assumed women would only vote for Hillary because she was a woman. And, strangely, the same White males, so quick to write "Don't vote on gender!" columns, never wrote "Don't vote on race!" columns. Get it? They were afraid to go that far but they were more than comfortable trying to shove women around in the public square. Next was the Obama's campaign's embrace of homophobia because what's more 'hopeful' than spreading lies that the LGBT community 'recruits' and children must be protected from them? It's confusing to faux feminists, but real feminists don't condone that b.s. And it is not going away. The LGBT factor especially is boiling right now and will continue to do so. It's Gay Pride Month. Poor little Sharon Smith, she can't write about that. Laura Flanders and Betsy Reed wanted to talk about homophobia . . . in terms of how it hurt John Edwards (a straight male). They're hypocrites but people catch on. These things are not going away and the DNC and Barack seem to think they'll just vanish. I'd love to know what they're basing that on because it's not based on any real world event. And on women, Bonnie Erbe isn't making predictions. One reason for that, as people who watch PBS' To The Contrary know, Erbe speaks to a vareity of women -- far, far from any echo chamber.
Ralph Nader is running for the presidency. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. As Team Nader points out, Friday's AP polling showed Nader at 6%: "And that's Nader at six percent with virtually no mainstream national press coverage." It should be added, that's Nader at six percent when the campaign's main focus right now is ballot access (meaning Nader has to raise his candidacy and ballot access while Dems and Repubes only have to get the word out on their campaigns). Brian Montopoli (CBS News) notes a CNN - Opinion Research Corporation poll that also found Nader at 6%. Ann Marie Somma (Hartford Courtant) reports on Nader's stop in Middletown, Conn where he spoke to "about 60 supporters at First Church of Christ" and told them, "Corporations have hijacked our government, turned Washington, D.C., into a corporate-occupied territory." Bill Coleman (Burlington Free Press) maintains, "In reality, the worthiest of candidates, namely Ralph Nader, is disregarded from the outset because the election of someone such as Mr. Nader would bring about a true day of reckoning for American corporations. . . . Yes, Ralph Nader supports an end to corporate personhood in contrast to Barack Obama or John McCain, whose campaigns are awash in contributions from corporate America. The differences between Mr. Nader and the candidates that you are permitted to read about or see on television each day are very far reaching and vast. For well over 30 years Mr. Nader has been actively supporting major cuts in military spending while Mr. Obama says that he wants to 'strengthen the military' and McCain also supports the extension of the U.S. oil empire." Patti Smith is doing her part for the Nader campaign and click here for a video of her at a campaign event at Cooper Union last month. Nader was in Cambridge over the weekend and Michael Horan (No Supper Tonight) posts the video and takes on the nonsense of a Nation editorial: "My initial reaction: somebody's not paying attention. Because I can answer that question without qualification, having watched Ralph Nader get up in front of a small crowd at First Parish Church in Cambridge Friday night and discuss each and every one of these issues. Head-on. (Along with tax reform, electoral reform, Palestine, the voting age, single payor healthcare, and etcetera). Issues that neither Obama or Hillary are going to acknowledge, much less address . The question isn't 'who is willing to point out the veritable herd of elephants in the room, and, great, stinking beshitted angry elephants at that?'; the question is why on earth The Nation and its readership, since they apparently share precisely the same ideals, refuse to acknowledge the obvious answer. Of course, what The Nation is really asking is, 'what magnificently-funded Democratic candidate bearing the corporate nihil obstat and the Wall Street imprimatur is raising these issues?' To which the answer is, such a beast does not, cannot exist in nature, and the absurdity of of asking this basilisk beast to bite the hand that feeds it-or rather, to devour its keeper whole--is patently obvious."
Today, Team Nader notes: "They say it's a foregone conclusion that either Obama or McCain will win the November election. After all, Obama and McCain are the odds on favorites to win. On the other hand. If you believe in betting against the crumbling corporate controlled two-party system. Then you have a choice. The long shot independent - Nader/Gonzalez. (Of course, if you bet and win, all that you will get is a shift of power from the big corporations back to the people. Not bad for politics.)"
iraqcorey glass
liam lahey
walter pincusthe washington post
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadelrob corbidgehoward lafranchinazila fathirichard a. oppel jr.the new york timesashraf khalilthe los angeles times
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Monday, June 09, 2008
Carly
But even two recent manifestations of the sincerest form of flattery aren't enough to make a complete "Idol" believer out of the woman who long ago defined female rock-star cool and who helped usher in a new era for female singer-songwriters in which they were no longer simply attractive voices and faces for music largely written and produced by men.
The most powerful music platform in today's world trots singers of both sexes out before a panel of all-seeing, all-knowing judges so that millions of unseen viewers can choose one for career molding by an all-powerful veteran -- and male -- music-industry titan, Clive Davis. In that sense, "Idol" seems the antithesis of the time in the early '70s when Simon, Carole King, Joni Mitchell, Laura Nyro and their sister artists were achieving greater autonomy in their art.
"There's no question that through 'American Idol' we've gone back a couple of eras into the Berry Gordy/Supremes pulling-the-strings kind of thing," said the jet-setting onetime paramour of Warren Beatty and Kris Kristofferson who later married -- then divorced -- folk-rock star James Taylor. This is the same woman who won a Grammy for best new artist after her conventional-marriage-questioning 1971 ballad "That's the Way I've Always Heard It Should Be" and who went to No. 1 with one of pop music's most hotly gossiped-about celebrity comeuppances ever, the 1973 hit that turned up prominently on celebrity-worshiping "American Idol."
Today, Simon still questions the status quo -- whether musical, social or political. But her main interest, the way it always was even when she was helping alter the outer world, is understanding and expressing her inner world. That can come out in a new album, like "This Kind of Love," which was released in April, or through projects such as "Romulus Hunt," the family opera she wrote in 1993 and which has been revived this year in Florida. And now she's going about it with the help of the two things she prizes most from her days as one of the queens of rock: her children (with Taylor) Ben and Sally.
That's from Randy Lewis' "Carly Simon: Coming around again with 'This Kind of Love'"
(Los Angeles Times) and I really enjoyed this article. That is a huge complimtn from me. I'm a big Carly fan and I read a lot of music articles. I think this one could be nominated for a feature award. It's really that good.
Carly's one of my all time favorites and if you breeze through this site for any length of time, you'll realize that because I probably mention her more than any other musician. She has such strong melodies, her lyrics are so illuminating and telling, that alto is still one of kind and she's as at home behind the piano as she is holding the guitar. She really is something and she's always done it in such a sensual manner. Her new CD is This Kind Of Love and the link goes to my review. In the nearly four years I've been doing music reviews at The Common Ills, I've also reviewed her Moonlight Serenade, Into White and No Secrets. Because of those reviews, I have received a lot of e-mails over the last years about Carly.
Carly's audience gets her even when the critics don't. A Carly Simon fan goes deep. It's always a joy to read their e-mails and they may be the only ones I always reply to. Carly's songs are very personal and relatable. It's not just, as it is with some, "When I think of" song "I remember I first heard it . . ." They really crawl into her lyrics. (I do as well.) They crawl into her music. The songs that were overlooked -- either due to bad moves by the label or because another song was a hit -- are never forgotten by them.
They really are scholars and there are so many them.
That makes me happy and always has. But, for me, anyone who likes Carly has always been a blessing. Men I've been involved with, the Carly listeners were (a) the best lovers and (b) the best relationships with no angry ends. Women who are Carly listeners have always become my closest friends. Maggie is an example there. Toni loved Maggie and told me I had to meet her, I'd love her too. I met her and I did love her. But I couldn't figure out why. We were all coming back from a club one night and my radio in the car went out on the way. A fuse blew. And the only thing I can do in a car consistently is fix the fuse. That I know. But I didn't have one (and always keep a fuse in the glove box). So I was pretty ticked off. (I really do not drive without the radio/CD player/tape player in earlier days on.)
So I slammed the glove box and started the car back up. I made it through one light when Maggie starts in singing "Julie Through The Glass." A favorite of mine. So Toni and I join and we're all three singing and when we're done, I was all, "You like Carly too!"
It's always been a bonding moment for me. And I think that's how it is for most Carly fans. I don't know what it is about her art, but if you get it, you are a part of something. Maybe it's mystical, I don't know.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, June 9, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, justice in England (if not in the US), Corey Glass is told he does not have to leave Canada June 12th, the US military pumps service members full of drugs, and more.
Starting with Corey Glass. May 21st, US war resisters and Iraq War veteran Glass was informed that he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported. He will not be deported Thursday (the 12th). Torstar News Service reports: "Initially ordered to leave the country by June 12, Glass' departure date has been extended to July 10, after a month-long appeal process by his lawyer was finally approved last week." So he has a month to appeal. Dan Robson (Toronto Star) explains, "The former American soldier was set to become the first Iraq-war resister to be deported from Canada, after his application for refugee status was rejected more than two weeks ago. Glass said his lawyer put forward the appeal so he would have sufficient time to properly settle his accounts and allow him to leave his job in a professional manner." Friday, Amnesty issued their statement, "USA: James Corey Glass has right not to serve in Iraq," which noted, "Amnesty International believes James Corey Glass to have a genuine conscientious objection to serving as a combatant in the US forces in Iraq, and would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience if imprisoned on his return to the USA."
And last Tuesday, the House of Commons in Canada voted to let war resisters stay in the country. Krystalline Kraus (Rabble News) reports, "Liberal, NDP and Bloc MPs (137 in total) stood in favour -- literally stood up to vote as procedure dictates, though for a second the line of MPs could be confused for a makeshift honour guard of sorts -- of the 'war resister' motiong. From the ranks of the Conservative Party, 110 MPs stood against" and quotes US war resister Robin Long explaining, "I feel a small but growing and powerful group of people have woken up and are taking a stand . . . and these people are going to wake everyone else up, leading the people back to power and away from the corporate agenda Bush." October 1, 2007, Robin Long was arrested and told he would be deported.
The New Democratic Party of Canada issued a statement "calling on the [prime minister Stephen] Harper government to reexamine their decision to deport Long and allow him to stay in Canada." By October 4, 2007 the threat volume was lowered. Last week, Dianne Mathiowetz and Jaimeson Champion (Workers World) reported, "The motion to halt the deportations is a strong step against a series of recent reactionary rulings issued by the Canadian Supreme Court. The court's refusals to hear the appeals for refugee status filed by numerous GI resisters have paved the way for the possible deportation of dozens, if not hundreds, of conscientious objectors. The vote in the Canadian Parliament comes on the heels of a deportation order given to GI resister Corey Glass. Glass, an Indiana resident, signed up for the National Guard in 2002. He was deployed to Iraq in 2005 and served five months as a military intelligence sergeant before going AWOL to protest what he deemed an 'illegal and immoral' war. Glass moved to Toronto, Canada, in August 2006." Kevin Brooker (Calgary Herald) argues, "There are many outward reasons why granting sanctuary to an estimated 200 former soldiers should be an automatic gesture for Canada. Foremost is the simple fact that the United Nations itself, not to mention enlightened voices around the world, declared the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to be a violation of the UN charter. It also would support the Nuremberg Principles, which compel a soldier to withdraw from military acts, like this one, which are patently illegal." And Jan Heynen writes to the Ottawa Citizen to support war resisters:
Let them stay Last Tuesday, the Opposition parties in the House of Commons joined together to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would require the Canadian government to allow permanent resident status to U.S. war resistors and their families and to cease all deportation and removal proceedings against the war resisters. Canada refused to join the war in Iraq. It is consistent with that decision to accept people into the country who don't agree either with the legality of that war.The illegality of that war has been demonstrated many times. It has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives, both Iraqi and U.S. Our own government should follow the parliamentary directive, which many people agree with. It can restore some of the shine to our reputation in the world as a peacemaker. Jan Heynen, Ottawa
To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Turning to England where gender discrimation and harasment appears to be taken much more seriously than in the US. Caroline Gammel (Telegraph of London) reports that Rabia Siddique ("female major who helped rescue two SAS Soldiers" and also "a lawyer who worked for the Army Legal Services") went public about being being "victimised by senior officers and subjected to months of religious, racial and sex discrimination and quotes her stating, "For the last several years I have very much enjoyed and been honoured to serve my country as a legal officer in the armed forces. Unfortunately I have been treated unfavourably because I am a Muslim, Asian woman. As a result of this treatment my career, which I was fully committed to, has suffered which has caused me great distress. Because of this I have felt compelled to bring a claim to this employment tribunal." In the US, Rabia Siddique might next pop up in the news a year and a half from now. Instead, Caroline Gammel later reported that Siddique's case had been resolved and "an undisclosed settlement was agreed. Her lawyer Joanna Wade said Major Siddique had been 'very happy' with the agreement, but refused to divulge details. Part of the deal was the latter from Gen Sir Richard" and quotes Siddique declaring, "I am also pleased to hear what the Chief of the General Staff has said about lessons that may be learnt, which is primarily what I was seeking by bringing these claims." Tom Kelley and Michael Seamark (The Daily Mail) report, "Military chiefs have vowed to learn lessons from the treatment of a female Muslim Army lawyer who was 'given a hug instead of a medal' for her part in trying to free soldiers kidnapped in Iraq. , , , A last-minute settlement was agreed yesterday as her case was due to be heard by Central London employment tribunal." The kidnapping case referred to was the two British military personnel caught in Basra with bombs, guns, etc. in a civlian car, wearing wigs and disguises to appear "Iraqi". Robert F. Worth (New York Times) noted in real time, "The arrest and detention of the British officers, who were in Arab dress, was handled appropriately, said the spokesman, who agreed to discuss the episode on the condition of anonymity. A judge issued an arrest warrant and informed both the Basra governor and the city council about the case, he said." Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) observed then, "The fight broke out when British forces attacked a police station after the detention of two British soldiers apparently disguised in local dress." Solo, Tavernise reported, "The official said that the soldiers were undercover officers dressed as Iraqis and that Iraqi police officers had arrested them after the men fired at a traffic police officer." Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) first reported on Rabia Siddique's case at the first of this month. Military service member or civilian contractor, think of all the US women who wait and wait for something resembling justice. Which usually never arrives.
Meanwhile Mark Thompson (Time magazine) reports on 'treatment,' "For the first time in history, a sizable and growing number of U.S. combat troops are taking daily doses of antidepressants to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The medicaines are intended not only to help troops keep their cool but also to enable the already strapped Army to preserve its most precious resources: soldiers on the front lines." Yeah, I think Louis Mayer used to trot a line like that out years ago at Metro and we all know it did wonders for Judy Garland. Remember, when everything falls apart (as it does), the defense is always that it's never the organization's fault, only the individuals. While US service members are pumped with drugs, AP reported on puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki visiting Iraq and insisting to Iran that the treaty and he the White House are trying to force through will not allow Iraq to be used as a stage to launch a US war with Iran. The question of course is does the puppet tell the White House the truth or does he tell Iran the truth? AP notes: "Iran fiercely opposes the deal, fearing it will lead to permanent US bases on its doorstep amid fears of an eventual American attack. Iran has led a vocal campaign against the deal, with powerful former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani vowing last week that people in Iraq and the region won't allow it. That has led to US accusations that Tehran is actively trying to scuttle the agreement - putting al-Maliki's government in a tight spot between its two rival allies." Asraf Khalil (Los Angeles Times) reports that while the talks went on, "a public affairs program broadcast on Iranian television" featured "one panelist" who "compared American bases in Iraq to the installation of Russian missiles in Cuba during the Cold War betwen the United States and the Soviet Union." Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) reports that while the meetings were going on, the US military in Iraq was yet again trumpeting the capture of a supect that they insisted was linked to Iran but, as Kramer noted, "The United States military regularly announces the detention of militia fighters it says are operating with Iranian support. Iranian authorities deny they have a hand in the fighting."
Kramer also notes 2 US service members died from bombings Sunday (one in Baghad, the otehr in Kirkuk). The number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war currently stands at 4094. Also on Sunday, Reuters reports, the Turkish military and the PKK again fought on the border and "an operation against the rebels" PKK "continued on Monday." CBS and AP notes, "U.S. soldiers under heavy fire during a raid Monday in northwestern Iraq called in airstrikes and killed five suspected al Qaeda in Iraq militants, the military said." The airstrike comes as Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports Iraqi officials are saying they want the US service members "confined to their bases" and off the streets. In other Iraq news, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) also reports on the diplomatic front: "The Turkish Prime Minister is preparing to make his first trip to Iraq since the invasion, while Jordan will soon send an ambassador to Baghdad, in the latest signs of a desire in the region to work with the US-backed Iraqi Government. Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, and Jalal Talabani, the President, during his forthcoming stay, according to Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi Government spokesman." Who would Jordan be sending? The post has not been filled.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded five people, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 3 lives and left twelve injured, a Baghdad grenade attack that left two police officers wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded five people, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded two police officers, a Zanjili grenade attack that wounded two Iraqi police officers, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded one police officer, an Al-Muradiyah roadside bombing that injured four women who "were doing farming in one of the orachards," an Al Wahihiya mortar attack that claimed 1 life and left two injured and a Dali Abbas roadside bombing injured one person.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants shot up a Baghdad jewelry store resulting in 3 deaths and two police officers wounded, unknown assailants shot dead "two prominent Sheikhs in Mosul," a woman was shot dead in Balad Ruz, a "retired officer" was shot dead in Hibhib and a shooting in Muqdadiyah left two "seriously wounded". Reuters notes a Mosul home invasion where two residents were murdered and a police officer shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 25 corpses (unidentified) at the Baquba morgue were buried after 40 days without being claimed.
iraqcorey glass
kevin brookerdan robsondianne mathiowetzjaimeson champion
robin longamnesty
the new york timessabrina tavernise
andrew e. kramermcclatchy newspapers
richard a. oppel jr.
robert f. worth
ashraf khalilthe los angeles times
deborah haynes
The most powerful music platform in today's world trots singers of both sexes out before a panel of all-seeing, all-knowing judges so that millions of unseen viewers can choose one for career molding by an all-powerful veteran -- and male -- music-industry titan, Clive Davis. In that sense, "Idol" seems the antithesis of the time in the early '70s when Simon, Carole King, Joni Mitchell, Laura Nyro and their sister artists were achieving greater autonomy in their art.
"There's no question that through 'American Idol' we've gone back a couple of eras into the Berry Gordy/Supremes pulling-the-strings kind of thing," said the jet-setting onetime paramour of Warren Beatty and Kris Kristofferson who later married -- then divorced -- folk-rock star James Taylor. This is the same woman who won a Grammy for best new artist after her conventional-marriage-questioning 1971 ballad "That's the Way I've Always Heard It Should Be" and who went to No. 1 with one of pop music's most hotly gossiped-about celebrity comeuppances ever, the 1973 hit that turned up prominently on celebrity-worshiping "American Idol."
Today, Simon still questions the status quo -- whether musical, social or political. But her main interest, the way it always was even when she was helping alter the outer world, is understanding and expressing her inner world. That can come out in a new album, like "This Kind of Love," which was released in April, or through projects such as "Romulus Hunt," the family opera she wrote in 1993 and which has been revived this year in Florida. And now she's going about it with the help of the two things she prizes most from her days as one of the queens of rock: her children (with Taylor) Ben and Sally.
That's from Randy Lewis' "Carly Simon: Coming around again with 'This Kind of Love'"
(Los Angeles Times) and I really enjoyed this article. That is a huge complimtn from me. I'm a big Carly fan and I read a lot of music articles. I think this one could be nominated for a feature award. It's really that good.
Carly's one of my all time favorites and if you breeze through this site for any length of time, you'll realize that because I probably mention her more than any other musician. She has such strong melodies, her lyrics are so illuminating and telling, that alto is still one of kind and she's as at home behind the piano as she is holding the guitar. She really is something and she's always done it in such a sensual manner. Her new CD is This Kind Of Love and the link goes to my review. In the nearly four years I've been doing music reviews at The Common Ills, I've also reviewed her Moonlight Serenade, Into White and No Secrets. Because of those reviews, I have received a lot of e-mails over the last years about Carly.
Carly's audience gets her even when the critics don't. A Carly Simon fan goes deep. It's always a joy to read their e-mails and they may be the only ones I always reply to. Carly's songs are very personal and relatable. It's not just, as it is with some, "When I think of" song "I remember I first heard it . . ." They really crawl into her lyrics. (I do as well.) They crawl into her music. The songs that were overlooked -- either due to bad moves by the label or because another song was a hit -- are never forgotten by them.
They really are scholars and there are so many them.
That makes me happy and always has. But, for me, anyone who likes Carly has always been a blessing. Men I've been involved with, the Carly listeners were (a) the best lovers and (b) the best relationships with no angry ends. Women who are Carly listeners have always become my closest friends. Maggie is an example there. Toni loved Maggie and told me I had to meet her, I'd love her too. I met her and I did love her. But I couldn't figure out why. We were all coming back from a club one night and my radio in the car went out on the way. A fuse blew. And the only thing I can do in a car consistently is fix the fuse. That I know. But I didn't have one (and always keep a fuse in the glove box). So I was pretty ticked off. (I really do not drive without the radio/CD player/tape player in earlier days on.)
So I slammed the glove box and started the car back up. I made it through one light when Maggie starts in singing "Julie Through The Glass." A favorite of mine. So Toni and I join and we're all three singing and when we're done, I was all, "You like Carly too!"
It's always been a bonding moment for me. And I think that's how it is for most Carly fans. I don't know what it is about her art, but if you get it, you are a part of something. Maybe it's mystical, I don't know.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, June 9, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, justice in England (if not in the US), Corey Glass is told he does not have to leave Canada June 12th, the US military pumps service members full of drugs, and more.
Starting with Corey Glass. May 21st, US war resisters and Iraq War veteran Glass was informed that he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported. He will not be deported Thursday (the 12th). Torstar News Service reports: "Initially ordered to leave the country by June 12, Glass' departure date has been extended to July 10, after a month-long appeal process by his lawyer was finally approved last week." So he has a month to appeal. Dan Robson (Toronto Star) explains, "The former American soldier was set to become the first Iraq-war resister to be deported from Canada, after his application for refugee status was rejected more than two weeks ago. Glass said his lawyer put forward the appeal so he would have sufficient time to properly settle his accounts and allow him to leave his job in a professional manner." Friday, Amnesty issued their statement, "USA: James Corey Glass has right not to serve in Iraq," which noted, "Amnesty International believes James Corey Glass to have a genuine conscientious objection to serving as a combatant in the US forces in Iraq, and would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience if imprisoned on his return to the USA."
And last Tuesday, the House of Commons in Canada voted to let war resisters stay in the country. Krystalline Kraus (Rabble News) reports, "Liberal, NDP and Bloc MPs (137 in total) stood in favour -- literally stood up to vote as procedure dictates, though for a second the line of MPs could be confused for a makeshift honour guard of sorts -- of the 'war resister' motiong. From the ranks of the Conservative Party, 110 MPs stood against" and quotes US war resister Robin Long explaining, "I feel a small but growing and powerful group of people have woken up and are taking a stand . . . and these people are going to wake everyone else up, leading the people back to power and away from the corporate agenda Bush." October 1, 2007, Robin Long was arrested and told he would be deported.
The New Democratic Party of Canada issued a statement "calling on the [prime minister Stephen] Harper government to reexamine their decision to deport Long and allow him to stay in Canada." By October 4, 2007 the threat volume was lowered. Last week, Dianne Mathiowetz and Jaimeson Champion (Workers World) reported, "The motion to halt the deportations is a strong step against a series of recent reactionary rulings issued by the Canadian Supreme Court. The court's refusals to hear the appeals for refugee status filed by numerous GI resisters have paved the way for the possible deportation of dozens, if not hundreds, of conscientious objectors. The vote in the Canadian Parliament comes on the heels of a deportation order given to GI resister Corey Glass. Glass, an Indiana resident, signed up for the National Guard in 2002. He was deployed to Iraq in 2005 and served five months as a military intelligence sergeant before going AWOL to protest what he deemed an 'illegal and immoral' war. Glass moved to Toronto, Canada, in August 2006." Kevin Brooker (Calgary Herald) argues, "There are many outward reasons why granting sanctuary to an estimated 200 former soldiers should be an automatic gesture for Canada. Foremost is the simple fact that the United Nations itself, not to mention enlightened voices around the world, declared the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to be a violation of the UN charter. It also would support the Nuremberg Principles, which compel a soldier to withdraw from military acts, like this one, which are patently illegal." And Jan Heynen writes to the Ottawa Citizen to support war resisters:
Let them stay Last Tuesday, the Opposition parties in the House of Commons joined together to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would require the Canadian government to allow permanent resident status to U.S. war resistors and their families and to cease all deportation and removal proceedings against the war resisters. Canada refused to join the war in Iraq. It is consistent with that decision to accept people into the country who don't agree either with the legality of that war.The illegality of that war has been demonstrated many times. It has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives, both Iraqi and U.S. Our own government should follow the parliamentary directive, which many people agree with. It can restore some of the shine to our reputation in the world as a peacemaker. Jan Heynen, Ottawa
To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Turning to England where gender discrimation and harasment appears to be taken much more seriously than in the US. Caroline Gammel (Telegraph of London) reports that Rabia Siddique ("female major who helped rescue two SAS Soldiers" and also "a lawyer who worked for the Army Legal Services") went public about being being "victimised by senior officers and subjected to months of religious, racial and sex discrimination and quotes her stating, "For the last several years I have very much enjoyed and been honoured to serve my country as a legal officer in the armed forces. Unfortunately I have been treated unfavourably because I am a Muslim, Asian woman. As a result of this treatment my career, which I was fully committed to, has suffered which has caused me great distress. Because of this I have felt compelled to bring a claim to this employment tribunal." In the US, Rabia Siddique might next pop up in the news a year and a half from now. Instead, Caroline Gammel later reported that Siddique's case had been resolved and "an undisclosed settlement was agreed. Her lawyer Joanna Wade said Major Siddique had been 'very happy' with the agreement, but refused to divulge details. Part of the deal was the latter from Gen Sir Richard" and quotes Siddique declaring, "I am also pleased to hear what the Chief of the General Staff has said about lessons that may be learnt, which is primarily what I was seeking by bringing these claims." Tom Kelley and Michael Seamark (The Daily Mail) report, "Military chiefs have vowed to learn lessons from the treatment of a female Muslim Army lawyer who was 'given a hug instead of a medal' for her part in trying to free soldiers kidnapped in Iraq. , , , A last-minute settlement was agreed yesterday as her case was due to be heard by Central London employment tribunal." The kidnapping case referred to was the two British military personnel caught in Basra with bombs, guns, etc. in a civlian car, wearing wigs and disguises to appear "Iraqi". Robert F. Worth (New York Times) noted in real time, "The arrest and detention of the British officers, who were in Arab dress, was handled appropriately, said the spokesman, who agreed to discuss the episode on the condition of anonymity. A judge issued an arrest warrant and informed both the Basra governor and the city council about the case, he said." Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) observed then, "The fight broke out when British forces attacked a police station after the detention of two British soldiers apparently disguised in local dress." Solo, Tavernise reported, "The official said that the soldiers were undercover officers dressed as Iraqis and that Iraqi police officers had arrested them after the men fired at a traffic police officer." Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) first reported on Rabia Siddique's case at the first of this month. Military service member or civilian contractor, think of all the US women who wait and wait for something resembling justice. Which usually never arrives.
Meanwhile Mark Thompson (Time magazine) reports on 'treatment,' "For the first time in history, a sizable and growing number of U.S. combat troops are taking daily doses of antidepressants to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The medicaines are intended not only to help troops keep their cool but also to enable the already strapped Army to preserve its most precious resources: soldiers on the front lines." Yeah, I think Louis Mayer used to trot a line like that out years ago at Metro and we all know it did wonders for Judy Garland. Remember, when everything falls apart (as it does), the defense is always that it's never the organization's fault, only the individuals. While US service members are pumped with drugs, AP reported on puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki visiting Iraq and insisting to Iran that the treaty and he the White House are trying to force through will not allow Iraq to be used as a stage to launch a US war with Iran. The question of course is does the puppet tell the White House the truth or does he tell Iran the truth? AP notes: "Iran fiercely opposes the deal, fearing it will lead to permanent US bases on its doorstep amid fears of an eventual American attack. Iran has led a vocal campaign against the deal, with powerful former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani vowing last week that people in Iraq and the region won't allow it. That has led to US accusations that Tehran is actively trying to scuttle the agreement - putting al-Maliki's government in a tight spot between its two rival allies." Asraf Khalil (Los Angeles Times) reports that while the talks went on, "a public affairs program broadcast on Iranian television" featured "one panelist" who "compared American bases in Iraq to the installation of Russian missiles in Cuba during the Cold War betwen the United States and the Soviet Union." Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) reports that while the meetings were going on, the US military in Iraq was yet again trumpeting the capture of a supect that they insisted was linked to Iran but, as Kramer noted, "The United States military regularly announces the detention of militia fighters it says are operating with Iranian support. Iranian authorities deny they have a hand in the fighting."
Kramer also notes 2 US service members died from bombings Sunday (one in Baghad, the otehr in Kirkuk). The number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war currently stands at 4094. Also on Sunday, Reuters reports, the Turkish military and the PKK again fought on the border and "an operation against the rebels" PKK "continued on Monday." CBS and AP notes, "U.S. soldiers under heavy fire during a raid Monday in northwestern Iraq called in airstrikes and killed five suspected al Qaeda in Iraq militants, the military said." The airstrike comes as Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports Iraqi officials are saying they want the US service members "confined to their bases" and off the streets. In other Iraq news, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) also reports on the diplomatic front: "The Turkish Prime Minister is preparing to make his first trip to Iraq since the invasion, while Jordan will soon send an ambassador to Baghdad, in the latest signs of a desire in the region to work with the US-backed Iraqi Government. Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, and Jalal Talabani, the President, during his forthcoming stay, according to Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi Government spokesman." Who would Jordan be sending? The post has not been filled.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded five people, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 3 lives and left twelve injured, a Baghdad grenade attack that left two police officers wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded five people, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded two police officers, a Zanjili grenade attack that wounded two Iraqi police officers, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded one police officer, an Al-Muradiyah roadside bombing that injured four women who "were doing farming in one of the orachards," an Al Wahihiya mortar attack that claimed 1 life and left two injured and a Dali Abbas roadside bombing injured one person.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants shot up a Baghdad jewelry store resulting in 3 deaths and two police officers wounded, unknown assailants shot dead "two prominent Sheikhs in Mosul," a woman was shot dead in Balad Ruz, a "retired officer" was shot dead in Hibhib and a shooting in Muqdadiyah left two "seriously wounded". Reuters notes a Mosul home invasion where two residents were murdered and a police officer shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 25 corpses (unidentified) at the Baquba morgue were buried after 40 days without being claimed.
iraqcorey glass
kevin brookerdan robsondianne mathiowetzjaimeson champion
robin longamnesty
the new york timessabrina tavernise
andrew e. kramermcclatchy newspapers
richard a. oppel jr.
robert f. worth
ashraf khalilthe los angeles times
deborah haynes
Friday, June 06, 2008
What matters
"TV: Grime & Grit TV"
Betsy offered, "I think sexism has definitely hindered her campaign." But, Betsy wanted the world to know, it had also rallied supporters to her. Betsy, the question was about the media -- which you're supposed to be a part of. What Betsy offered was basically a refutation of not only the work of Durkheim and Merton but also Foucault and Marx. We're sure it's the last one that will have Betsy feeling sheepish.
That's Ava and C.I. tackling Grit TV last Sunday. Mike and I got the memo. I'm joking about memo. I was part of the roundtable Thursday evening for the gina & krista round-robin. One community member participating was very angry and, when speaking, called us out for not highlighting each other more. C.I. immediately apologized (when blame's served at the table, C.I. will always grab the first slice) and was corrected with, "I'm not talking about you. You've linked to everyone this week." And C.I. had. Go back and look and you'll see C.I. provided links to all of from Sunday through the "Iraq snapshot" on Thursday. (Which went up shortly before the roundtable started.) C.I. explained that we had all put everything we had to getting out the vote for Hillary in the last weeks (four weeks for some, six weeks for others). And it was pointed out that Ava, C.I. and I hadn't even been home in over five weeks. (We really haven't. And it may be six weeks or more.) The point was that everyone was tired. And Gina and Krista added that they have heard the complaint being made all week in e-mails.
I'm the worst about replying but I do read e-mails if I get them. If anyone had told me there was a problem, I would have been doing links right away. I'm lazy even on good days but I don't ignore the community. That's not my saying, "It's your fault!" It is clearly my fault. I own that. But I want to be clear that I first heard about the problem Thursday night.
Let me explain a problem that we all have on our end (including C.I.). Blogger/Blogspot is again adding "features" and the result is that on our laptops, it keeps freezing. After my last sentence,
I grabbed a cigarette from Dona (I smoke about ten a year) and lit up waiting for when I could type again. I got three drags before I could. That's been happening to everyone and it started about three weeks ago. We pressed on for Hillary but last week, with Obama stealing the nomination (barring a convention floor flight or another Barack scandal), we were all depressed as well as tired. Not in the mood to blog but knowing full well if we didn't and said we weren't in the mood, C.I. would be filling in for us at all of our sites. Which would be pushing it off on C.I. And none of us wanted to do that. So we slogged along and did as little as possible.
There was no effort to ignore other sites in the community. We were usually all around one another. I doubt we all read what each other wrote due to that. We'd generally all be sitting down across from one another with our laptops and blogging. "I've got nothing!" "Oh, well take this!" or "I'm writing about this and I was going to write about ___ but you take it if you want it!" In that climate, with the Blogger/Blogspot problems, the end of the Hillary campaign (which hopefully is suspended and not closed), the exhuastion from being on the road non-stop (and for Ava, C.I. and myself -- double time because we weren't just on the hectic schedule to speak about Iraq, we were also working to get out the vote for Hillary -- we were doing both things and did not let Iraq fall off our speaking radar or cancel our already scheduled appearances. We were also in DC several times during the last six weeks when Ava and C.I. would go to talk to super delegates in Congress and in the DC area but not in Congress directly to make the case for Hillary.) all led to us being tired.
We apologized during the roundtable for that. Then C.I. wanted to know, since it's obvious that we all know and love each other, where the hurt was coming from because the issue was raised with what can only be described as "hurt"?
C.I.'s been ripped off three times this week. The most offensive time was by a woman. A friend of C.I.'s asked C.I. to highlight a mutual aquaintence and C.I. said, "I didn't know she had a blog. Of course I will." The friend then asked C.I. to highlight something she'd written last month on Hillary. She told C.I. about that blog post and C.I. said, "Absolutely, it will go in the snapshot." When it was time for C.I. to do links (C.I. puts in links and then saves the draft, later C.I. will call a friend who will grab dictation which is C.I. dictating around the links -- a few are added while C.I.'s dictating), searching for the site wasn't working. C.I. couldn't find the site via Google. Finally, C.I. went to ___ (a feminist periodical) and rushed through pages at that site to find something, hoping the site would be listed. It was. C.I. went to that site and went through the posts looking for the post on Hillary, found it and highlighted it.
A woman who regularly raids C.I.'s work, decided to raid it Thursday morning. She had, she informed her readers, just discovered this website and wanted to share it. It was the post that C.I. had highlighted. She hadn't just discovered it, she'd been steered to it by C.I. but although C.I. has been more than happy to link to her (she's e-mailed and asked to be linked to), she's never returned the favor. Not returning the favor is bad manners, ripping off is theft.
Here's the thing, the post was May 14th, the one C.I. linked to. She wanted her readers to believe she'd just come across, by her own research, a May 14th post. That alone was questionable.
It only got worse because she linked to the woman's old site. So did C.I. After the snapshot went up, C.I. got a call explaining, "You linked to ___'s old site. She's moved it."
C.I. apologized, explained how the site was found and said that in the next two weeks, a point will be made to link to the new site.
That's how C.I. ended up at the old site. How did the female Christopher Columbus? She ended up there because she didn't 'discover' the woman's site, she went to the linked post C.I. provided.
There were two other rip-offs and one included a blogger taking six sentences word for word as his own. But this was the one that outraged the community because here is a woman claiming to be pro-woman, claiming to also be for Hillary and yet she's stabbing C.I. in the back and ripping off C.I.
It's amazing how many show up at the public account begging for links to their stuff but they never are kind enough (or raised with manners apparently) to do a link to C.I. They want the community to come to them but they're not interested in helping anyone else.
A lot of bloggers have been linked to recently and C.I. didn't do that out of new love for bloggers. C.I. did it because the MSM was repeating that people weren't blogging about Hillary and that the interest wasn't there. C.I. was demonstrating that the interest was there.
In the process, a lot of people got links that didn't deserve them. I'll name one. Susan UnPC. I have no idea why she wrote Ruth. She said she was writing Ruth because she loved Ruth's writing. Ruth's a great writer but I think Susan was just on a fishing expedition.
If that was the case, she went home with an empty line.
We don't write anything in e-mails we wouldn't write at our sites because FAIR passed on Jess' reply to their e-mail to The Nation. (There was nothing embarrassing in the e-mail Jess wrote about him or anyone else. The e-mail did mention that we'd be doing our six month study of The Nation's poor record of publishing women.) FAIR thought they could score some brownie points by passing on an e-mail; what they didn't grasp was that C.I. has a lot of friends at The Nation and C.I. heard about Jess' reply (which C.I. never read before it went out or the days immediately after) from friends at The Nation who said, "FAIR's passed on one of your e-mails." C.I. refused to believe that FAIR would do such a thing. (C.I. never read the e-mail that FAIR had sent the public account. In that e-mail, they were passing on e-mails from a journalist. Had C.I. read that e-mail, it would have been less surprising.) So C.I. refuses to believe it and is told, "I'm forwarding it to you right now" which it was and is also read it over the phone. That was July of 2007. We don't write anything in e-mails these days that we don't want to say publicly. In August of 2007 or September, David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet (no links for trash) e-mailed Rebecca praising her site and her work and, oh, he had one question about Lennox Yearwood. Rebecca, who liked Swanson's work, was excited by the e-mail and wrote a brief reply. A little while later, she checks her account and has an e-mail from Yearwood. He's out of the country. It's an automated reply to everyone who e-mails his account. Rebecca didn't e-mail him and she's scrolling down and sees it's an automated reply to David Swanson's e-mail. David Swanson's e-mail where he's forwarding Rebecca's e-mail.
Swanson didn't realize that the automated reply had come back to Rebecca as well. When she asked him why he forwarded her e-mail, he denied it over several e-mail exchanges. He suggested she was 'emotional' and acted like the injured party. He didn't know what she was talking about, he never forwarded her e-mail!
But he did forward her e-mail and Rebecca knew he had and that he was lying because Yearwood's automated reply bounced back to her.
That's why Yearwood's never highlighted in the community, by the way. Betty, Cedric and Ty thinks he's a joke and were already on record thinking that before the forward. But when that happpened, it really hurt Rebecca's feelings. Was this something planned? Two guys got together to make fun of her? A little ha-ha at her expense?
Rebecca wrote Yearwood asking for an explanation weeks later and he never replied. So C.I. wrote for an explanation and Yearwood never replied.
I should explain that C.I. wrote Yearwood at the e-mail address from which he sends out several things to the public account of The Common Ills every week to get them highlighted. When Yearwood refused to reply, C.I. stopped highlighting him. We all have.
We'll never highlight him or his organization again. At one point, he got into some trouble with the police and C.I. had to include it because it was news but C.I. did so as briefly as possible because Yearwood is clearly no friend of the community although he's happy to use it to promote his own organization.
So, Susan UnPC, we're used to the fishing e-mails and no one's giving up s**t in one.
But Suzie writes Ruth this chatty, breezy, heavy on praise e-mail and also asks if she can use Ruth's writing about The Diane Rehm Show for something she wants to write. Ruth replies and tells her she can use anything she likes.
Needless to say, Susan UnPC never wrote about Diane Rehm's program nor did she ever reply to Ruth.
Before the e-mail, she had linked to Ruth and posted Isaiah's comic that Ruth had reposted.
Let's talk about that because Isaiah's been the comic for The Common Ills for about three years now and this is the year where everyone's trying to create their own cartoons. Isaiah is a trend setter and I don't say that sarcastically. Isaiah's immensely talented and has brought in visitors to The Common Ills.
Now everyone wants to copy him and most lack the talent but they try. At least they try. Others admit they have no talent and go to an online program where they can choose stock figures and type in captions and then try to call that a "comic."
How proud they must be!
They have no creativity. Isaiah has a real talent. He can capture a mood or moment in his comics and dash off a very convincing comic in about five minutes. That's all the time he has to work on them. He's been on the road with us working to get out the vote for Hillary and I've had the pleasure of watching him create those comics. He's tired, he draws them bam-boom-bam quickly. He spends more time coloring the letters of "The World Today Just Nuts" then he does drawing.
Trasy Arianna Huffington, who hopes money can buy respectability (don't try to convince her otherwise, only time will), was one of the first to steal that idea of a comic. She's also created a pathetic version of C.I.'s "Iraq snapshots" Monday through Friday.
Each day, her pathetic website sends C.I. an e-mail trying to get links (through the public e-mail account), each day, that goes right into the trash folder.
It's not the rip-offs that bother C.I. (C.I. will tell you, "I wish everyone would do something like the snapshot. It would get more people paying attention to Iraq.") It's her posting that attack on children with special needs. Arianna thought it was great to let a failed sitcom actor try his hand at writing comedy -- he had no gift for that but he has no gift for acting either. Maybe he can try carpentry next.
Outside of feminist issues, the issues C.I. has worked the hardest on in adult life have had to do with children, specifically special needs children, children with autism, etc. When you go after that group with 'wit' you are trash in C.I.'s book and that's what got Arianna banned from The Common Ills and community wide.
I know we were all offended by that crap she thought worthy of publishing but you have to know how seriously C.I. takes attacks on children. At one point, Jim proposed an editorial on that and C.I. said no. Sunday's "Roundtable" addressed the way the really hard hitting editorials for Third are written and that seems to have shocked some members. If we're all tired, it does come down to Jim and C.I. and the process is brutal. After it's over, the rest of us will smooth out the points (basically putting what was said into paragraph form) and C.I. will have to leave whatever room we were writing in and go for a walk (tears still streaming down the face). It does result in powerful editorials and any hard hitting one we have has largely come about that way. Jim and C.I. know the process, they're the ones doing it. Jim wants the strongest editorial possible and knows the way to go for that is to make a pitching thing between him and C.I. But the reason I mention that is that despite C.I. saying 'I'm an adult, I know how to say no.' (that's a paraphrase, check the roundtable for the quote), there has been some member hostility expressed to Jim.
As an artist I don't just understand the process or C.I.'s willingness to take part in it, I applaud it. (Jim's approaching as a journalist, C.I. as an artist.) But C.I. knows and will set limits. When Arianna's crap became known, Jim wanted an editorial about it and to focus on these children under attack. C.I. said "no." A firm "no." C.I. argued, "I already tackled that at The Common Ills, you can grab anything from that but I'm not ripping myself apart for this. It was hard to get out of bed Friday" it had been a Thursday "And the war drags on . . ." where C.I. dealt with Arianna's crap "and I'm not putting myself through that again. I walked it right to the line and I'm not going further."
We didn't write that editorial, we didn't try. C.I. will say "no" and, though Jim can and will badger with regards to their TV commentaries, if C.I. says "no" on an editorial, Jim drops it because if it's coming down to just the two of them, Jim knows how hard it will be on C.I. C.I. takes part in the process and I'd say "reluctantly" instead of "willingly," but C.I. will do it for important topics provided that the personal cost is not too high. If C.I.'s going to be in tears for hours after the editorial is written, it's not worth it. If it's something C.I. can walk off in a half-hour or a little more, C.I. will take part.
So -- never accuse me of not writing anything lengthy here -- the point of the highlight above specifically is that is amazing. The entire piece that Ava and C.I. wrote is amazing. And there are laughs throughout as well as hard hitting criticism. But to me, that section I quoted above speaks to Ava and C.I.'s intense and immense popularity with Third readers. You read it and you've got hardhitting criticism, you've got a reference (which may be over some people's head) that pulls on their liberal arts background and then you've got the joke. I took some sociology in college so I got the basics of the set-up but, honestly, I only knew the work of the first two and wasn't aware Marx (who I knew of) had also addressed conflict theory. Conflict theory dropped into a TV commentary? That's the curve ball that exceeds your expectations. You weren't expecting it, you're blown away by it if you catch it and right after the 'high brow' reference, you get the laugh.
I've mentioned or thought of/reflected upon the following while writing this:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
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,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" -- Mike just corrected me, it's C.I. and Ava's snapshot this time:
Friday, June 6, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Barack isn't 'pledging' to do anything on Iraq, the VA computer systems lack all security, Nader qualifies for Arizona ballot, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Teviah Moro (The Orillia Packet & Times) reports that the Quakers in Orillia will demonstrate tomorrow in an attempt to register their support for war resisters in Canada. Ottawa, Nelson, B.C., Victoria, B.C., Port Dover, Sarnia and Strathory will also hold demonstrations. Moro notes: "Organizers of the Orillia rally, to be held outside the Opera House from 12:30 to 1:30 p. m., aim to explain the underlying issues of the pending deportations and will have petitions on hand."The rallies will be taking place to underscore the recent action in Canada's Parliament. Tuesday Canada's House of Commons passed a motion granting war resisters safe harbor. The motion is non-binding but it is hoped that the country's prime minister, Stephen Harper, will honor it. It is especially important with regards to US war resister Corey Glass. May 21st, US war resisters and Iraq War veteran Glass was informed that he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported. That is six days from now. Will the non-binding motion prevent the conservative Harper from ordering Glass' deportation? Rick Salutin (Toronto Globe & Mail) doesn't seem optimistic noting that from an AIDS conference (global conference) to any other issue, Harper loves to say no to the people: "Lately, it's been no to a safe-injection site in Vancouver; provincial climate plans; Ontario's budget; an inquiry into the Bernier case; letting U.S. war resisters stay. For a government, the Conservatives are uniquely, bizarrely litigious, the sign of a mentality that loves to fight."With more on that, this is from Michael Werbowski (OhmyNews International) reports that the vote on the motion "comes just in time for US army recruit Corey Glass, 25, a war resister who came to Canada in 2006 and was recently told to leave Canada by June 12 or face removal to the United States, welcomed the vote. Upon hearing the news of the motion passed by the lower house, Glass expressed his appreciation for the parliamentarians, "I'm thankful that the MPs voted to let me and the other war resisters stay in Canada. I'm also thankful to all the Canadians who urged their MPs to support us."
Meanwhile, It was two years ago today, as Austin Jenkins (OPB News) notes, that Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq in June 2006. In August 2006, he faced and Article 32 hearing. In February, he faced a kanagroo court-martial. Judge Toilet (aka John Head) declared a mistrial over defense objection as Watada was about to take the stand (after which the defense would have rested and the military jury would have reached a decision). Judge Toilet forgot a lot that day. He announced that a new court-martial would take place in March but that was really beyond his call (and why no court-martial took place then). He also forgot about the US Constitution, popularly known as "the law of the land," and it's provision against double-jeopardy. In November of last year, as Judge Toilet repeatedly tried to force another court-martial, US District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled that no action could take place until the double-jeopardy was resolved. Watada has been in limbo since. William Cole (Honolulu Advertiser) speaks to Ehren's father, Bob Watada who has "suggested to his son's attorneys that they somehow force a conclusion to the issue" and whom Cole quotes stating, "The attorneys are talking to the Army. They aren't telling me what they are saying, but they are talking to them." Austin Jenkins (OPB News) quotes one of Watada's two civilian attorneys, Ken Kagan, declaring, "It's conceivable that the appeals process in the 9th Circuit could consume anywhere from 18 months to three years. So that is a limbo that is very hard for Lt. Watada to imagine but he's prepared to do what he needs to do."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Shhhh. Listen? It's the sound of hundreds of computers in Panhandle Media booting up over their sobs as they force determination to yet again sell their political crush as someone who will end the illegal war. Media anointed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is not 'anti-war' and is not seriously opposed to the illegal war. But if you didn't have Tommy Hayden, Laura Flanders and the gang lying for him non-stop, people wouldn't think otherwise, now would they? (Those two named because they have both -- in February -- talked about how Barack's feet need to be held to the fire and yet they've never done so. Someday I suppose, as the Mighty Bosstones once sang.)
The Press Trust of India reports that Barack told CNN he would "not tule out the possibility that conditions on the ground could alter his policy of immediately beginning a troop withdrawal and that Barack insisted of his 'pledge' to end the illegal war, "Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind."
Confronted with his statements on withdrawal policy, Obama replied, "Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind". He spoke of "broader perspective"s and offered praise for Gen David Petraeus. It's shocking only if you've trusted the liars of Panhandle Media. Barack has changed his position on the Iraq War repeatedly. While running for the US Senate, he told Elaine and I at a big money, private fundraiser that he didn't favor withdrawal. His attitude was that the US was in Iraq now and had to win. (Neither Elaine nor I contributed to his run. We both immediately walked out of the fundraiser.) At that point he was a myth of the radical left, an "anti-war" candidate. The press picked up on that and he became the "anti-war" Senator which required ignoring not only his public statements (his many public statements) but his continued voting for the illegal war once he got into the US Senate. Throughout the campaign, he has signaled (and sometimes stated) to the mainstream press that his stance is far from it's portrayed. "Hopelessly Devoted To Barack" Tom Hayden made a real ass out of himself doing a quickie write up of an NYT article co-written by Michael Gordon. The reality of what was what was in the transcript of the interview which the paper posted online. In February, after his advertsiments where he robotically declared that his mother died of cancer, the campaign went into overtime with an advertisement that played like the Pepsi Generation (truly, it was the late 60s and early seventies Pepsi generation commercials). To a bad 'rock' guitar, the commercial opened and featured quick shots of Barack barking out sentences while groupies swooned. "We want . . ." he barked over and over, a laundry list of demands. The Iraq War was on it. But Barack wasn't running to be "we," he was running to become the nominee of the Democratic Party and then the president. There were no "I will end the Iraq War." All he did was offer what "we" wanted. It got the psychos in Panhandle Media excited. Of course, were he serious about ending the illegal war, his campaign would have stolen not the Pepsi commercials of that period, but the Coke commericals: I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony . . .
There was no "pledge" or "promise" made to end the illegal war, despite the groupies like Tom Hayden going bug-eyed crazy in their efforts to pretend otherwise (a fleeting sentence delivered in Houston, TX, as ginned up by Hayden into a new plan for Iraq). Then came the crash and burn of his advisor (a counter-insurgency supporter and War Hawk) Samantha Power. The pathetics in Panhandle Media made themselves laughable -- and include John Nichols, Davey D and BuzzFlash at the top of that list. Poor Samantha "fired" (Power resigned) for calling Hillary Clinton a "monster." Poor sweet Sammy. No, she resigned because of the damage she did with the press in England. The "monster" insult was the trivia the MSM pumped out. On that same trip, she insulted Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK and presumed ally of the next US administration regardless of who becomes president, and she gave an interview (that Panhandle Media refused to cover) to the BBC where she explained that Barack would be not be held accountable, if elected president, to any 'pledges' about Iraq he's making on the campaign trail. She explained, as an advisor to Barack and a campaign insider, that any plans about what to do in Iraq would be decided only after he entered the White House. Had that interview gotten the attention it should have, Barack would have faced tough questions. That didn't happen. It wasn't of interest to the corporate media (which still wants the illegal war) to give it much traction and the rejects of Panhandle Media are in love with Barack because of his 'connections' (his using of) Saul, Bernardine and Bill. They deluded themselves into believing he was a Socialist when he is just a user who will use anyone regardless of political ideology in his efforts to climb to the top.
The Queen of the Beggars, Amy Goodman, wanted credit for a few minutes (two?) she aired of her speaking with Barack. In it, he basically repeated what Samantha Power had said. Goody never pursued that in panel discussions (all panel discussions accepted the lie that he was against the illegal war and would immediately end it). Goody never connected it with the Samantha Power BBC interview (though Barack was making the same points Power had months prior) and she never wrote one of her bad columns, where she recycles some segment of her show, on the topic. It was lie, lie, lie, denial, denial. They worked overtime not to include Eli Lake (New York Sun) report in the narrative. Lake reported that the "day-to-day coordinator" of Barack's campaign had just written a paper which argued for 60,000 to 80,000 US troops to remain in Iraq "as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office."
Among the very few who have tried to maintain perspective and stick to reality about War Hawk Barack are Phyllis Bennis, John Pilger, Doug Henwood and Juan Gonzalez. It's a very small list. By contrast, most have offered 'reasons' of support for Barack like the insane Dave Lindorff who believes Barack should be supported because Barak is "a black candiate who has risked jail by doing drugs."
The violence continues every day in Iraq and Barack, not even having the nomination, already signals it's a-okay with him. In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a home bombing in Sulaiman Beck, a Jalwla roadside bombing that wounded one person. Reuters notes a woman blew herself in at a Ramadi police station claiming the life of 1 police officer and injuring four more and, dropping back to Thursday, that 4 people were killed in Sadr City from a US air strike.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 suspects shot dead in Al Anbar Province, 1 police officer shot twice in Al Anbar Province and wounded and 1 civilian shot in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 3 police officers were shot dead in Dour.
Kidnappings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person kidnapped in Kirkuk.
Yesterday CNN's Jamie McIntyre broke the latest Department of Defense news on CNN Newsroom:
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Asked to resign, which is code for firing, is the top civilian in charge of the Air Force, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and the top military general in charge of the Air Force, Air Force Chief of Staff General Mike Moseley. The two top leaders of the Air Force are being replaced because Secretary Gates has received a highly critical report of how the Air Force has reacted to an embarrassing incident last year which a B-52 bomber flew across country with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that nobody knew were live nuclear weapons until the plane landed in Barksdale , Louisiana .There were supposed to be big changes made from that. But a recent inspection of the base was less than satisfactory, and Secretary Gates just got a report on his desk from an independent investigator, a Navy admiral who has been in charge of reviewing what the Air Force has done to take care of this. It's not just this issue though. There have been a number of leadership issues in the Air Force including questions about a conflict of interest around a high-profile public relations contract that was left from the Air Force. And all of that together led Secretary Gates to decide that he was going to take decisive action.It's not unlike what he did when he heard about the shortcomings at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital . In that case, he fired the Army secretary and head of the hospital there, as well -- Brianna.
There have been a number of issues with the Veterans Administration Dept as well but no heads are rolling. At the start of the week, Mary Mosquera (FCW) reported, "Sensitive data on about 1,000 patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military hospitals might have been compromised, Walter Reed spokesman Chuck Dasey said. The names of the patients, who are enrolled in the Military Health System, their Social Security numbers and birth dates were among the personally identifiable information in a computer file that was shared without authorization, officials said June 2." AP broke this news about the May 2006 breach at Walter Reed. The key point of the reports is how the Office of Management and Budget issued orders, in 2006, for increased securit on the part of the VA. But they broke it with the government explaining this week about the 2006 computer breach. We (Ava and C.I.) revealed earlier this week that there's a VA breach that took place after the breach the government is now admitting to. This breach has nothing to do with Walter Reed. The basics are that an over-forty-years-old male (who name rhymes with "Los Lobos" and who is a veteran) used a civilian computer to access veterans records. The government is not only aware of the breach, they investigated it. They didn't do a very good job. The government does not know what the person viewed or changed. They know that, from the basement of a non-federal government building, he used a PC to enter the VA's computer database without permission or authorization. Present when he did this was a woman (also a civilian and one who has never served in the military) whom the government never questioned. What the government did do was call together the suspect's superiors at his place of employment -- a four story building whose fourth floor is not used for anything (the basement counted as a floor makes for five floors) -- on the second floor in what passed for an investigation. Those civlians 'assisting' in the investigation of the breach that happened at their place of business were known as "administration." (E.g., they spoke with "administration.") The investigation could not figure out whether the supsect was telling the truth about why he entered the VA system without permission and, certainly, to know about that they should have spoken with the woman present when the breach occurred. The suspect offered two versions of his story and that may be what confused the investigators (though it was very simple for us to track down the particulars). They do know, due to the suspect admitting to it, that the records of someone who served during Vietnam (and only during Vietnam) were accessed. (Hint to reporters, that leads to your human interest angle). The suspect briefly told government investigators a story regarding that Vietnam era veteran that the investigators did not buy; however, it was easily checked out had they bothered to speak to the Vietnam veteran (which they never did). There is fear that the suspect altered the Vietnam veteran's record (we are told by civilian sources that no alteration of that record took place). Why does the government think that? It goes to the human interest angle. In terms of hard news, the angle is the "how." The "how" of it goes to a huge flaw that was supposed to have been addressed and was never addressed. It goes to lack of oversight at the VA.
We're not here to spoonfeed news outlets, get off your lazy asses and don't expect two media critics to do all your work. (It's as if today's Woodward & Bernsteins expect you not only to spill the beans, but also type up their reports and then wipe their asses.) The federal goverment made a big deal this week about honesty and 'fessed up to problems in May of 2006. The 2007 breach is more serious not because of the suspect or what he may or may not have done but how he got into the system without authorization. The breach should never happened and were basic guidelines followed (guidelines that any civilian computer system would follow), it never would have happened. The big story is the "how" of the breach, not the "who." And it goes to the OMB's orders not being followed. The first three digits of the civilian location where the breach took place are "312." The street has "East" in it. And the street's name was also the name of a long running TV show but in singular not plural. We're done spoonfeeding the press except to advise NYT that Ralph should have had this story.
This is our third (here's the second) and last spoonfeeding. After the "how," the "who" still isn't the next big story. The big story then is how the federal government attempted to bury the breach. That wasn't just by still not telling the public about it. It also included a rush to wrap up the investigation before it was complete (the orders for the wrap up came from high up). That's why the woman who witnessed the breach was never interviewed. It was that woman's computer that was used to breach the VA system. There's no reason not to interview her. All this time later, she's still not been interviewed by the government. When the investigation was ongoing, a family emergy meant she was "unaccessible" (to her place of employment but nothing prevented the investigators from seeking her out away from her place of her work) and the rush to wrap up the investigation and keep the entire matter on the down low meant she was never interviewed. The big story is the "how" and goes to the lack of security. The next angle is the rush to keep the story as quiet as possible which includes rushing through an investigation. The suspect himself is really not a huge part of the hard news story. (And the suspect, for the record, is the only person we have not spoken to.) (There are feature articles to be found throughout.)
In other news, the UN Rights of the Child Committee is calling out the US government for (a) the imprisonment of juvelines in Iraq, Afghanstan and Guantamo and for (b) military recruitment of under-18-year-olds in the US.
Turning to US political news, Team Nader reports that US presidential candidate Ralph Nader needed nearly 22,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Arizona and that over 65,000 were collected. Ralph Nader and his running mate Matt Gonzalez should now be on the ballot in Arizona -- barring any dirty tricks on the part of the DNC. Despite Nader's strong polling when his name included in the polling, there is an effort on the part of the MSM and Panhandle Media to ignore his campaign. Today, Team Nader points to another example of how the independent candidate is shut out of the discussions and argues the case for Nader-Gonzalez as the only agents of change:
"How do you get people to vote against their own self interest? That's the trick.
One way is to make people believe in a dream. That's what all of the mainstream politicians are doing - feeding that dream. Obama is feeding a dream - a dream of change and renewal. He's feeding a dream that the conditions that surround us - Iraq, the economy, the racial divide, the class divide in this country - that they are magically going to go away by voting for this centrist Democrat. That is nonsense, of course. Obama is not proposing any structural changes. McCain is feeding us the dream, the fantasy of power and control. That somehow the military might of the U.S. will prevail across the globe. These are fantasies that are being fed by the politicians. They are not so much lies, as delusions. But we will have brought it on ourselves by supporting these politicians.
By ignoring any candidate or any ideas that might conflict with those dreams. The Obama moment is a feel good moment. It makes us feel good. But the programs Obama is proposing - up and down and all around - are the same centrist Democratic positions.
The same people are going to be running the show. All of the corporations are rapidly switching their contributions to the Democrats."
These are the words of the American novelist Russell Banks.
We heard Banks the other day interviewed by Chris Lydon on Radio Open Source. (Listen to the interview here.) What wasn't mentioned was Nader/Gonzalez. So, let us say it loud and clear. Nader/Gonzalez. Shift the power from the few to the many. Free our government of corporate domination. Restore the sovereignty of an engaged people. Don't fall for the trick. Help us put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot. We're on our way to give the American people a choice in November. But we need your help. And we need it now.
You can give up to $4,600. But please, give whatever you can. Shift the power.
Feed the living, breathing people-powered alternative. Support Nader/Gonzalez.
iraqcorey glassteviah moroehren watadaaustin jenkinsrick salutinmichael werbowskiwilliam cole
cnn newsroomjamie mcintyrejohn walcott
Betsy offered, "I think sexism has definitely hindered her campaign." But, Betsy wanted the world to know, it had also rallied supporters to her. Betsy, the question was about the media -- which you're supposed to be a part of. What Betsy offered was basically a refutation of not only the work of Durkheim and Merton but also Foucault and Marx. We're sure it's the last one that will have Betsy feeling sheepish.
That's Ava and C.I. tackling Grit TV last Sunday. Mike and I got the memo. I'm joking about memo. I was part of the roundtable Thursday evening for the gina & krista round-robin. One community member participating was very angry and, when speaking, called us out for not highlighting each other more. C.I. immediately apologized (when blame's served at the table, C.I. will always grab the first slice) and was corrected with, "I'm not talking about you. You've linked to everyone this week." And C.I. had. Go back and look and you'll see C.I. provided links to all of from Sunday through the "Iraq snapshot" on Thursday. (Which went up shortly before the roundtable started.) C.I. explained that we had all put everything we had to getting out the vote for Hillary in the last weeks (four weeks for some, six weeks for others). And it was pointed out that Ava, C.I. and I hadn't even been home in over five weeks. (We really haven't. And it may be six weeks or more.) The point was that everyone was tired. And Gina and Krista added that they have heard the complaint being made all week in e-mails.
I'm the worst about replying but I do read e-mails if I get them. If anyone had told me there was a problem, I would have been doing links right away. I'm lazy even on good days but I don't ignore the community. That's not my saying, "It's your fault!" It is clearly my fault. I own that. But I want to be clear that I first heard about the problem Thursday night.
Let me explain a problem that we all have on our end (including C.I.). Blogger/Blogspot is again adding "features" and the result is that on our laptops, it keeps freezing. After my last sentence,
I grabbed a cigarette from Dona (I smoke about ten a year) and lit up waiting for when I could type again. I got three drags before I could. That's been happening to everyone and it started about three weeks ago. We pressed on for Hillary but last week, with Obama stealing the nomination (barring a convention floor flight or another Barack scandal), we were all depressed as well as tired. Not in the mood to blog but knowing full well if we didn't and said we weren't in the mood, C.I. would be filling in for us at all of our sites. Which would be pushing it off on C.I. And none of us wanted to do that. So we slogged along and did as little as possible.
There was no effort to ignore other sites in the community. We were usually all around one another. I doubt we all read what each other wrote due to that. We'd generally all be sitting down across from one another with our laptops and blogging. "I've got nothing!" "Oh, well take this!" or "I'm writing about this and I was going to write about ___ but you take it if you want it!" In that climate, with the Blogger/Blogspot problems, the end of the Hillary campaign (which hopefully is suspended and not closed), the exhuastion from being on the road non-stop (and for Ava, C.I. and myself -- double time because we weren't just on the hectic schedule to speak about Iraq, we were also working to get out the vote for Hillary -- we were doing both things and did not let Iraq fall off our speaking radar or cancel our already scheduled appearances. We were also in DC several times during the last six weeks when Ava and C.I. would go to talk to super delegates in Congress and in the DC area but not in Congress directly to make the case for Hillary.) all led to us being tired.
We apologized during the roundtable for that. Then C.I. wanted to know, since it's obvious that we all know and love each other, where the hurt was coming from because the issue was raised with what can only be described as "hurt"?
C.I.'s been ripped off three times this week. The most offensive time was by a woman. A friend of C.I.'s asked C.I. to highlight a mutual aquaintence and C.I. said, "I didn't know she had a blog. Of course I will." The friend then asked C.I. to highlight something she'd written last month on Hillary. She told C.I. about that blog post and C.I. said, "Absolutely, it will go in the snapshot." When it was time for C.I. to do links (C.I. puts in links and then saves the draft, later C.I. will call a friend who will grab dictation which is C.I. dictating around the links -- a few are added while C.I.'s dictating), searching for the site wasn't working. C.I. couldn't find the site via Google. Finally, C.I. went to ___ (a feminist periodical) and rushed through pages at that site to find something, hoping the site would be listed. It was. C.I. went to that site and went through the posts looking for the post on Hillary, found it and highlighted it.
A woman who regularly raids C.I.'s work, decided to raid it Thursday morning. She had, she informed her readers, just discovered this website and wanted to share it. It was the post that C.I. had highlighted. She hadn't just discovered it, she'd been steered to it by C.I. but although C.I. has been more than happy to link to her (she's e-mailed and asked to be linked to), she's never returned the favor. Not returning the favor is bad manners, ripping off is theft.
Here's the thing, the post was May 14th, the one C.I. linked to. She wanted her readers to believe she'd just come across, by her own research, a May 14th post. That alone was questionable.
It only got worse because she linked to the woman's old site. So did C.I. After the snapshot went up, C.I. got a call explaining, "You linked to ___'s old site. She's moved it."
C.I. apologized, explained how the site was found and said that in the next two weeks, a point will be made to link to the new site.
That's how C.I. ended up at the old site. How did the female Christopher Columbus? She ended up there because she didn't 'discover' the woman's site, she went to the linked post C.I. provided.
There were two other rip-offs and one included a blogger taking six sentences word for word as his own. But this was the one that outraged the community because here is a woman claiming to be pro-woman, claiming to also be for Hillary and yet she's stabbing C.I. in the back and ripping off C.I.
It's amazing how many show up at the public account begging for links to their stuff but they never are kind enough (or raised with manners apparently) to do a link to C.I. They want the community to come to them but they're not interested in helping anyone else.
A lot of bloggers have been linked to recently and C.I. didn't do that out of new love for bloggers. C.I. did it because the MSM was repeating that people weren't blogging about Hillary and that the interest wasn't there. C.I. was demonstrating that the interest was there.
In the process, a lot of people got links that didn't deserve them. I'll name one. Susan UnPC. I have no idea why she wrote Ruth. She said she was writing Ruth because she loved Ruth's writing. Ruth's a great writer but I think Susan was just on a fishing expedition.
If that was the case, she went home with an empty line.
We don't write anything in e-mails we wouldn't write at our sites because FAIR passed on Jess' reply to their e-mail to The Nation. (There was nothing embarrassing in the e-mail Jess wrote about him or anyone else. The e-mail did mention that we'd be doing our six month study of The Nation's poor record of publishing women.) FAIR thought they could score some brownie points by passing on an e-mail; what they didn't grasp was that C.I. has a lot of friends at The Nation and C.I. heard about Jess' reply (which C.I. never read before it went out or the days immediately after) from friends at The Nation who said, "FAIR's passed on one of your e-mails." C.I. refused to believe that FAIR would do such a thing. (C.I. never read the e-mail that FAIR had sent the public account. In that e-mail, they were passing on e-mails from a journalist. Had C.I. read that e-mail, it would have been less surprising.) So C.I. refuses to believe it and is told, "I'm forwarding it to you right now" which it was and is also read it over the phone. That was July of 2007. We don't write anything in e-mails these days that we don't want to say publicly. In August of 2007 or September, David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet (no links for trash) e-mailed Rebecca praising her site and her work and, oh, he had one question about Lennox Yearwood. Rebecca, who liked Swanson's work, was excited by the e-mail and wrote a brief reply. A little while later, she checks her account and has an e-mail from Yearwood. He's out of the country. It's an automated reply to everyone who e-mails his account. Rebecca didn't e-mail him and she's scrolling down and sees it's an automated reply to David Swanson's e-mail. David Swanson's e-mail where he's forwarding Rebecca's e-mail.
Swanson didn't realize that the automated reply had come back to Rebecca as well. When she asked him why he forwarded her e-mail, he denied it over several e-mail exchanges. He suggested she was 'emotional' and acted like the injured party. He didn't know what she was talking about, he never forwarded her e-mail!
But he did forward her e-mail and Rebecca knew he had and that he was lying because Yearwood's automated reply bounced back to her.
That's why Yearwood's never highlighted in the community, by the way. Betty, Cedric and Ty thinks he's a joke and were already on record thinking that before the forward. But when that happpened, it really hurt Rebecca's feelings. Was this something planned? Two guys got together to make fun of her? A little ha-ha at her expense?
Rebecca wrote Yearwood asking for an explanation weeks later and he never replied. So C.I. wrote for an explanation and Yearwood never replied.
I should explain that C.I. wrote Yearwood at the e-mail address from which he sends out several things to the public account of The Common Ills every week to get them highlighted. When Yearwood refused to reply, C.I. stopped highlighting him. We all have.
We'll never highlight him or his organization again. At one point, he got into some trouble with the police and C.I. had to include it because it was news but C.I. did so as briefly as possible because Yearwood is clearly no friend of the community although he's happy to use it to promote his own organization.
So, Susan UnPC, we're used to the fishing e-mails and no one's giving up s**t in one.
But Suzie writes Ruth this chatty, breezy, heavy on praise e-mail and also asks if she can use Ruth's writing about The Diane Rehm Show for something she wants to write. Ruth replies and tells her she can use anything she likes.
Needless to say, Susan UnPC never wrote about Diane Rehm's program nor did she ever reply to Ruth.
Before the e-mail, she had linked to Ruth and posted Isaiah's comic that Ruth had reposted.
Let's talk about that because Isaiah's been the comic for The Common Ills for about three years now and this is the year where everyone's trying to create their own cartoons. Isaiah is a trend setter and I don't say that sarcastically. Isaiah's immensely talented and has brought in visitors to The Common Ills.
Now everyone wants to copy him and most lack the talent but they try. At least they try. Others admit they have no talent and go to an online program where they can choose stock figures and type in captions and then try to call that a "comic."
How proud they must be!
They have no creativity. Isaiah has a real talent. He can capture a mood or moment in his comics and dash off a very convincing comic in about five minutes. That's all the time he has to work on them. He's been on the road with us working to get out the vote for Hillary and I've had the pleasure of watching him create those comics. He's tired, he draws them bam-boom-bam quickly. He spends more time coloring the letters of "The World Today Just Nuts" then he does drawing.
Trasy Arianna Huffington, who hopes money can buy respectability (don't try to convince her otherwise, only time will), was one of the first to steal that idea of a comic. She's also created a pathetic version of C.I.'s "Iraq snapshots" Monday through Friday.
Each day, her pathetic website sends C.I. an e-mail trying to get links (through the public e-mail account), each day, that goes right into the trash folder.
It's not the rip-offs that bother C.I. (C.I. will tell you, "I wish everyone would do something like the snapshot. It would get more people paying attention to Iraq.") It's her posting that attack on children with special needs. Arianna thought it was great to let a failed sitcom actor try his hand at writing comedy -- he had no gift for that but he has no gift for acting either. Maybe he can try carpentry next.
Outside of feminist issues, the issues C.I. has worked the hardest on in adult life have had to do with children, specifically special needs children, children with autism, etc. When you go after that group with 'wit' you are trash in C.I.'s book and that's what got Arianna banned from The Common Ills and community wide.
I know we were all offended by that crap she thought worthy of publishing but you have to know how seriously C.I. takes attacks on children. At one point, Jim proposed an editorial on that and C.I. said no. Sunday's "Roundtable" addressed the way the really hard hitting editorials for Third are written and that seems to have shocked some members. If we're all tired, it does come down to Jim and C.I. and the process is brutal. After it's over, the rest of us will smooth out the points (basically putting what was said into paragraph form) and C.I. will have to leave whatever room we were writing in and go for a walk (tears still streaming down the face). It does result in powerful editorials and any hard hitting one we have has largely come about that way. Jim and C.I. know the process, they're the ones doing it. Jim wants the strongest editorial possible and knows the way to go for that is to make a pitching thing between him and C.I. But the reason I mention that is that despite C.I. saying 'I'm an adult, I know how to say no.' (that's a paraphrase, check the roundtable for the quote), there has been some member hostility expressed to Jim.
As an artist I don't just understand the process or C.I.'s willingness to take part in it, I applaud it. (Jim's approaching as a journalist, C.I. as an artist.) But C.I. knows and will set limits. When Arianna's crap became known, Jim wanted an editorial about it and to focus on these children under attack. C.I. said "no." A firm "no." C.I. argued, "I already tackled that at The Common Ills, you can grab anything from that but I'm not ripping myself apart for this. It was hard to get out of bed Friday" it had been a Thursday "And the war drags on . . ." where C.I. dealt with Arianna's crap "and I'm not putting myself through that again. I walked it right to the line and I'm not going further."
We didn't write that editorial, we didn't try. C.I. will say "no" and, though Jim can and will badger with regards to their TV commentaries, if C.I. says "no" on an editorial, Jim drops it because if it's coming down to just the two of them, Jim knows how hard it will be on C.I. C.I. takes part in the process and I'd say "reluctantly" instead of "willingly," but C.I. will do it for important topics provided that the personal cost is not too high. If C.I.'s going to be in tears for hours after the editorial is written, it's not worth it. If it's something C.I. can walk off in a half-hour or a little more, C.I. will take part.
So -- never accuse me of not writing anything lengthy here -- the point of the highlight above specifically is that is amazing. The entire piece that Ava and C.I. wrote is amazing. And there are laughs throughout as well as hard hitting criticism. But to me, that section I quoted above speaks to Ava and C.I.'s intense and immense popularity with Third readers. You read it and you've got hardhitting criticism, you've got a reference (which may be over some people's head) that pulls on their liberal arts background and then you've got the joke. I took some sociology in college so I got the basics of the set-up but, honestly, I only knew the work of the first two and wasn't aware Marx (who I knew of) had also addressed conflict theory. Conflict theory dropped into a TV commentary? That's the curve ball that exceeds your expectations. You weren't expecting it, you're blown away by it if you catch it and right after the 'high brow' reference, you get the laugh.
I've mentioned or thought of/reflected upon the following while writing this:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
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,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" -- Mike just corrected me, it's C.I. and Ava's snapshot this time:
Friday, June 6, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Barack isn't 'pledging' to do anything on Iraq, the VA computer systems lack all security, Nader qualifies for Arizona ballot, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Teviah Moro (The Orillia Packet & Times) reports that the Quakers in Orillia will demonstrate tomorrow in an attempt to register their support for war resisters in Canada. Ottawa, Nelson, B.C., Victoria, B.C., Port Dover, Sarnia and Strathory will also hold demonstrations. Moro notes: "Organizers of the Orillia rally, to be held outside the Opera House from 12:30 to 1:30 p. m., aim to explain the underlying issues of the pending deportations and will have petitions on hand."The rallies will be taking place to underscore the recent action in Canada's Parliament. Tuesday Canada's House of Commons passed a motion granting war resisters safe harbor. The motion is non-binding but it is hoped that the country's prime minister, Stephen Harper, will honor it. It is especially important with regards to US war resister Corey Glass. May 21st, US war resisters and Iraq War veteran Glass was informed that he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported. That is six days from now. Will the non-binding motion prevent the conservative Harper from ordering Glass' deportation? Rick Salutin (Toronto Globe & Mail) doesn't seem optimistic noting that from an AIDS conference (global conference) to any other issue, Harper loves to say no to the people: "Lately, it's been no to a safe-injection site in Vancouver; provincial climate plans; Ontario's budget; an inquiry into the Bernier case; letting U.S. war resisters stay. For a government, the Conservatives are uniquely, bizarrely litigious, the sign of a mentality that loves to fight."With more on that, this is from Michael Werbowski (OhmyNews International) reports that the vote on the motion "comes just in time for US army recruit Corey Glass, 25, a war resister who came to Canada in 2006 and was recently told to leave Canada by June 12 or face removal to the United States, welcomed the vote. Upon hearing the news of the motion passed by the lower house, Glass expressed his appreciation for the parliamentarians, "I'm thankful that the MPs voted to let me and the other war resisters stay in Canada. I'm also thankful to all the Canadians who urged their MPs to support us."
Meanwhile, It was two years ago today, as Austin Jenkins (OPB News) notes, that Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq in June 2006. In August 2006, he faced and Article 32 hearing. In February, he faced a kanagroo court-martial. Judge Toilet (aka John Head) declared a mistrial over defense objection as Watada was about to take the stand (after which the defense would have rested and the military jury would have reached a decision). Judge Toilet forgot a lot that day. He announced that a new court-martial would take place in March but that was really beyond his call (and why no court-martial took place then). He also forgot about the US Constitution, popularly known as "the law of the land," and it's provision against double-jeopardy. In November of last year, as Judge Toilet repeatedly tried to force another court-martial, US District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled that no action could take place until the double-jeopardy was resolved. Watada has been in limbo since. William Cole (Honolulu Advertiser) speaks to Ehren's father, Bob Watada who has "suggested to his son's attorneys that they somehow force a conclusion to the issue" and whom Cole quotes stating, "The attorneys are talking to the Army. They aren't telling me what they are saying, but they are talking to them." Austin Jenkins (OPB News) quotes one of Watada's two civilian attorneys, Ken Kagan, declaring, "It's conceivable that the appeals process in the 9th Circuit could consume anywhere from 18 months to three years. So that is a limbo that is very hard for Lt. Watada to imagine but he's prepared to do what he needs to do."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Shhhh. Listen? It's the sound of hundreds of computers in Panhandle Media booting up over their sobs as they force determination to yet again sell their political crush as someone who will end the illegal war. Media anointed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is not 'anti-war' and is not seriously opposed to the illegal war. But if you didn't have Tommy Hayden, Laura Flanders and the gang lying for him non-stop, people wouldn't think otherwise, now would they? (Those two named because they have both -- in February -- talked about how Barack's feet need to be held to the fire and yet they've never done so. Someday I suppose, as the Mighty Bosstones once sang.)
The Press Trust of India reports that Barack told CNN he would "not tule out the possibility that conditions on the ground could alter his policy of immediately beginning a troop withdrawal and that Barack insisted of his 'pledge' to end the illegal war, "Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind."
Confronted with his statements on withdrawal policy, Obama replied, "Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind". He spoke of "broader perspective"s and offered praise for Gen David Petraeus. It's shocking only if you've trusted the liars of Panhandle Media. Barack has changed his position on the Iraq War repeatedly. While running for the US Senate, he told Elaine and I at a big money, private fundraiser that he didn't favor withdrawal. His attitude was that the US was in Iraq now and had to win. (Neither Elaine nor I contributed to his run. We both immediately walked out of the fundraiser.) At that point he was a myth of the radical left, an "anti-war" candidate. The press picked up on that and he became the "anti-war" Senator which required ignoring not only his public statements (his many public statements) but his continued voting for the illegal war once he got into the US Senate. Throughout the campaign, he has signaled (and sometimes stated) to the mainstream press that his stance is far from it's portrayed. "Hopelessly Devoted To Barack" Tom Hayden made a real ass out of himself doing a quickie write up of an NYT article co-written by Michael Gordon. The reality of what was what was in the transcript of the interview which the paper posted online. In February, after his advertsiments where he robotically declared that his mother died of cancer, the campaign went into overtime with an advertisement that played like the Pepsi Generation (truly, it was the late 60s and early seventies Pepsi generation commercials). To a bad 'rock' guitar, the commercial opened and featured quick shots of Barack barking out sentences while groupies swooned. "We want . . ." he barked over and over, a laundry list of demands. The Iraq War was on it. But Barack wasn't running to be "we," he was running to become the nominee of the Democratic Party and then the president. There were no "I will end the Iraq War." All he did was offer what "we" wanted. It got the psychos in Panhandle Media excited. Of course, were he serious about ending the illegal war, his campaign would have stolen not the Pepsi commercials of that period, but the Coke commericals: I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony . . .
There was no "pledge" or "promise" made to end the illegal war, despite the groupies like Tom Hayden going bug-eyed crazy in their efforts to pretend otherwise (a fleeting sentence delivered in Houston, TX, as ginned up by Hayden into a new plan for Iraq). Then came the crash and burn of his advisor (a counter-insurgency supporter and War Hawk) Samantha Power. The pathetics in Panhandle Media made themselves laughable -- and include John Nichols, Davey D and BuzzFlash at the top of that list. Poor Samantha "fired" (Power resigned) for calling Hillary Clinton a "monster." Poor sweet Sammy. No, she resigned because of the damage she did with the press in England. The "monster" insult was the trivia the MSM pumped out. On that same trip, she insulted Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK and presumed ally of the next US administration regardless of who becomes president, and she gave an interview (that Panhandle Media refused to cover) to the BBC where she explained that Barack would be not be held accountable, if elected president, to any 'pledges' about Iraq he's making on the campaign trail. She explained, as an advisor to Barack and a campaign insider, that any plans about what to do in Iraq would be decided only after he entered the White House. Had that interview gotten the attention it should have, Barack would have faced tough questions. That didn't happen. It wasn't of interest to the corporate media (which still wants the illegal war) to give it much traction and the rejects of Panhandle Media are in love with Barack because of his 'connections' (his using of) Saul, Bernardine and Bill. They deluded themselves into believing he was a Socialist when he is just a user who will use anyone regardless of political ideology in his efforts to climb to the top.
The Queen of the Beggars, Amy Goodman, wanted credit for a few minutes (two?) she aired of her speaking with Barack. In it, he basically repeated what Samantha Power had said. Goody never pursued that in panel discussions (all panel discussions accepted the lie that he was against the illegal war and would immediately end it). Goody never connected it with the Samantha Power BBC interview (though Barack was making the same points Power had months prior) and she never wrote one of her bad columns, where she recycles some segment of her show, on the topic. It was lie, lie, lie, denial, denial. They worked overtime not to include Eli Lake (New York Sun) report in the narrative. Lake reported that the "day-to-day coordinator" of Barack's campaign had just written a paper which argued for 60,000 to 80,000 US troops to remain in Iraq "as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office."
Among the very few who have tried to maintain perspective and stick to reality about War Hawk Barack are Phyllis Bennis, John Pilger, Doug Henwood and Juan Gonzalez. It's a very small list. By contrast, most have offered 'reasons' of support for Barack like the insane Dave Lindorff who believes Barack should be supported because Barak is "a black candiate who has risked jail by doing drugs."
The violence continues every day in Iraq and Barack, not even having the nomination, already signals it's a-okay with him. In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a home bombing in Sulaiman Beck, a Jalwla roadside bombing that wounded one person. Reuters notes a woman blew herself in at a Ramadi police station claiming the life of 1 police officer and injuring four more and, dropping back to Thursday, that 4 people were killed in Sadr City from a US air strike.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 suspects shot dead in Al Anbar Province, 1 police officer shot twice in Al Anbar Province and wounded and 1 civilian shot in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 3 police officers were shot dead in Dour.
Kidnappings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person kidnapped in Kirkuk.
Yesterday CNN's Jamie McIntyre broke the latest Department of Defense news on CNN Newsroom:
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Asked to resign, which is code for firing, is the top civilian in charge of the Air Force, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and the top military general in charge of the Air Force, Air Force Chief of Staff General Mike Moseley. The two top leaders of the Air Force are being replaced because Secretary Gates has received a highly critical report of how the Air Force has reacted to an embarrassing incident last year which a B-52 bomber flew across country with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that nobody knew were live nuclear weapons until the plane landed in Barksdale , Louisiana .There were supposed to be big changes made from that. But a recent inspection of the base was less than satisfactory, and Secretary Gates just got a report on his desk from an independent investigator, a Navy admiral who has been in charge of reviewing what the Air Force has done to take care of this. It's not just this issue though. There have been a number of leadership issues in the Air Force including questions about a conflict of interest around a high-profile public relations contract that was left from the Air Force. And all of that together led Secretary Gates to decide that he was going to take decisive action.It's not unlike what he did when he heard about the shortcomings at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital . In that case, he fired the Army secretary and head of the hospital there, as well -- Brianna.
There have been a number of issues with the Veterans Administration Dept as well but no heads are rolling. At the start of the week, Mary Mosquera (FCW) reported, "Sensitive data on about 1,000 patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military hospitals might have been compromised, Walter Reed spokesman Chuck Dasey said. The names of the patients, who are enrolled in the Military Health System, their Social Security numbers and birth dates were among the personally identifiable information in a computer file that was shared without authorization, officials said June 2." AP broke this news about the May 2006 breach at Walter Reed. The key point of the reports is how the Office of Management and Budget issued orders, in 2006, for increased securit on the part of the VA. But they broke it with the government explaining this week about the 2006 computer breach. We (Ava and C.I.) revealed earlier this week that there's a VA breach that took place after the breach the government is now admitting to. This breach has nothing to do with Walter Reed. The basics are that an over-forty-years-old male (who name rhymes with "Los Lobos" and who is a veteran) used a civilian computer to access veterans records. The government is not only aware of the breach, they investigated it. They didn't do a very good job. The government does not know what the person viewed or changed. They know that, from the basement of a non-federal government building, he used a PC to enter the VA's computer database without permission or authorization. Present when he did this was a woman (also a civilian and one who has never served in the military) whom the government never questioned. What the government did do was call together the suspect's superiors at his place of employment -- a four story building whose fourth floor is not used for anything (the basement counted as a floor makes for five floors) -- on the second floor in what passed for an investigation. Those civlians 'assisting' in the investigation of the breach that happened at their place of business were known as "administration." (E.g., they spoke with "administration.") The investigation could not figure out whether the supsect was telling the truth about why he entered the VA system without permission and, certainly, to know about that they should have spoken with the woman present when the breach occurred. The suspect offered two versions of his story and that may be what confused the investigators (though it was very simple for us to track down the particulars). They do know, due to the suspect admitting to it, that the records of someone who served during Vietnam (and only during Vietnam) were accessed. (Hint to reporters, that leads to your human interest angle). The suspect briefly told government investigators a story regarding that Vietnam era veteran that the investigators did not buy; however, it was easily checked out had they bothered to speak to the Vietnam veteran (which they never did). There is fear that the suspect altered the Vietnam veteran's record (we are told by civilian sources that no alteration of that record took place). Why does the government think that? It goes to the human interest angle. In terms of hard news, the angle is the "how." The "how" of it goes to a huge flaw that was supposed to have been addressed and was never addressed. It goes to lack of oversight at the VA.
We're not here to spoonfeed news outlets, get off your lazy asses and don't expect two media critics to do all your work. (It's as if today's Woodward & Bernsteins expect you not only to spill the beans, but also type up their reports and then wipe their asses.) The federal goverment made a big deal this week about honesty and 'fessed up to problems in May of 2006. The 2007 breach is more serious not because of the suspect or what he may or may not have done but how he got into the system without authorization. The breach should never happened and were basic guidelines followed (guidelines that any civilian computer system would follow), it never would have happened. The big story is the "how" of the breach, not the "who." And it goes to the OMB's orders not being followed. The first three digits of the civilian location where the breach took place are "312." The street has "East" in it. And the street's name was also the name of a long running TV show but in singular not plural. We're done spoonfeeding the press except to advise NYT that Ralph should have had this story.
This is our third (here's the second) and last spoonfeeding. After the "how," the "who" still isn't the next big story. The big story then is how the federal government attempted to bury the breach. That wasn't just by still not telling the public about it. It also included a rush to wrap up the investigation before it was complete (the orders for the wrap up came from high up). That's why the woman who witnessed the breach was never interviewed. It was that woman's computer that was used to breach the VA system. There's no reason not to interview her. All this time later, she's still not been interviewed by the government. When the investigation was ongoing, a family emergy meant she was "unaccessible" (to her place of employment but nothing prevented the investigators from seeking her out away from her place of her work) and the rush to wrap up the investigation and keep the entire matter on the down low meant she was never interviewed. The big story is the "how" and goes to the lack of security. The next angle is the rush to keep the story as quiet as possible which includes rushing through an investigation. The suspect himself is really not a huge part of the hard news story. (And the suspect, for the record, is the only person we have not spoken to.) (There are feature articles to be found throughout.)
In other news, the UN Rights of the Child Committee is calling out the US government for (a) the imprisonment of juvelines in Iraq, Afghanstan and Guantamo and for (b) military recruitment of under-18-year-olds in the US.
Turning to US political news, Team Nader reports that US presidential candidate Ralph Nader needed nearly 22,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Arizona and that over 65,000 were collected. Ralph Nader and his running mate Matt Gonzalez should now be on the ballot in Arizona -- barring any dirty tricks on the part of the DNC. Despite Nader's strong polling when his name included in the polling, there is an effort on the part of the MSM and Panhandle Media to ignore his campaign. Today, Team Nader points to another example of how the independent candidate is shut out of the discussions and argues the case for Nader-Gonzalez as the only agents of change:
"How do you get people to vote against their own self interest? That's the trick.
One way is to make people believe in a dream. That's what all of the mainstream politicians are doing - feeding that dream. Obama is feeding a dream - a dream of change and renewal. He's feeding a dream that the conditions that surround us - Iraq, the economy, the racial divide, the class divide in this country - that they are magically going to go away by voting for this centrist Democrat. That is nonsense, of course. Obama is not proposing any structural changes. McCain is feeding us the dream, the fantasy of power and control. That somehow the military might of the U.S. will prevail across the globe. These are fantasies that are being fed by the politicians. They are not so much lies, as delusions. But we will have brought it on ourselves by supporting these politicians.
By ignoring any candidate or any ideas that might conflict with those dreams. The Obama moment is a feel good moment. It makes us feel good. But the programs Obama is proposing - up and down and all around - are the same centrist Democratic positions.
The same people are going to be running the show. All of the corporations are rapidly switching their contributions to the Democrats."
These are the words of the American novelist Russell Banks.
We heard Banks the other day interviewed by Chris Lydon on Radio Open Source. (Listen to the interview here.) What wasn't mentioned was Nader/Gonzalez. So, let us say it loud and clear. Nader/Gonzalez. Shift the power from the few to the many. Free our government of corporate domination. Restore the sovereignty of an engaged people. Don't fall for the trick. Help us put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot. We're on our way to give the American people a choice in November. But we need your help. And we need it now.
You can give up to $4,600. But please, give whatever you can. Shift the power.
Feed the living, breathing people-powered alternative. Support Nader/Gonzalez.
iraqcorey glassteviah moroehren watadaaustin jenkinsrick salutinmichael werbowskiwilliam cole
cnn newsroomjamie mcintyrejohn walcott
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)