and, yes, as elaine noted last night, i did love those beach party movies.
something else i love is john mccain calling barack out in the following video - calling out barack and the media.
someone asked in an e-mail why naomi wolf was banished?
wolf was 'banished' from all sites because she drank the kool-aid and offered a dumb ass column that had no reflection on reality.
she made a perfect fool of herself and no one said that at the time, we just waived goodbye to her as we drove away.
she wrote an idiotic column that she should be asked now to justify.
it was full of all the lies that panhandle media was pimping for barack.
shame on naomi wolf.
We're not interested in her organization. We're not interested in her.
she knew how to recycle the barack talking points. didn't matter that if she'd done any bit of examination, she'd have quickly grasped how empty that crap was.
she's just another woman who sold out women, if you ask me.
after dithering on for 19 paragraphs to a column entitled "Why Barack Got My Vote," wolf finally gets to the point:
What is leadership? Leadership means getting out in front of where people are and waking them up. Right now, given these violent possible threats to us and our families, we are sleeping.
Which is why I am formally coming out of the closet with my support for Senator Barack Obama. Of all the candidates running now, he is the leader on understanding the threat to the Constitution and actually taking action, not just mouthing soundbites, on the need to deny torturers space in our nation and to restore the rule of law.
he understands the threats to the constitution, naomi? you want to stand by that after the fisa cave? what an idiot naomi wolf was. i hope she at least wrote this with damp panties, it would be a shame to think she played virginal schoolgirl and stupid at the same time.
“Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama,” read a recent headline on the Boston Globe’s political blog. In the article, reporter Charlie Savage notes that “More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration’s detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to ‘restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.’”
oh, attorneys believe he's the best choice. well, hey, wonderful. now most of those gitmo lawyers have done nothing. they should have gone public with the crimes taking place. instead, they did nothing. the reality is that lindsey graham called out some aspects of gitmo. barack didn't do a damn thing, never does. but some guys and gals got moist in their shorts for barack and that was good enough for naomi. when you're not mature to make up your own mind and do your own research, you rush to find an endorsement that can tell you how to make up your mind.
she then lies for bambi. she also leaves out the fact that he called out dick durbin when durbin noted guantamano and secret prisons were nothing but gulags. she wishes Bambi was as brave as she thinks/thought. but hey, hillary was for gitmo, right? oops. even naomi couldn't tell that lie:
Senator Clinton also opposed the law. In 2006 she said: “If enacted, this law would give license to this Administration to pick people up off the streets of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charges and without legal recourse.” She gets the danger; many of her colleagues do too. But this issue requires bold language and action. Senator Clinton has not foregrounded the issue of the subversion of the rule of law in her appearances or speeches; and I am very VERY sorry to say that she did not oppose torture until she opposed it.
she did not oppose torture until she opposed it. what a load of crap. naomi wolf did not lose her virginit until she lost it. that sentence makes about as much sense as the crap naomi offered does. what a dumb ass. here's the thing, naomi, if i'm drowning in the ocean and someone tries to rescue me, I'm not going to ask, "why didn't you show up five minutes ago!"
I say this with regret: She and her husband really know how to run a country; they delivered eight years of peace and prosperity. I know her to be a skilled politician and motivated by sincere love of country. Mrs. Clinton would be a terrific executive — in a stable democracy. But that is not enough right now. These are times that should try men’s souls — and women’s also. In a closing society, a leader has to be willing to face down evil, engage it and call it by its name.
Remember: when activists started to push hard to raise awareness of the dangers of torture and indefinite detention, many on the Hill were scared to join the fight because it was then politically unpopular. But to me, if you are not really against torture — always and under every political change in climate, and let us note that former torture victim and prisoner of war John McCain shamefully dropped his fight against the torture loopholes in the law as well — then you are not really, in my view, fit to be an American President.
whatever, naomi. your panties got wet, you drank the kool-aid, you listened to too many of your new radical (closeted communist) friends.
she says she's voting for barack because "he is the only one on these issues who has consistently acted like a true American." a true american. naomi thinks she's auditioning for high school civics. well, naomi, explain to us how a true american gives immunity to the telecoms?
barack had no record. but he made naomi's heart race and her panties wet.
she then wrote:
And if I hear — as I am likely to — from legions of US feminists outraged at me for choosing this man over that woman, I will gladly sit down and explain why I am certain that these issues are so urgent that they overshadow absolutely everything else.
naomi, i doubt you heard from any 1. no really gives a damn about you. you had your racist moment in fire with fire and then you went off to write about sex and got ridiculed for it, showed up with that lame book on the plight of motherhood for women with nannies and husbands who are big bread winners. that book didn't sell. that book was the nail in her publishing career and the reason she had to do a make over.
naomi put another nail in her career by endorsing barack. and this will always haunt her:
Anyway, the man is a feminist; he has a woman-friendly policy vision. And while it would be a thrill to see the first woman elected President, in the last analysis, a real feminist need not define people or support on the basis of gender. Certainly not when our house — with the precious Constitution held without representation within it — is burning down.
barack is a feminist? really? men dismissing women reporters with 'sweetie' is feminism? men saying women 'feeling blue' have abortions is feminism? men who announce homophobes will be at a campaign event, who ignore protests from gay rights groups and go through with it, who let the homophobes spew their hatred from the stage are feminists?
sorry, naomi fool wolf, barack used homophobia in south carolina long before you endorsed him. the fact that you chose to ignore it or were too damn stupid to know about it is no excuse.
naomi stabbed women in the back and probably did so because her only real audience was men. that was true for most of the 90s as well. she was 1 of those 'women we love' for esquire magazine.
naomi's getting a little long in the tooth and that hairdo only emphasizes the lines on her face. she's already been replaced with younger, prettier models. it's a shame the author of the beauty myth fell into the trap of campaigning for the male gaze. but, as c.i. has always pointed out, naomi never credited judith n. sklar for the beauty myth and a lot of that book seriously borrows from sklar's lectures.
i don't think any 1 caught that in real time. not even naomi-hating camille.
you had to have an actual education to grasp it. c.i. did and grasped it.
maybe some day, others familiar with sklar's work - including the book c.i. gave everyone based on sklar's lectures at oxford - will ask naomi why she didn't give credit? lectures at oxford. where was naomi when she wrote that book? oh, right, oxford.
naomi's lucky that c.i. likes her (and that i'm not the analyst c.i. is) because otherwise, she wouldn't have been left at the curb, c.i. would have thrown the car into reverse and backed over her.
this is the nader-gonzalez position on 'Energy:'
Nader/Gonzalez would no longer subsidize entrenched oil, nuclear, electric, coal mining, and biofuel interests.
Instead, Nader/Gonzalez would invest in an energy policy that is efficient, sustainable and environmentally friendly.
Nader/Gonzalez would invest in a diversified and proven energy policy including renewable energies like wind and other solar power.
The American people have been held hostage for too long by the oil, coal and atomic power industries.
Over seventy percent of our petroleum is now imported at a cost of $600 billion a year – the highest rate of dependency ever.
The nuclear power industry is demanding 100 percent federal government loan guarantees because Wall Street won't loan the money for new nuclear plants without those taxpayer guarantees.
We are long overdue for the changes that need to be made.
Nader/Gonzalez would:
-
End subsidies of entrenched oil, nuclear, & coal interests.
-
Curtail price gouging with strict law enforcement.
-
Invest heavily in renewable energies, including solar and wind technologies.
-
Invest in more efficient homes, automobiles, businesses and government facilities.
-
Put renewable energy before the wasteful corn ethanol.
Last year Big Oil made record profits. The price of oil has quadrupled since Bush took office and the distribution of wealth has become more polarized.
A new clean energy paradigm means more jobs, more efficiency, greater security and energy independence, environmental protection and increased health for all people.
Nader/Gonzalez will work to create an energy policy that is in the best interest of all the people and the environment we share.
Nader/Gonzalez would cut corporate welfare programs propping up the corn ethanol industry.
From the beginning, Ralph Nader has been opposed to the subsidized ethanol industry as inefficient, environmentally damaging, inflationary, and as the primary fuel sustaining the corporate welfare kings.
In September 17, 2004, the Des Moines Register article reported that Nader took on the ethanol industry while he was campaigning in Iowa.
In April 2008, Nader was in Illinois telling students that corn ethanol is devouring huge acreage, shortening the supply of wheat, soy and other food, and resulting in the increased prices being seen in the U.S. and abroad.
Historically, food prices have been a source of consumer revolt. It has toppled governments in other countries.
It takes as much or more energy to create corn ethanol -- the ethanol includes the burning of coal -- than the energy actually derived from the ethanol.
The production of one gallon of ethanol requires between three and four gallons of water. In a world already plagued with water shortages, this is simply unsustainable.
Since February 2006, the price of corn, wheat and soybeans has increased by more than 240 percent. The price of corn has gone from $1.86 a bushel at the end of 2005 to $4 in 2007 to nearly $6 today.
This dubious “food to energy” policy does the American people no good.
This is hardly a green technology, and it is certainly not sustainable.
As the Berkeley Chemical Engineer Tad Patzek puts it, “in terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution -- it has the highest energy cost with the least benefit."
References:
barack is beloved by the nuclear industry. a fact naomi omitted from her endorsement of him.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, July 22, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, another journalist is announced dead, Barack sucks up all the time with his Gidget Goes To Europe and the MidEast, John McCain calls it out, and more.
Starting with war resistance, July 15th Robin Long's case was noted on CNN's The Situation Room (here for transcript):
Wolf Blitzer: Americans seeking to dodge the Vietnam War have found a have in Canada. Many began new lives there. But, now, right now, times have changed. Brian Todd is working the story for us. Brian, it's a different situation for what we're calling the Iraq War generation.
Brian Todd: It certainly is, Wolf. This one case of an American deserter being handed over turning this theory on its ear, the idea that Canada is an unqualified haven for American deserters. It's the kind of history Robin Long probably wishes he wasn't making. He is believed to be the first American deserter during the Iraq War handed back to the U.S. military by the Canadian government. During the Vietnam War, Canada was haven for US draft dodgers and deserters. In this case, a Canadian judge ruled that Long didn't adequately prove he would suffer irreparable harm if he returned to the United States. The leader of a Canadian war resisters group that had supported Long is frustrated.
Unidentified Male: I don't think there's any doubt that someone who has been up in Canada and a vocal opponent of the war will be treated harsly by the American military.
Brian Todd: Long, who had trained as a tank commander, took off from Fort Carson, Colorado, to avoid serving in Iraq. Even though he had volunteered for the army, his attorney told the court that Long became disillusioned over the mistratment of Iraqi detainees and by the fact that no weapons of mass destruction had been found. In nearly three years in Canada, he fathered a child, was turned down for refugee status last year, and was arrested recently for not checking in as required with border officials. Commanders at Fort Carson will now decide his fate. They can court-martial him, give him a less than honorable discharge, or even reassign him. A former military lawyer who has defended and prosecuted deserters says the first option is the most likely.
Unidentified male: I do believe that he is going to be most likely court-martialed in this instance. The fact that he has been vocal, not to say that they would infringe on his First Amendment right to state his case or his objections, but rather his stated reason for leaving, to avoid service in Iraq, is going to be sort of the threshold issue for the legal authorities.
Brian Todd: But experts say US military officials may also be thinking about deterrence here, sending a signal to others thinking of deserting that prison time could await them and Canada may not be so receptive to harboring them in the future. If he's court-martialed and convicted, Robin Long could get up to five years in prison. Wolf?
Wolf Blitzer: Do we have any idea how many deserters are in Canada?
Brian Todd: The leader of this war resistance group in Canada who we talked to today about this says that there are about 50 who they know of. But they say there are hundreds more they think who are living underground in Canada. You can believe this case is probably going to keep them underground.
Wolf Blitzer: I believe it. Brian, thank you.
Hasan Arif (Telegraph Journal) notes the above report and it's a shame more in Canada didn't catch it because they might have learned something. Take the laughable editorial board of Kamplops This Week: "Every one of these American citizens voluntarily joined the military. Not one was drafted. . . . These are not the draft dodgers of the Vietnam War era, the young men who had no choice in whether they wished to fight the Vietcong." Happy to flaunt their ignorance of Canadian history. The draft wasn't an issue in the decision during Vietnam and Canada welcomed dodgers and deserters. Deserters were not required to swear they had been drafted and not enlisted on their own. It wasn't an issue. And little Billy Bulter is eager to flaunt his ignorance to The Orillia Packet & Times insisting that (a) the term "war resister" (a historical and well used in the last century by the MSM) is not accurate, that anyone can become a CO very easily (Willie Boy, tell them your stupidity is here) and that the war resisters "joined the military"! We don't normally provide links to trash but the 'movement' needs to take some damn accountablity. These are the arguments that should never have been made but too many in the 'movement' didn't know their own facts or didn't want to tell it. They have created this straw-man argument that has no basis in today's reality by refusing to point out that deserters were welcomed in Canada during Vietnam. There was never a need for any of this nonsense.
No one in the world needed to hear Tom Hayden yack on and on endlessly in interviews about his 'invasive' physical. (Tom Hayden never served in the US military. He was not a draft dodger. He was not a deserter. He had no 'war story' so he went to town on a physical and, as Rebecca noted, Tom needs to put his feet in some stirrups before he next whines about 'invasive' physicals.) Tom-Tom couldn't shut up about the draft. Even though it has nothing to do with today's illegal war. He was 'helping' war resisters today . . . by throwing out crap from his past that had no bearing on reality. No one needed it. All it did was let some who barely pay attention fixate on "Draft Dodgers! You hear him, Ma! But there's no draft today!" Tom-Tom, the patron saint of the yokels. Across the border a number need to take accountability and start working on addressing reality. Unless they're goal is for the 'movement' to repeatedly be undermined with meaningless cries of "There is no draft!" Someone in Canada speaking truth is University of British Columbia's Canadian Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, Dr. Michael Byers, who explains to Am Johal (IPS), "Canada also extradited Robin Long, a U.S. war resister, who did not want to take part in possible war crimes. This is a very different role than Canada played during Vietnam." Extradition is the only term to describe what Judge Anne Mctavish oversaw and ordered for Robin Long.
To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."
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).
Reuters notes "an Iraqi journalist working for a Kudrish magazine" was shot dead in Kirkuk Monday and 5 people wounded in shootings in Haswa while Tirkit was the site of an attack today "on the convoy of Khalid Burhan, head of health office of Salahudding province" that left his guards wounded. The journalist was Soran Mamhama. He was 23-years-old and AP states he worked for the "magazine Leven and often covered government corruption." Reporters Without Borders issued a statement condeming the murder and stated, "We call on the Kudristan authorities to carry out a thorough investigation into the circumstances of Hama's murder. He wrote hard-hitting articles about local politicians and security officials and had received threats from people telling him to stop his investigative reporting. The authorities should therefore give priority to the theory that he was killed because of his work." Xinhua notes Soran was shot dead outside his home and quotes Journalist Freedoms Observatory's Ziyad al-Ajili stating, "The first step to halt the assassinations against journalists is to capture those culprits." Iran's Press TV quotes Latif Satih Faraj (Kurdish Journalists Union in Kirkuk) stating, "If the government can't protect Kurdish journalists in Kirkuk, we might adviste them to withdraw from this city." Iraq's The Window reports Leveen is calling for an investigation and that "Leveen, which is an independent Kurdish magazine founded 6 years ago in Sulaimani, is known as a muckraking journal in Kurdistan and Iraq."
Not much Iraq news? Of course, not Barack's sucking up all the limited coverage with his photo-ops passed off as news. It's like he's gone to Europe and the MidEast to FaceBook in real. Said Rifai and Saif Rasheed (Los Angeles Times) were among the few brave enough to report the realities:
But on government-sponsored Al Iraqiya television Monday, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee received second billing to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's departure for Europe. Only Al Hurra, the U.S.-sponsored channel, led with the story.
The situation has been similar on the streets of Baghdad, where Obama's visit has been duly noted but is not the No. 1 thing on people's minds.Iraqis tend to be jaundiced about American politics and skeptical that the differences between the presidential candidates have anything to do with them.
"If either McCain or Obama visits Iraq, it would be for campaign purposes, and therefore at this point in time it won't have any effect on the situation in Iraq," said Khalil Ibrahim, 34, a perfume shop owner.
We're now on the US race for president. Susan (Random Notes) observes of self-loathing lesbian (which would make her a Barack supporter) Donna Brazile: "It was people like you who created the situation in the first place by not fully seating or stripping Clinton delegates from Florida and Michigan, by not apologizing for the filthy, race-baiting campaign 'Obama' ran, for not admitting 'Obama' didn't have the majority of the popular vote, for not allowing Clinton to take the contest all the way to the convention, and for not condemning the smears by the attack dogs from the media and the 'progressive' blogosphere for creating the rift." Susan's referring to closet case Donna's attempt to do a reach-around on female Hillary supporters. Back off Donna Brazile, you Bob Packwood-wanna-be, no one wants your greasy, filthy, corporatists hands on them. She really thinks after her infamous e-mail regarding Hillary supporters ("Message to the base: stay home") that any Hillary supporter gives a damn what she says? Donna, the loudmouth trash she was born as and will die as, is now penning such tough-talk as, "How many ways do these Hillary delegates, voters and supporters need to hear it before they get it?" LSekhmet (Alegre's Corner) calls out Donna's latest lies, "We're angry because the nomination was stolen from the rightful winner -- we're angry because the winner of the popular vote has been hindered, not helped -- we're angry that a man who truly isn't read to be President at this time has been propped up by the DNC and the Democratic Party as a whole. And most especially, we're angry at the supposition that we only have two choices in the fall election -- Obama or McCain, neither of whom are acceptable." That is offensive and someone might try explaining that to Philip Maldari who declared on KPFA's The Morning Show today of the next president, "whether it's McCain or Obama" . . . This was when KPFA brought on a Democratic Congress member to schill for Barack. That was really cute -- and so fair! It's really not Philip's role to decide who will be president. His role is co-host of a morning chat show. This was followed by a roundtable for the next segment where you had two Barack supporters and one that you didn't know. Didn't know because Aimee Allison (hopefully unintentionally) cut him off just as he started to reject the notion of voting "the lesser of two evils." Kevin Zeese thinks petitions will get Barack to change his views. He thinks if there's a mass exodus of support for Barack to Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader that it will force Barack to change. At which point, what? By Zeese's 'logic,' people go running back to Barack. Kevin Zeese is the perfect example of why third parties struggle. Zeese supports them and has done tremendous work on campaigns in the past. However, when it's time to talk, third party and independent candidates do not exist for their own qualifications and merits. In Zeese's world -- as stated on The Morning Show today -- they exist solely to blackmail the Democratic Party within the midst of an election. When you 'cast' them as supporting characters, it is very hard for third party and independent candidates to assume lead roles. People like Zeese need to start demonstrating some awareness that they keep the two-party system going. And KPFA needs to grasp that bringing on a Democratic member of Congress to try to assure the Bay Area that Barack's-plenty-liberal-not-everyone's-as-liberal-as-we-are is not only nonsense it's the sort of garbage we'd expect from Rush Limbaugh. And if that point is not clear, we then got the Barack delegate to the DNC, Norman Solomon. That is what he is now. He is not a media critic. And he does not belong on KPFA as an 'objective' observer. It was shameful that, well into the roundtable, Norman told listeners he was a Barack delegate ("like Barbara Lee!" he insisted hiding behind Lee's skirts). That disclosure was required to be made at the top of the roundtable and Aimee Allison should have made it. In no way did The Morning Show offer anything that justified their free use of the public airwaves. (While begging yet again for more money.)
If you're not grasping, that nonsense on KPFA (or take the crap Democracy Now! squeezed out this morning) is exactly why people see the media as in the tank for Barack. Gary Chapel Hill (The Confluence) writes of the recent Rasmussen poll which found that the number of voters who "believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage" rose 5% since June to reach 49%. 49%? That figure is appalling. Journalists are not supposed to be seen as biased. That the figure has climbed to 49% should be a wake up call for those working in Real Media (there's no hope for Panhandle Media -- they're all in that because they couldn't get work in Real Media). Only 24% believe they can expect unbiased coverage. That is APPALLING and it is an indictment of the media. (14% belived the media "will try to help" McCain). Don't dismiss that 49% with, "That's all Republicans!" 27% of Democrats feel the media is attempting to put Barack into the White House. Those respondents not self-identifying with either of the two major parties? 50% of swing voters "see a pro-Obama bias". This is an indictment of the media. With Congress and the White House already polling so low, you'd think the usual gatekeepers would come out loudly insisting that the media at least pretend independence.
This takes place as they're lead around by their rings in their noses. Campsunk (Alegre's Corner) posts the video of NBC News's Andrea Mitchell on Hardball explaining of Barack's for-show campaign stops outside the US, "He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't have a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in, you're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews by a journalist. So there's a real press issue here." Indeed. AlwaysforHillary (which is now supporting McCain in the general) exclaims, "It seems practically every news person flew to be with 'the Holly One' to get interviews with the Messiah! Maybe Obama will replace LOURDES and people with disabilities and illnesses can get blessed and have their problems disappear by touching the ANOINTED ONE!! DISGUSTING!!" It truly is and Jeremy Pelofsky's little jabs at McCain's calling it out ("Is the media in love with Obama?" -- Reuters) don't make the media look independent. Elizabeth Rauber (San Francisco Business Times) reports that not only is McCain calling it out, the campaign has created a video entitled "Obama Love." Click here to see the videos at the McCain site -- two with different songs and you can vote for which you enjoy best. The one set to "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" is currently leading over "My Eyes Adored You."
Back to the Idiot Brazile with her "It's Barack or John!" nonsense. "The central issue of this election is not Barack Obama versus John McCain. The central issue is the future of the Democratic Party," Democrat Violet Socks (Reclusive Leftist) explains, "Young feminists, for example: they say things like, "but don't you know that Republicans are anti-choice?" Yes, dears; that's the point. Republicans are anti-choice, which is exactly why it's so important that Democrats continue be pro-choice -- and pro-women's rights, pro-Fourth Amendment, pro-separation of church and state, pro-health care, pro everything that the Republicans are against. That's why we're trying to keep Barack Obama from taking over the party. I'm willing to lose one election if it means ejecting him and getting our party back to its values."
Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, his running mate is Matt Gonzalez. They are adding events to their busy schedule. Times given are the times in those areas. Friday at noon, Nader will be in Columbia, South Carolina for a lunch, at 5:30 on Friday (25th) a Nader for President rally will be held at the University of Georgia, at 8:00 p.m. (still Friday), in Atlanta there will be an "Evening with Ralph Nader." Saturday (26th) Ralph will be at Lemuria Bookstore in Jackson, MS for a book signing and speech, two hours later (still in Jackson) he'll be do another "Evening with Ralph Nader." Sunday (27th) he and Matt Gonzalez hit Texas. First up, Hilton University of Houston where they will speak at 2:00 p.m. Then they head to Austin for an event at the Trinity United Methodist Church. Information about those events and others can be found here. W. Gardner Selby (Postcards From The Ledge) reports on the upcoming Austin event. Meanwhile Richard Winger (Ballot Access News) reports that the Sixth Circuit hear arguments today in Nader v. Blackwell about the efforts of the then-Ohio state secretary Kenneth Blackwell to limit ballot access in 2004 and Winger points out, "Ralph Nader is unique in the history of U.S. ballot access, for trying to redress wrongs that were done to him and his voters. Other presidential candidates who were kept off ballots, such as Henry Wallace in 1948, Eugene McCarthy in 1976, and John Anderson in 1980, were content to fight to keep themselves on various ballots. But they never took legal action of their own after the election to redress harms they had suffered. Only Nader has done that, most notably in his lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, plus his complaint against the DNC filed with the Federal Election Commission, and also this particular Ohio lawsuit." Meanwhile Dandelion Salad has posted video of Matt Gonzalez speaking to the National Lation Congresso on July 18th. Among the issues addressed at the national meetup was starting a five-million-dollar, non-partisan voting effort: "Bolstered by a recent study conducted by the William C. Velasquez Institute that found more than one million new Latino voters registered to vote during this primary season, convening organizations of the National Latino Congreso will use the third annual gathering to launch a massive voter registration and get-out-the-vote effort geared at adding an additional 1-2 million new Latino voters to the rolls in time to vote in November's election." Southwest Voter Registration Education Project president Antonio Gonzalez explained, "Latino leaders will use this gathering to organize and fund-raise to launch a massive nonpartisan voter mobilization campaign. Already more than 10 million Latinos are registered to vote in America, and our efforts will help drive that number up to between 11 and 12 million."
