i called elaine at 6 my time (she's at c.i.'s so she's in pst zone while i'm in est). she filled me in on how mad c.i. was over a jerk-ass who e-mailed (from canada - 1 of the 'helpers' doing so damage today) c.i. accusing c.i. of all this crap. we had a bet and elaine won. i said, 'i know c.i., there's no way there's going to be a snapshot today.' elaine shot back she knows c.i. as well and she bets that there will be 1 late, late tonight. she called a little while ago and said, 'you lost.'
i did and that's fine. but idiot 'helpers' in canada better take note, c.i.'s the only 1 pushing war resisters regularly online. find another website. piss off c.i. and not only do you lose that, you'll also lose c.i.'s friends in the press. i think a little dumb ass who lied and pretended to be a democratic found that in april when her love-in, set to get some big media attention, ended up with zilch. when it comes to media attention from real media, c.i. giveth and c.i. can taketh away.
elaine was telling me about the e-mail (including who it was from and i would love to give his name here but i'll be kind). who the hell does that little piss ant think he is?
right now - not trying to alarm any 1 - the common ills ends in november. c.i. does not like long term committments and will have given that site 4 years, every day, no day off. and this is the thanks?
some ass wipe e-mailing and screaming at c.i. about something c.i. never wrote? accusing c.i. of a bunch of crap?
that's what it will take to push c.i. off line. 4 years with no day off is a long, long time. and this sort of s**t e-mailed from a know-nothing in canada isn't going to make c.i. decide to 'renew' 'the contract.' (i'll name the asshole in my column in el spirito sunday so that every 1 can be sure never to do anything that puts money in the asshole's pocket.)
i kept asking, 'how mad is c.i.?' elaine kept saying 'very' and pointing out that c.i. was focused on the party but you could sense an undercurrent the entire time if you looked for it.
mike wrote about it this morning and if c.i. was hauling out the 'breakables' (plates and bowls c.i. keeps on hand just to break), c.i. was pissed. (i passed on a hello to c.i. through elaine but we did not speak because if we had, i'd have to worry about what i was writing. let me be clear, i have not spoken to c.i. about this. we spoke thursday night on the phone and have not talked since then. c.i. saw the e-mail friday morning.) i know of 5 times over three decades that the breakables were used (and twice during college when c.i., elaine and i lived together). when it's time for the breakables, c.i. is pissed more than any 1 knows.
and i'm not surprised.
just hearing the gutter garbage that was in that e-mail, i'm ticked off.
who the hell does that little piss ant think he is?
c.i.'s response to the e-mail is here and you can tell c.i. was pissed.
i really am surprised that a snapshot went up. i know c.i. and i wouldn't have been surprised after that screaming e-mail with false accusations (presented as on behalf of 'organizers' in canada) if c.i. had done 1 last post that said 'f**k you.'
i really wouldn't have been surprised.
i know c.i.'s had it with the nonsense in the u.s. 'movement' and in the canadian 1. i know c.i. advised a war resister to go overseas last week and has been doing that for some time because c.i. can't believe that canadian 'helpers' still can't get their damn act together.
so this nonsense of 1 pompous idiot thinking he's going to falsely accuse c.i. of anything and try to speak for others was really the last straw.
and it should be, to pick up on mike's point. none of those groups or organizations that have begged for attention have ever even acknowledge the common ills publicy. c.i. doesn't care in most ways but i wouldn't doubt if the attitude right now is 'you do s**t for the common ills and you beg for attention and then you want to attack me for something i didn't even do?'
i wouldn't be surprised if c.i. didn't just move away from highlighting canadian war resistance but dropped the topic all together.
in c.i.'s response, it's noted that c.i. will not go into a bad situation. that is very true. i've seen c.i. walk away from huge pay days just because there a bad situation before. it's not worth it to c.i. who takes the position that a bad experience leaves a long lasting scar.
now if c.i.'s walked away from big money repeatedly for that reason, i don't see any thing shocking in assuming c.i. might walk away from promoting a topic. it's not like c.i.'s being paid for it. and, let's face it, c.i.'s not even being thanked for it. now c.i.'s getting some liar insisting c.i. wrote something when it never was written and c.i.'s pissed.
and you really do not accuse c.i. of doing something that didn't happen and scream about the non-existant 'it' to c.i.
i remember in college, a woman showed up out of the blue, upset and needing to sleep on our sofa (have i told this story before). she showed up after midnight (and i'll leave out the details in case i have told this story before). but no sooner did she have her pillow and blanket and was supposed to be asleep than she needed this. then she needed that. as this went on until 3 in the morning, i awoke to c.i. cursing, 'try to do some 1 a ___ ___ favor.' i had to get out of bed and run to the hall for that where i found elaine and we looked at each other and burst out laughing. c.i. will do anything for any 1 but there is a limit. and when it is reached, it is reached. whining from the living hour every 20 minutes and calling out to us to come do something or get something or whatever had pissed c.i. off. c.i. never spoke to that woman again - including that morning when we were all up and eating breakfast.
after the 7th or 8th time she suddenly needed something, c.i. was done with her. it was after midnight. we were all trying to sleep. we were kind enough to put her up for the night. she could have gone to sleep, she could have turned on the tv and amused herself. she could have done anything. but to holler from the living room every 20 minutes - after midnight when we were all trying to sleep - and she abused any good will. she had exhausted it.
a lot of times with c.i. when some 1 is cut off they never see it coming. they are so oblivious that they think because c.i. is generous, they can take and take and take. but when you've gone to that well 1 damn time to many and you've shown no manners (manners are a big deal to c.i.), you can find yourself frozen out for good.
i wanted to tell a c.i. story and since i already have, i'll pick it up here. a few weeks ago, i wrote something about c.i. and parenting. i don't remember what it was. but c.i.'s son called me and i said i'd sneak the story in at some point.
it's about c.i. and disagreements. and i'll call the son 'mark' (not his real name). mark called me up and said the only time c.i. and his father ever argued (c.i. really did have a great marriage) was when his father did something 'stupid.' there were 2 times. in 1 of them (the 1 i will share), c.i. arrived home to hear noise from the roof. c.i. went through the house and finally found her late husband to ask, 'what am i hearing on the roof?' it was the kids and their friends. mark said they'd lied to their dad and told him that c.i. always lets them play on the roof. (this is a story i do know. c.i.'s husband loved to tell this story.) c.i. said, 'they lied to you. that's what kids do. they want to have fun, they come up with a story, it's your job to have the sense to know that no 1 lets kids play on the roof of a house, let alone a two story house. go get them down now.' c.i. wouldn't get them down. c.i. said, 'if i do and 1 of them falls and is hurt, i will feel guilty forever. if you do it and 1 of them falls, i will hold it against you for life.' and that would have happened. but he got them off the roof. and that's when mark heard them argue. c.i. was all 'woah, woah, woah. i didn't allow them to go up on the roof, you did. don't turn this around.' the other argument was also a safety issue. other than that, c.i. didn't give a damn.
i don't mean that in a rude way, i just mean the things that would set most of us (including me) off, c.i. didn't care about. a safety issue and c.i. would hit the roof.
(which is a funny way for me to put it considering the story i just told!)
mark told me the fight was over who was going to punish (and that's the same story his father loved to tell). c.i.'s attitude was, 'that's your dance. i wasn't here. you allowed it. you serve up the punishment. and make it clear that unless they become licensed roofers, they're never going back up on the roof.' so here's what happened. he went into the room, closed the door and didn't punish them. (this wouldn't have been corporal punishment. c.i. doesn't believe in that.) 2 days later, c.i. caught them trying to go back up on the roof and that's where the 2nd argument came in. (with c.i. noting, 'if you'd dealt with when you should have, they wouldn't be trying to go on the roof now!')
i wish i could remember what i wrote that made mark call. whatever it was, we were laughing about a ton of things on the phone. (elaine and i are his godmothers, he has 3 godfathers.) he might have called about something i wrote about my child. but anyway, that's a story i told him i would include at some point but warned him 'you know how your mother is.' (meaning, if i got any response from c.i. on what i wrote it would be, 'i'm sure there were more important things going on in the world you could have written about.') but let me add that mark (who is now a father) was talking about how great his parents were and how they never said 'no, you can't do that. that's a crazy dream.' they were always encouraging. (and mark turned out to be a very fine young man.) at 1 point, mark was convinced he could fly if he worked at it. not an airplane, that he could actually fly. they didn't shoot that down (though i'm sure when c.i. realized the kids were on the roof that was the 1st thought: 'oh no, he's going to try to jump off so he can fly!'). instead it was, 'let's learn about how birds fly. let's find out how they do it and go from there.' every thing was a teachable moment.
mark also said that 'cut it out, i'm not in the mood for that nonsense' was the warning that always stopped whatever was going on. i can remember elaine, c.i. and i (in the late 70s or early 80s) going to lunch with an old friend from college and children and the friend's kid threw a fit and refused to get off the floor. the woman said, 'i don't know how to deal with this.' c.i. got up, went over to the boy and told him, 'i've about had it with your nonsense. get off the floor, sit your damn butt in a chair and don't say another word until you can act your age. i'm not joking.' and c.i. wasn't and that kid rushed to his chair. when c.i.'s got the don't-push-it attitude, kids know not to. i don't know if c.i. picked that up in college (when 1 of the many jobs was a day care) or if it was just a gift.
i'll tell that story. c.i. had pre-k kids. and the rule was 20 in class. it was 2 workers per class. except for c.i. who was the only worker for that class. and the kids learned a ton. they also had a ton of fun but c.i. was a great teacher. there was this whole 'land of learning' thing that c.i. set up (i was in and out of the class for college class credit and research, i was not 1 of the workers and i only note that because they were supposed to have 2 workers but they knew c.i. could handle it) on a circle rug. 'it's time to go to the land of learning.' and the kids would run to the rug and sit down. c.i. would pick 1 of them to be the captain of the spaceship and she or he would pretend to shift gears and steer (and make car noises). when they were 'up' letters would come 'flying at the spaceship.' c.i. would hold the alphabet letters and to avoid it hitting the ship, it had to be identified. every 1 of the kids in c.i.'s class knew their full alphabet.
and because they knew that and other basics, parents were always asking that their kids be put in c.i.'s class. but c.i. never got help. c.i. was on the 3rd floor of a church building while every 1 else was on the 2nd floor. with 40 kids that had to go down the stairs to the playground. and the other 2 classes (that fell to 10 or less kids each) got to keep their 2 workers.
but c.i. ran that class so well. there was a record (this is the days of vinyl) that when it went on, every 1 knew it was time to get on their mats for naptime. c.i. was not going to spend forever saying, 'nap time.' when naptime was over? there was a song for that as well. if a kid asked if naptime was over, c.i. would ask, 'do you hear ___?' (i don't remember the song. it was probably a beatles song by john lennon.) single handledly, c.i. ran that class (for at least 2 years) and could take them to the park with no problems. every 1 knew they did not get in the street (the park was 1 block away) and they knew what was expected of them at the park.
it was like mary poppins. especially when other classes were going to the park and the kids were all over the sidewalk and headed for the road and not walking single-file, etc.
and before you think c.i. got the angels, the first 20 that were with c.i. were the 'difficult' children. c.i. was the newbie and the other teachers picked their favorites. c.i. had the 'trouble makers' only they weren't trouble makers. i just think some women were too busy playing favorites (i remember a blonde headed boy named miles that 1 teacher acted like she wanted to marry always going about how cute he was and letting him get away with murder). there was a very beautiful young girl in c.i.'s class who was thought to be dumb as a doornail. that was why the other teachers didn't want her. c.i. spoke to her parents and got permission before saying, 'pretty isn't enough, ___.' (c.i. wasn't 1 of those teachers who said, 'it was a great day. see you tomorrow.' if you wanted a report at any time, c.i. would say, 'give me 1 second' and then pull out the key events of that day or week.) the girl went from this little princess to the smartest in her class and was actually writing her vowels (remember this was pre-k) when she graduated to the next class. but it was easy to ignore her and that's what had happened to her before. like it was easy to scream at 1 child who was hyperactive. c.i. didn't care that the child was hyperactive, it was never a problem. c.i. would find things for him to do that got rid of some of the energy while others expected him to just keep it bottled up. those are the reasons c.i. was so good with children and why the parents loved having their kids in c.i.'s class. there wasn't a bunch of petty nonsense that parents had to sort out and stuff didn't disappear. (c.i. got a labeled 'thief' 1 year who was not a thief but had been labeled that because a pet in another class was a thief and so many of the women played favorites with the kids.) they learned their alphabet, they learned to play (which included 'go find some 1 else to play with if you're only going to argue), to color, to use scissors (children's scissors), tie their shoes. all the basics. and this was classroom wide. this wasn't a few. or the majority. i was there when the pretty girl i was talking about a 2nd ago named a hard letter during land of learning. c.i. noticed and congratulated her. after the 'spaceship' landed, c.i. made a point to say, 'i think ___ knows her whole alphabet now.' and she did. c.i. held up the letters and, 1 after the other, she named them all. 'look how smart you are,' c.i. said and the whole class applauded her. and that girl started off way behind the others because no 1 ever bothered with her (i'm not talking about her parents). it had just been 'sit still, you look so pretty.'
so i hope, having observed so much, i can do some of that with my own child. mark told me the most important thing was to stick up for your kids. he said c.i. always stuck up for them and he can't watch goldie hawn's overboard (where she tells off the teacher) without thinking of c.i. 'we weren't told we couldn't accomplish something, we were encouraged, and we always knew our parents were there for us.' that's how mark outlines his happy childhood and i plan to try really hard to do the same thing as a parent.
but i am a yeller. my whole family is. (the reason the 2 fights stand out to mark is that c.i. was yelling at his father and c.i. did not yell. when c.i.'s angry, the normal response is to get very quiet.
oh, i just saw kat's post. elaine mentioned it was a must-read and it is. check it out.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, July 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue (if little reported), .Barack can't eat his waffles but he can waffle, Ralph Nader takes his presidential campaign to the people and more.
Starting with war resistance. Brett Clarkson and Jason Buckland (Toronto Sun) report US war resister Corey Glass, scheduled to be deported from Canada July 10th, is believing nothing "until he receives a DD 214 -- a form from the US department of defence that confirms he has been discharged from active duty service -- he can still be charged when he returns to the U.S." Lindsey Weibe (Winnipeg Free Press) reports that supports of US war resisters staged a sit-in at the "Pembina Highway office of Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge yesterday".
In the US, Courage to Resist is planning "July 9th actions at Canadian Consulates nationwide:"Join a vigil and delegation to a Canadian consulate near you on Wednesday, July 9th to support war resisters! On the eve of Corey Glass' possible deportation, we will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide by the June 3rd resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" More details and cities to be confirmed soon!
Washington DC - Time TBA - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace. Info: TBA San Francisco - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info: 510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net Seattle - Time TBA - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info: 206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com Dallas - Time TBA - 750 North St Paul St (map). Sponsored by North Texas for Justice and Peace. Info: 214-718-6362; hftomlinson(at)riseup.net New York City - Noon to 1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters' League. Info: 212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org Philadelphia - Time TBA - 1650 Market St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info: 215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org Minneapolis - Time TBA - 701 Fourth Ave S (map). Info: TBA Los Angeles - Noon to 1pm - 550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA. Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com Help organize a vigil at one of these other Canadian Consulates: Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Anchorage, Houston, Raleigh, Phoenix, or San Diego. Please contact Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559. Veterans for Peace issued a joint call with Courage to Resist and Project Safe Haven for July 9th vigils at Canadian Consulates: "Dear Canada: Do Not Deport U.S. War Resisters!" Contact us if you can help organize a vigil, or can otherwise get involved. Locations of the 22 Canadian Consulates in the United States.Recently on June 3rd the Canadian Parliament passed an historic motion to officially welcome war resisters! It now appears, however, that the Conservative government may disregard the motion. Iraq combat veteran turned courageous war resister, 25-year-old Sgt. Corey Glass of the Indiana National Guard is still scheduled to be deported July 10th.We will ask that the Canadian government respect the democratic decision of Parliament, the demonstrated opinion of the Canadian citizenry, the view of the United Nations, and millions of Americans by immediately implementing the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other current and future war resisters. Join Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, and Project Safe Haven at Canadian Consulates across the United States (Washington DC, San Francisco, New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles confirmed--more to be announced).We mailed and delivered over 10,000 of the original letters to Canadian officials. Please sign the new letter, "Dear Canada: Abide by resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" http://www.couragetoresist.org/canada
To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
It's Fourth of July weekend. Reuters made it through it without filing a single "Factbox" report of the violence. Not everyone had the day off . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings resulting in four people being wounded. And dropping back to Thursday, MNF announced today, "Two local nationals were killed and one was wounded when an explosion occurred near the Yarmouk Hospital in west Baghdad at approximately 8:55 p.m., July 3."
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Iraqi civilian shot dead and two more wounded by US forces as they were driving on a highway and that they shot dead the a six-year-old girl, wounded four of her brother and her mother as they stormed into the home of Hasen Atiyah al-Iqabi in Baquba.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Turning to the US presidential race. Barack Obama? Arab News notes, "For Obama, who recently changed his positions on campaign finance and a wiretapping law, the suggestion that he was also changing course on a central premise of his candidacy holds particular peril. While Obama has long said he would consult commanders in the field when withdrawing troops, that point might have been lost on many Democratic primary voters who supported his call to end the war." What's going on? A bit of reality on War Hawk Barack. Suzanne Goldenberg (Guardian of London) puts it this way, ".Barack Obama was yesterday fending off charges from right and left that he had abandoned the core premise of his candidacy - the withdrawal of all US combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office - in an attempt to attract voters from the political centre." Suzanne's a little out of it. So were Katrina vanden Heuvel and Arianna Huffington on ABC's This Week last Sunday. Withdrawal in 16 months? That's 'so January 2008.' Barack promised withdrawal of all (combat) troops within 10 months in a speech in Houston, Texas. Always one to carry water for Barack, Tom Hayden immediately penned "End the War in 2009" (which popped up online at The Nation, Feb. 20th and elsewhere a bit later). Hayden: "In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009, a new commitment that parallels recent opinion pieces in The Nation. Prior to his Houston remarks, Obama's previous position favored an American combat troop withdrawal over a sixteen-to-eighteen-month timeframe. He has been less specific on the number and mission of any advisors he would elave behind." (The Texas primary was in March. Barack was in Texas campaigning, for any more confused than usual by Tom-Tom's bad-bad writing.) Texas community members saw the 10 month 'promise' pushed in advertising as well as on the campaign trail. Those were his words (and Tom-Tom notes 'words matter') so let's all drop the nonsense that Barack's plan was 16 months (or at least leave the lying to Katrina who's become so very good at it). Goldenberg's uninformed, ignorant or lying -- take your pick. In her piece (dated tomorrow), she traces the uproar to Thursday when Barack said he might 'refine' his Iraq 'plan.' If that's when the uproar started, is Arianna Huffington psychic? Arianna was calling him out for 'refining' on Iraq Sunday on This Week. More water carrying from the allegedly 'independent' Guardian of London (which never wrote about the Downing Street Memos because 'independence' did not include informing people that Tony Blair lied England into an illegal war -- no time for 'truth-telling' while Blair was in office at any rate.) CNN reports that presumed GOP presidential candidate John McCain and the RNC are calling Barack a "flip-flopper" and they quote Barack's 'clarification' where Barack lies and says he has always said 16 months. No, Barack, you went to ten months in February. AP reports he celebrated the 4th of July in Butte, Montana (Kansas, he's done with you, he got what he needed) eating a hot dog. Tom Baldwin (Times of London) observes, "Grassroots activists whose energy and donations have helped to propel Barack Obama towards the White House are suddenly choking on the bitter pill of disillusion.
In less than a month since clinching the Democratic nomination, he has performed a series of policy pirouettes to assuage concerns about his candidacy among a wider and more conservative electorate." Geoff Elliott (The Australian) points out, "Barack Obama has started a dramtic reversal of the policies that helped him defeat Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination, softening hardlines stances on the Iraq war and troop withdrawals.
Campaigning in North Dakota, Senator Obama said that while the US could not sustain a long-term presence in Iraq, his trip to the Gulf nation this month might prompt him to "refine my policies" on the war." John Bentley (CBS News) quotes Brian Rogers of the McCain campaign stating, "Today, Barack Obama reversed that position, proving once again his words do not matter. He has now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground. Now that Barack Obama has changed course and proven his past positions to be just empty words, we would like to congratulate him on taking John McCain's principled stand on this critical national security issue. If he had visited Iraq sooner or actually had a one-on-one meeting with Gen. Petraeus, he would have changed his position long ago." Jonathan Weisman (Washington Post) terms it Barack exploring "the possibility of slowing a promised, gradual withdrawal from Iraq". NPR has two audio reports here. How bad it is? A friend just called to laugh at ____'s latest nonsense. In place of a now killed feature for Third, we may address ____'s latest nonsense and his plethora of lies throughout the campaign. Poor ____, it's even harder to airbrush out reality today than it was following his expulsion from the Red Family commune in his "smash the state" days (when he fancied himself Chris Jones in Wild In The Street).
Ralph Nader is opposed to the illegal war and has always been opposed to it. He called it before it started and throughout. He has not waffled like Saint Barack. Yesterday he spoke at the University of Hawaii-Manou. Craig Gima (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) reports:
In a news conference before the speech, Nader said Hawaii voters are being marginalized by the major candidates.
"When political candidates do not campaign in a state, voter turnout suffers," Nader said, adding that he has campaigned in all 50 states in the last two elections.
Nader said he supports the Akaka Bill and native Hawaiian rights, and said Hawaii should be a model for the rest of the country in renewable energy.
"This is the only place in the world where every form of renewable energy occurs," he said.
Nader also said that if elected he would push for universal health care, an increase in the minimum wage to $10 an hour and the repeal of what he called the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act.
Derrick DePledge (Honolulu Advertiser) notes that no presidential candidate has campaigned in Hawaii since Richard Nixon in 1960, notes Nader is already on the ballot in Hawaii for the presidential election and quotes him explaining, ""I didn't start running for president until the doors started closing in Washington against consumer, environmental, labor and other citizen groups. So when you don't have a chance to have a chance to improve your country on Capitol Hill and before the regulatory agencies, you either close up shop and go to Monterey and watch the whales or you go into the electoral arena." Third Party Watch covers it here. Ahead of the apperance KHNL, AP and KITV reported on it. Thursday the Reno Gazette Journal reported Nader's campaign had turned in their signatures to be on the ballot in Nevada. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that the campaign collected 12,000 signatures -- far more than needed to qualify. KRNV reports that if the Democrats attempt any of the manuevers they did in 2004, the Nader campaign will fight it.
The Nader Team notes:
Declare your independence from the flip-floppers McCain and Obama.
Drop $4 now on Nader/Gonzalez for the Fourth of July weekend.
Thank you.
As you enjoy your Fourth of July weekend with friends and family, keep an eye on Nader/Gonzalez:
Ralph Nader will appear on CNN and C-Span this weekend.
Steve Scully's interview of Ralph will run on C-Span twice on Sunday night at 6:30 and 9:30 p.m. EST. You can also watch on line now here.
CNN's Rick Sanchez interview with Ralph will run on Saturday night.
Ralph is a huge sports fan. Check out Dave Zirin's recent interview with Nader on sports here.And Dan Patrick's Sports Illustrated interview here.
When Ralph Nader was growing up in Winsted, Connecticut, his hero was Yankee slugger Lou Gehrig. Gehrig was known as the Iron Horse for his stamina and persistence. (Now you know where Ralph gets it.)
Ralph is campaigning in Hawaii this weekend. See story here.
Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in Nevada. See story here.
We here at the Nader/Gonzalez campaign are pumped about the possibilities this summer.
Ralph is polling at 6 percent.
We'd like to bump it to ten percent and get Ralph into the Presidential debates.
We're shooting for 45 states by September.
And the possibilities of a three way race.
Two flip floppers.
And the real deal.
So, drop four dollars now on the real deal.
And declare your independence from the flip-flopping, corporate controlled McCain and Obama.
Together, we are making a difference.
Have a safe and happy holiday weekend.
Onward
The Nader Team
