An Article 32 -- the military's equivalent of a preliminary hearing -- may be held as early as next week at Camp Pendleton. Winnick is a sniper attached to the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.
In 2004, while also serving with the Three-One, his quick thinking and aggressiveness during the battle for Fallouja were extolled by author Bing West in his book "No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah."
that's from tony parry's 'IRAQ: Marine hero now accused of crimes' (los angeles times) and that's some iraq news for you. now let's dive into e-mails.
why, oh, why, oh, why can't i find it in me to support cynthia mckinney?
that's a jerk named steven's question. he doesn't think it's fair to blame greens for 'refusing to call out sexism'. excuse me, steven, greens like medea benjamin and kimberly wilder actively contributed to the sexist attacks on hillary clinton. they didn't just stay silent, they contributed. so did ted glick and all the other ridiculous pieces of trash.
now that we've cleared that up, cynthia had my support. she lost it because i'm not interested in voting for a presidential candidate that's not trying to win the white house.
that and the fact that she surrounded herself with sexists like glick, that she allowed a piece of trash/scum who loathes all feminists (and wrote two pieces attacking all feminists - of all races - that were published at counterpunch) means she doesn't know how to discipline her rag-tag campaign.
it also would have cost cynthia nothing to stand up and say, 'excuse me? nutcrackers being sold by msnbc at airports? with hillary on them? these vile words? as a woman i'm offended.'
cynthia never did.
she lost my vote. it's gone.
if hillary's out of the race (which appears likely barring a barack scandal), i vote for ralph nader gladly.
tpd wanted me to know that yes, 'kimberly wilder is nuts, but she doesn't speak for all greens.' so where's the green critique on the sexism in this campaign?
you can rush off and write something after the fact but, when it mattered, you gleefully stood back and enjoyed it. you may pretend to be opposed to sexism but you HATE hillary so much that you didn't care what tactics were used against her and when your own party used the same tactics against her and propped up barack, you found it delightful.
kiss my ass. as a national party, you're a joke. you'll always be a joke.
it's because you refuse to act like a political party. and members refuse to demand that the party stop fretting over what's best for the democratic party.
you're pathetic and you have no real issues, just a bunch of blah, blah, blah talking points that your candidates appear unable or unwilling to develop. you're running for something, you just can't figure out what.
don't like what i'm saying?
you stayed silent while women were attacked. not only did you stay silent a large number of you contributed to the attacks.
kiss my ass about your vast concern for social justice.
LIE.
if you gave a damn about social justice you would have called out misogny. you didn't. you exposed yourselves as frauds and fakes.
you can lie to yourself from here to tomorrow. you're obviously very good at lying to yourself because you continue to believe that the leaders of your 'party' really want the white house. year after year they wuss out and betray the grass roots. you should have started expelling those liars a long time ago.
as c.i. notes in today's snapshot, barack's now saying if he gets into the white house he's not sure troops can withdrawn. medea benjamin, where's your pathetic ass?
huh, medea?
now that's not really new because it's what samantha power said in the spring.
but pathetic medea benjamin - who supposedly wants to end the illegal war - hasn't protested barack.
that's because she's really about trashing women.
go trash yourself, medea. looking at the area around your eyes, it appears you've already started.
a good e-mail came in from community member keesha. she knew what blog ripped off c.i. and e-mailed with a copy and paste of the comment she left there today:
As a Hillary supporter, I come here to see women supporting other women. This is my final visit. ----- didn't discover the link she's elading us to. Another blogger, a pro-Hillary one, steered people to it on Tuesday afternoon. At least nine other blogs then noted it and gave credit to the woman. ----- wants me to believe that she just happened to discover her link on Thursday? Her link to a May 14 blog post? I don't like stealing, I don't like women who refuse to credit other women. I'm sure my comment will disappear but I'm done with TGW and maybe for a second or too people can know why. It is not feminist to stab other women in the back and steal their work.
Keesha 06.06.08 - 3:49 pm #
i've put '-----' in place of the name of the blogger. otherwise, that's the unedited comment keesha left and, she's right, it probably will be removed.
and i have run out of time.
okay, let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
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
6/06/2008
6/05/2008
hotels & web etiquette
how about that roundtable? be sure to read the gina & krista round-robin tomorrow morning and you'll know just what i'm talking about.
1 thing i need to put in is from 1 of my sisters. she took a vacation and stayed at a nice hotel. but, get this, she and her husband had to put up with some asshole next to them. he made noise but they didn't have to get up any specific time (it was a vacation) so they just ignored it. then, after his party breaks up, he's banging on their wall. she asked, 'is he banging at us?' they weren't even talking, let alone have the t.v. or radio on.
every few minutes he'd slam a fist into the wall. finally, my sister's husband gets off the couch (they were in a suite), walks over to the wall and bangs back. this leads to non-stop pounding on the other side. they called down to the front desk to complain and that stopped the banging for about 15 minutes but then it started up again. (my sister was reading a book and my brother-in-law was going over maps for their boating the next day, they were not talking to each other - not that talking should have caused a problem.) this time, her husband (my brother-in-law) wants to go over and kick the man's ass. but my sister calls the front desk and it becomes this big thing with the police.
the man gets taken away (he'd broken furniture during his party, among other things).
apparently the people below him had complained about the noise from his party which was why it broke up and he went around banging on the walls assuming it was some 1 on either side of him. now get this, he never should have had a room. he was under 18 and his parents who spoil him rented him the suite. the police could only take him down to the station and call the parents. apparently, he couldn't be legally responsible for the room because his parents signed for it and he was a minor (16). what kind of parents put their child up in a hotel room to party?
they knew he was going to have a party.
what got broken? the couch, the coffee table, there was a hole in the bedroom wall (which wasn't a shared wall for my sister so fortunately they didn't hear that noise), the drapes had been pulled down and ripped. the tv was trashed.
2 grown ups put their 16-year-old son in a hotel room to let him party and he trashed the place.
now i'm a new mother, granted, and won't have to worry about the 16 year old stage for some time (though i don't believe that's normal 16 year old behavior) but what were those parents thinking?
you don't put a 16 y.o. in a hotel to party. they're lucky no 1 got hurt. (there was intense drinking. it was the talk of the hotel the next day as various parents of children who showed up at the party staggered home drunk.)
they're on a 3 week vacation and already there's another horror story but my sister said she'll tell me about that on the next phone call.
it also involves under 18 y.o.s in a suite.
i can remember my prom (i wasn't raised rich, i have money now) and how it was a big deal for kids to borrow their parents car to drive to it. (the incident above was not a prom party for any 1 wondering.) then it became you had to rent a limo, then you had to do that. i guess those who spoil their kids are now renting hotel suites for them to party unsupervised.
please read elaine's 'Who's standing up for Iraqi women?' and mike's ' Day 13 Goodman still won't say 'Corey Glass'' and especially ava and c.i.'s 'TV: Grime & Grit TV.' on the latter, that was secondary topic of the roundtable for several reasons. 1st it is a great article by ava and c.i. 2nd, there was a lot of anger from members. why weren't we linking to it? mike had.
but the rest of us? really hadn't. that wasn't a slam on ava and c.i. and was actually due to the fact that we are all exhausted. you have to understand that we have spent all of may getting out the vote for hillary and some go back to april on that.
but we were called out on that by a member and gina said it was the biggest community complaint that she and krista had heard all week. ava and c.i. said it was no big deal and that every 1 was tired. (which we all are.) but it turned out there was another reason for the anger.
c.i. was ripped off repeatedly this week. i didn't know (nor did others). but it went through the community in e-mails the way it always does.
in 1 instance, c.i.'s very strong feminist statements about hillary appeared word for word for 4 sentences at another blog with the woman presenting them as her own. in another, c.i. linked to something this week.
i can get away with talking about this because c.i. and i go so far back (we're friends since college) so let me do that but do it in a way that c.i. won't be upset.
there's a feminist - and offline feminist. c.i. knows her and they share a common friend. c.i. was noting (all week) women's reactions to the attempts to install barack as the nominee. the common friend said, 'you need to note ___.' c.i. said, 'i didn't know she had a blog.' c.i. said no problem.
it turned out to be a problem because c.i. couldn't find it. the woman writes for (may do more than just write for) a feminist print periodical. so c.i. finally went there. flipping through various pages online, c.i. found a page that listed the woman's blog. c.i. went there and found the hillary commentary. c.i. included it.
last night or this morning (days after c.i. highlighted it) another blog's highlighting it.
i said 'so' in the roundtable and the member loudly said 'so?' back. c.i. stepped in and explained what i didn't know, what c.i. didn't know at the time the feminist was included in the iraq snapshot. that's not the woman's blog. it was the woman's blog. the woman's moved her blog.
point, any 1 wanting to highlight the feminist because she just stumbled upon it by accident would have highlighted the new blog (and c.i. explained 'i didn't realize the blog had switched, i am planning to highlight the new blog as soon as i can' - c.i. heard from the common friend that it was the old blog address after the feminist was quoted in the snapshot).
so the point that the member (and others knew - before c.i. did) was that c.i. had highlighted the old blog when the blog's been moved. any 1 stumbling upon the website today by accident would automatically be taken to the new blog. meaning that, yes, a woman online obviously saw c.i.'s snapshot quoting the feminist and decided to play like (her own words portray it this way), she just happened to find it all on her own.
now it takes 2 seconds to say 'via __, i found __'
and if i'm not being clear, you had to go ass backwards to find the old web address. c.i. did because c.i. couldn't find the feminist's blog. so c.i. went to the feminist periodical and flipped through various webpages to find the site (which gave the old address). the post c.i. was highlighting was from the middle of the may. the feminist later moved her site (to word press or from word press, i don't know that for sure) and there's no way that this 1 post - from the middle of may - was highlighted by another blog (over 24 hours after c.i. had highlighted it) without the blogger having seen c.i.'s snapshot.
why is it an issue?
because c.i.'s too kind with links and c.i. has in fact linked several times in the last 3 weeks to the blog that ripped c.i. off.
it's a very big issue to the community.
it's an issue that people show up asking for highlights and never give anything back. it's an issue when c.i.'s steering traffic to other sites and those sites never do anything back. members know not to complain about that to c.i. c.i. doesn't care. but when 1 of those sites is turning around and ripping off c.i. it is an issue and even c.i. has to hear about it.
okay, i made some notes for myself when this came up. ___ highlighted it this morning and made it their morning post. it is their big post.
the feminist blogging about hillary wrote her post may 14th.
c.i. linked to it in tuesday's snapshot and, in fact, mislinked because it is the old site (the new site has moved all the old stuff over). so this morning, a woman suddenly finds a may 14th blog post on her own? and finds it at the old site?
no.
that woman ripped off c.i. she saw the tuesday snapshot and decided she better link to it as well. that's fine. but pretending like you stumbled upon something written on may 14th when you didn't? refusing to say, 'as c.i. linked to tuesday ...' or some such thing?
'via c.i.' two words. it wouldn't have killed the woman.
now the woman can forget about her site ever being highlighted community wide.
members are outraged.
8 different members have been posting at that woman's site since c.i. linked to her starting 3 weeks ago. and their comments have included highlighting c.i. or ava & c.i.'s writing.
not only has the woman refused to provide any link to c.i., she's now raiding c.i.'s snapshots?
let me explain to the thief, you are outraged that hillary did not receive her just due and you turn around and rip off another woman? you're asking for people paying attention to be outraged.
no 1 in the world believes you found the may 14th post all by yourself. it's not a democratic site and the woman's not a democrat (she's a left feminist). she posts pretty much every day, the feminist, and you want people to believe that on your own you found a may 14th post? that you paged back through the archives (by chance!) on june 5th and found it?
or that you just happened to make the same mistake c.i. did of linking to the old site?
c.i. is always gracious and explained to the member during the roundtable, 'the important thing is that' the feminist got highlighted somewhere else as well.
and that is good.
but good is also giving credit where it's due.
i'm going to return to this topic tomorrow night. but this does piss of the community as a number of websites have learned recently.
in april and may, to show that, yes, blogs are blogging about hillary, c.i. was very free with the links. that's because there was this myth that the hillary community was a tiny 1 and c.i.'s snapshots are read by the media (by friends in it as well as non-friends) so it was a way to refute the msm meme that hillary had no online support.
and what we saw was that c.i. got ripped off by those same blogs. there's 1 that links to me and i'll be ripping into it in the near future. (i'm waiting for a reason that has nothing to do with me being linked to on their blogroll - and to be clear, i'm not talking about susan of random thoughts, she may be the only other 1 that links to me and i don't want people thinking i'm talking about her when i'm talking about a group blog. i will rip into it when the titty baby who hates hillary returns with her 1st post. she's refused to blog while the blog's site has been pro-hillary. played titty baby because she loves barack. so i'm waiting for her big return to cover both topics at the same time.)
and here's the thing about ripping off c.i., the traffic c.i. supplies stops visiting. they see the rip offs and they get sick of it.
the 1st time they see a rip off, their reaction is 'well maybe it's an accident.' then they see the second 1. they note the fact that while c.i.'s being free with the links, these losers are do nothing for the common ills community. so then a member will post something and see what happens. usually a link to c.i. in the comments. sometimes a link and a comment like 'yeah, i love that point. i loved it when it appeared at the common ills.'
on that, we're talking about things like what's in today's snapshot.
did you know ed koch visited war resisters in canada during vietnam? that he was in congress at the time and he introduced 4 bills to give them amnesty?
i vaguely remembered that when i read the snapshot. (i should more than vaguely remember it because i remember c.i. and elaine working on that in real time.) now nobody's writing about that because, frankly, no 1 remembers it that lived through it and those who didn't live through it don't know because it's part of the 'hidden history.'
today c.i. writes about it (via that incredible memory that c.i. has). and it's the sort of thing that no 1 can claim they also just thought of because no 1 else is going to remember it. so when you see that pop up online elsewhere, you immediately know 'oh, s/he read what c.i. wrote and, look, they aren't giving credit.'
we see this happen over and over (we because i am a member of this community) and it is just so shocking.
c.i. has done incredible work over the last 4 years and if the people ripping c.i. off had given even 1/2 the credit owed, the entire blogosphere would know that. but they don't give credit. they grab c.i.'s work and pass it off as their own over and over.
'they' includes 'independent' media journalists.
it's appalling. it's disgusting.
and it happens over and over.
now c.i.'s attitude is always 'i don't need credit.' because c.i. was raised to be modest. but it's getting real old, all this raiding and stealing from c.i.
i give credit here to c.i. when i'm using something c.i.'s written and i could get away without doing so. every 1 knows c.i., elaine and i went to college together. every 1 who comes here knows that and knows that we are best friends. i could rip off c.i. and know 1 would bat an eye because it would be 'oh, they're friends.' but i don't do that. (i so don't do that that c.i. is always telling me, 'rebecca, you don't have to credit me.' or 'becky, we were both talking about that. it as much your point as it is mine.')
now if i'm not trading on my friendship to steal, there's no reason for strangers to think they can get away with theft.
but they do it and then wonder why their readership wanders off? because they know you stole.
and then, after a few weeks or months, these people who never credited c.i. while ripping off, show up at the public account of the common ills begging for links.
but, of course, they never heard of the common ills.
that's always their 'excuse'/lie when they get confronted on their theft. 'i don't even know that site!'
it was especially funny when a man tried that lie and apparently forgot that not only did his site link to c.i. but when his site changed their web address, he e-mailed c.i. to notify about the new address. but we're all supposed to believe that 2 days after c.i. wrote about something, he just found out about it on his own and that he's never heard of the common ills even though he's got it on the blogroll and even though he's repeatedly written asking for links from c.i.
c.i.'s attitude also includes 'maybe i'm too controversial.' i don't buy that excuse.
i'll give an example here. jess pulled the link c.i. had for make them accountable. carolyn whomever wrote to c.i. asking for a link. jess was the 1 who replied to that e-mail to the public account. he told her he would tell c.i. about her site. he told her he was sure c.i. would put on her on the permalinks on the left side of the site. c.i. did that.
that was over 3 months ago. c.i. has highlighted her site since in snapshots and other things. but carolyn, who sent a 152K e-mail to the public account of the common ills today, highlights everything under the sun including some things that are surely 'controversial'. but she never could find time in 3 months to work in even 1 link for the common ills?
brandon brought that to jess' attention and jess pulled the link last friday. i'll quote jess here, 'you've got a lot of nerve asking for links, then getting them and never returning the favor.' i agree with jess. c.i. put her on the permalinks (blogroll but c.i. calls them permalinks) and carolyn never did the same for c.i. carolyn e-mails non-stop asking for links in things c.i.'s writing and c.i. has given them. but to go to make them accountable, you'd never know the common ills even exists.
it's not right. c.i. has never begged for a link (and has, in fact, begged msm friends not to link). but for those who beg for links, the fair thing, the honorable thing, is when you get a link to show some appreciation.
c.i. wrote about gloria steinem and noted there would be no rude comments about gloria. c.i. said gloria campaigns every 4 year for whomever the democratic nominee is and that she would this time as well. c.i. said gloria's just a sweet person (and then quickly noted gloria was strong as well, lest some 1 misread that). gloria is a sweet person but she's got nothing on c.i. and i think both of them would benefit from being less sweet.
they both take an attitude of 'oh well, that's okay.' and it's never okay. it's not okay when gloria gets smeared and slammed. it's not okay when c.i. gets smeared and slammed. they both think 'big picture' and that's great of them. but it pisses off those of us who know them when they're attacked.
gloria's written about her own self-esteem and i think it's safe to surmise that she puts others ahead of herself. i'm not insulting her for that. (i would never insult gloria and if i made the mistake of even sounding like i was, it would be the only thing that would piss c.i. off. i can write anything here and c.i. doesn't care but if i did that, i would get an angry phone call. to be clear, i never would because i like gloria and think she's one of our modern heroines.) read revolution from within (a great book) to find out why gloria's that way.
but c.i.'s that way as well and it's for different reasons. for c.i., it was about 'the big head.' that's what we would have called it in my family. don't get the big head. but modesty was so important in c.i.'s family. c.i. is not false modest. c.i. really doesn't see anything to be proud of.
when i met c.i.'s mother (who was a great woman), i probably pissed her off many times because she'd tell me these stories and i would recoil. there was 1 where c.i. was probably six and she and her friends (c.i.'s mother and her friends) were having an afternoon get together. and 1 of the women, when c.i. walked through the room and came over to say hello, remarked that c.i. had the most beautiful hair. 'no!' was c.i.'s mother's immediate response. (my mother-in-law was at that tea party and still remembers that moment.)
c.i. never got a compliment from any 1 (except a grandfather) growing up. it's not false modesty on c.i.'s part. c.i. and siblings were raised not to be vain. i remember in college when 1 of c.i.'s grandparents was sick, c.i. had to leave immediately. i come from a tight family and i said, 'let me go with.' so we flew out together, went straight to the hospital.
an aunt of c.i.'s whispered, didn't say it to c.i. directly, that c.i. could be a model. c.i. heard it (most people did) and immediately whisked down the hall. that was embarrassing to c.i. they didn't get compliments. (c.i. goes out of the way to be supportive and give compliments. c.i. was like that with her children, always praising them. she didn't repeat the cycle.) but c.i. knew it would be a point raised and sure enough it was. a point of contention with the parents. resulting in, 'you're no better looking than any 1 else.'
and that was in part because, due to the money and the profession, the parents didn't want their children to expect the world and wanted them to now your job is to give back.
but when people hear 9or read) c.i. say something about not being any big deal or not being this good thing or that and they think, 'oh come on.' it's not false modesty. it is the mantra that was instilled growing up and c.i. honestly believes it.
elaine grew up immensely wealthy as well. she lost her parents before she was a teenager but she'll tell you they complimented her on her looks and on her achivements. and my husband got non-stop ego stroking growing up. so it's not a rich thing.
i have no idea what happened to c.i.'s parents (who were very nice and i'm not saying anything against them) but something must have happened with vanity when they were children because they were bound and determined that their children would have no vanity or self-pride.
so when you're dealing with some 1 like that, like c.i., and you see other people ripping her off, it is outrageous. she is the last person to ever rip any 1 off. she gives credit generously (and often gives credit when it's not deserved). she is the last person to ever grab credit for herself.
and when she's ripped off, you have to remember she was raised to believe it's to be expected and you don't toot your own horn. so there's no point in getting angry at c.i. for this.
but those of who know and love c.i. do get outraged by the rip offs and i have no problem calling the rip off artists out. when it gets really bad, elaine will always point out, 'at the end of the day, c.i. can go home to the mansion, can pick up the phone and speak to any 1 in the world. you really think she gives it a second thought that some website ripped her off?'
and that's true but, also true, elaine will be outraged anytime she hears about some 1 ripping off c.i.
now if we get ripped off, if any of us gets ripped off, c.i. is a like a mother bear. c.i. will call them out and do so publicly (like when mike got ripped off by the hack writer who stole his 1st blog post). and when third gets ripped off, the best way to convince c.i. to pull a link or stop linking is to say, 'they ripped off ava, dona, jim, ty and jess.' if you say, 'they ripped you off,' you've lost c.i. c.i. doesn't care. but if you make the argument about dona, jim, etc., c.i. will get outraged.
it's that way offline as well. if any 1 ever speaks meanly about me, there is hell to pay. the same person can call c.i. the worst names in the world and when it gets back, if c.i. even mentions it it's either to explore why that was (assuming blame for some 1's anger) or to laugh at it.
c.i. really has no ego. it just rolls off the back.
on gloria, c.i. has told people before, 'don't talk bad about her to me.' if they have persisted, they get a warning that if it continues, they will no longer be friends. if it does continue, c.i. cuts them off cold. you do not say a word against gloria. that was betty friedan's big mistake and how betty ended up on c.i.'s s**t list and stayed there until she died. (she's probably still on it.) and, as betty friedan learned slowly, you get on c.i.'s s**t list and doors start closing on you.
so when community members or c.i.'s friends like elaine and i defend c.i. so strongly it's because (a) it's the right thing to do, (b) we know c.i. would do the same for us and (c) we also know that c.i.'s never going to acknowledge (even privately) that some 1 c.i. was kind enough to link to turned around and put a knife in her back.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, June 5, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a death, the Senate releases a report and more.
Starting with war resistance. On Tuesday, Canada's House of Commons passed a motion to grant safe harbor status to US war resisters in Canada. Aaron Wherry (Macleans.ca) observes, "Liberal Jim Karygiannis and New Democrat Olivia Chow put together a motion and got it to a vote." Ontario Now notes that the Tory party was against the motiong but they "were outvoted by the other three opposition parties, 1137-110 in the vote" and quotes MP Olivia Chow explaining, "There is a lot of support by ordinary citizens to allow U.S. war deserters the right to stay in Canada." Travis Lupik (The Straight) speaks with US war resister Brad McCall: "Reacting to the news, McCall told the Straight that he planned to celebrate, and then field interviews and prepare for the next battle. McCall said that he was hopeful that the Conservative government will abide by the House's recommendation, but cautioned that the war resisters had not won yet. 'I think they [the Conservatives] will probably just ignore it and see if anybody notices,' he said." [For previous coverage of McCall from The Straight click here and here.] Elliot Robins (Kootenay Western Star) speaks with US war resister Ryan Johnson who states, "We're pretty excited. It's a big step for war resisters here in Canada. We have a direct show of support from Parliament and it could be a very important thing to help end this [Iraq] war. . . . It's pretty hard to start your life based on the hope that a country that you've never been to before will suddenly decide to change its entire law around something to allow me to stay here. My life has been dramatically changed by our [Johnson and his wife, Jenna] decision to come to Canada, but even if I was deported, I wouldn't take back my decision to have come here."
Meanwhile Chris Cook (Pacific Free Press) takes a look at media in Canada (such as the CBC) and finds it lacking as it works hard to ignore the news about Tuesday's vote. What of so-called 'independent' media in the US? What's Panhandle Media in the US doing? As usual, not a damn thing. The Nation hasn't done a story on it or even a blog post (they have at least nine blogs supposedly updated regularly). It's not news to our 'friends' at The Nation. (Ask Katrina what happened on Wife Swap last night and she'll write you an essay.) The Progressive? Matty Rothschild and company are far too busy. CounterPunch -- the allegedly non-electoral hokum Counterpunch? At least 20 articles published today and yesterday. Number on war resisters? Zero. Cost of publicly pretending to give a damn about ending the illegal war? Priceless. Amy Goodman, apparently putting down her copy of Hu**ler magazine for a moment or two, surfaced yesterday morning with four sentences on the ruling. And still managed to do severe damages. "As many as 200 U.S. war resisters are currently living in Canada," she gushed. As many as? 200 was surpassed in 2006. But Goody hasn't sat down with one since November of 2006 so we can't expect up to date info from her. Mike addressed trashy Amy Goodman last night (including linking to the piece on Hu**ler that we can't here due to being 'work safe' for all readers). 14 days and she still hasn't found it worth informing her listeners that US war resister Corey Glass was ordered to leave Canada. 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. Apparently that's not news and not important to Panhandle Media.
Laughably, a Panhandle Media 'conference' takes place this weekend to talk up the importance of a . . . useless echo chamber? We're supposed to strengthen something that already refuses to deliver the news we need? We're supposed to give a damn about Panhandle Media? It's really past time to stop rewarding bad behavior. Now if we didn't have so many in Panhandle Media who were stupid, uncaring or damaged from intensive drug use, we might be able to end the illegal war. We might have ended it some time ago. But to do that, we'd need to be informed of two things (1) what is actually happening and (2) our own history.
Panhandle Media will never save one person, let alone the world. So let's save ourselves while they stay useless. In 1969, a member of the US Congress went to Canada to speak with war resisters. His name? Ed Koch. Better known today as the former mayor of NYC. Between then and the end of 1974, Kokch introduced how many amnesty bills in the US House of Representatives? Four. Now if we know that, we can ask why none of our 'friends' in Congress have yet to make that trip? Dennis Kucinich, Canada is calling. Where are our bills in Congress calling for amnesty for war resisters? Forget "laws" -- which are bills that have been passed -- where are our bills arguing for amnesty. By the end of 1974, because of the work by people like Koch, a Republican would step forward in the Senate with a bill for war resisters (only one group of them). Who was that Republican? Ask Panhandle Media. Remember they care sooo much and they are soooo informed and they have all the information to give you . . . right after the never ending pledge drive cycles.
In the real world, 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).
In today's New York Times, Andrew E. Kramer reports, "American airstrikes in Hilla, the city once known as Babylon, wounded five people on Wednesday, according to the local police, who said the Americans were responding to a mortar attack on the American Consulate." So five people wounded in another 'precision' air strike. File it under 'helping' along with the topic Elaine examined last night (Iraqi women). Also in today's papers is Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) stating that the White House and the puppet of the occupation (Nouri al-Maliki) are putting together "[a] secret deal" which would allow permanent US bases, the US to "conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for the unending conflict in their country." Cockburn was off the mark when attempting to predict US reaction (he thought it would be explosive, Amy Goodman buried the news in a fleeting headline today). What else was he right or wrong about? Sue Pleming (Reuters) quotes Ryan Crocker, the US Amabassador to Iraq, declaring that the White House doesn't want permanent bases and were not putting together anything that would extend in the "long-term." So Cockburn was way off the mark?
No. These statements were repeated in April as well and, to any watching, weren't at all believable. Dropping back to the April 9th snapshot, US House Rep Susan Davis was asking about and echoing US Senator Hillary Clinton's April 8th questions (to Crocker and Petraeus) as to why the US Congress was being cut out of the process. Davis: "That strikes people in our districts as strange. I wonder if you could talk on that" and how such an agreement might or might not "be used as leverage?"
From the statement Senator Hillary Clinton released April 9th:
"I also asked Ambassador Crocker if the United States Congress would have the same opportunity as the Iraqi Parliament will have to review any agreement or long-term security pact that President Bush is negotiating with the Iraqis. Ambassador Crocker said that the Congress, your representatives, would not have that chance. I have two requests of President Bush for his speech on Thursday. First, I call on the President to answer the question that General Petraeus did not. What is our end game in Iraq given the failure of surge to achieve the objective that the president outlined for it? Second, I call on President Bush to pledge to the American people, who have sacrificed greatly for this effort that the United States Congress will have the chance to review and vote on any long-term security agreement he has negotiated with the Iraqis."
It was also an issue in Congress April 10th when the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations heard testimony from the State Dept's David Satterfield and the Defense Dept's Mary Beth Long. The chair of the committee outlined the topics of interest in his opening statements.
Senator Joe Biden: 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.
Meanwhile in the White House today, spokesperson Dana Perino faced some semi-tough questioning and se danced away from every one of them with statements such as "I would say that the issue of pre-war intelligence on Iraq has been thoroughly reviewed over the years by the Congress, as well as by the independent WMD Commission." What was Perino avoiding? The latest report on Iraq from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The chair, Senator Jay Rockefeller, stated today, "Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by intelligence. In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe the threat from Iraq was much greater than actuall existed."
Key points from the report summarized by Rockefeller include:
* Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
* Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
* Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
* Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
* The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
* The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
In a press conference today (here for audio or video), Rockefeller declared, "It has often been said that truth is the first casualty of war and today the Senate Intelligence Committee reports in detail that this was the case in the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq. You don't get to tell the truth just some of the time when going to war. The American people expect their government to tell the truth all the time, that being 100% of the time. Let's be clear as far too many of our own country men and their families know this is a very deadly serious matter Making the case for war is categorically different than any other approach to public policy. There is nothing more serious in public life than the decision to go to war. There is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberatly painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully supported by intelligence. The bottom line is this, we owed it to the troops and the American people to tell the truth about how we got there. These reports are about holding our government accountable and making sure that these mistakes never happen again." PDF format warning, the first report is on public statements (and runs 171 pages), also PDF, the second report focuses on the Counterrorism Evaluation Group and Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (and is 56 pages).
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing killed 1 Iraqi soldier and a Kirkuk roadside bombing wounded seven people.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad today.
Today the US military announced: "A Coalition force Soldier was killed by small arms fire June 4 during a patrol south of Baghdad."
Meanwhile John Stauber (PR Watch) observes, "Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008." Stauber explains that "every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audience."
May 22nd we noted Lavena Johnson who died while serving Iraq and whose parents do not buy the official 'explanation' of Lavena's death. As KMOV reported (link has text and video) last year, "Lavena was apparently abused" and it was impossible for her to have used the gun she's said to have killed herself with. Veterans For Peace notes "After viewing the black and white copies of crime scene photos, viewing multiple bruises on her body, and speaking to different military personnel as they prepared for her burial, her father and uncles realized that LeVena had been murdered. Eight days before her twenthieth birthday, LaVena was beaten, raped, set on fire, shot, and left in a contractor's tent in Iraq. Her family has been fighting for justice for LaVena for over two years now." They are asking you to help Dr. John Johnson (LaVena's father) find out what really happened to his daughter in Iraq by calling 202.225.2876 which is Ike Skelton's number, Skelton is the chair of the House Armed Service Committee. This will be picked up tomorrow and be a regular part of the snapshots.
Turning to the US political race, Allison Stevens (Women's eNews) reports on Hillary Clinton's primary campaign: "And Clinton's candidacy shined a high beam on stubborn strains of sexism, said Clare Giesen, executive director of the National Women's Political Caucus, a group in Washington, D.C., that works to elect pro-choice women to office. 'This campaign has unveiled sexism as none of us thought existed," she said. "It's like some feral object; it's just out of control.' The depth of sexist attitudes became apparent in national news media coverage of Clinton, Giesen said. A Feb. 1 media study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., showed that from Dec. 16 through Jan. 27, five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama were favorable but only half of Clinton were.
Giesen said sexist comments in the media serve as a rallying cry for women's rights advocates. 'There is a definite second act that comes after this election. Even if she got the nomination, what we have looked at is a real resistance to women in power, and a fear. And we've got to do a lot to educate people'." Froma Harrop (Rasmussen Reports) observes, "What's dangerous for the Democratic Party is that, for many women, the eye of the storm has moved beyond Hillary or anything she does at this point. The offense has turned personal. They are now in their own orbit, having abandoned popular Democratic Websites that reveled in crude anti-Hillary outpourings -- and established new ones on which they trade stories of the Obama people's nastiness. But worse than the online malice has been the affronts to their faces." Rev. Renita J. Weems (Something Within) compiles a list of what the campaign season taught her: "Fourth, now I know what I always suspected, namely that while racism is a sin, sexism is perfectly acceptable and tolerated in this country. Women are the worst culprits. The outright woman-hating jibes, the prejudice against Clinton as a middle-age woman, the physical mockery, and the anti-white woman rage have not been easy to witness. Clinton has not run a faultless campaign-- far from it. (Her surrogates need to be fired!) But Hillary Clinton the woman and the politician did not deserve the venom, the acrimony, the hatred, and the name-calling commentators and the public heaped on her throughout this race."
aaron wherrytravis lupickbrad mccallchris cookryan johnsonelliot robins
patrick cockburnandrew e. kramerthe new york times
john stauber
1 thing i need to put in is from 1 of my sisters. she took a vacation and stayed at a nice hotel. but, get this, she and her husband had to put up with some asshole next to them. he made noise but they didn't have to get up any specific time (it was a vacation) so they just ignored it. then, after his party breaks up, he's banging on their wall. she asked, 'is he banging at us?' they weren't even talking, let alone have the t.v. or radio on.
every few minutes he'd slam a fist into the wall. finally, my sister's husband gets off the couch (they were in a suite), walks over to the wall and bangs back. this leads to non-stop pounding on the other side. they called down to the front desk to complain and that stopped the banging for about 15 minutes but then it started up again. (my sister was reading a book and my brother-in-law was going over maps for their boating the next day, they were not talking to each other - not that talking should have caused a problem.) this time, her husband (my brother-in-law) wants to go over and kick the man's ass. but my sister calls the front desk and it becomes this big thing with the police.
the man gets taken away (he'd broken furniture during his party, among other things).
apparently the people below him had complained about the noise from his party which was why it broke up and he went around banging on the walls assuming it was some 1 on either side of him. now get this, he never should have had a room. he was under 18 and his parents who spoil him rented him the suite. the police could only take him down to the station and call the parents. apparently, he couldn't be legally responsible for the room because his parents signed for it and he was a minor (16). what kind of parents put their child up in a hotel room to party?
they knew he was going to have a party.
what got broken? the couch, the coffee table, there was a hole in the bedroom wall (which wasn't a shared wall for my sister so fortunately they didn't hear that noise), the drapes had been pulled down and ripped. the tv was trashed.
2 grown ups put their 16-year-old son in a hotel room to let him party and he trashed the place.
now i'm a new mother, granted, and won't have to worry about the 16 year old stage for some time (though i don't believe that's normal 16 year old behavior) but what were those parents thinking?
you don't put a 16 y.o. in a hotel to party. they're lucky no 1 got hurt. (there was intense drinking. it was the talk of the hotel the next day as various parents of children who showed up at the party staggered home drunk.)
they're on a 3 week vacation and already there's another horror story but my sister said she'll tell me about that on the next phone call.
it also involves under 18 y.o.s in a suite.
i can remember my prom (i wasn't raised rich, i have money now) and how it was a big deal for kids to borrow their parents car to drive to it. (the incident above was not a prom party for any 1 wondering.) then it became you had to rent a limo, then you had to do that. i guess those who spoil their kids are now renting hotel suites for them to party unsupervised.
please read elaine's 'Who's standing up for Iraqi women?' and mike's ' Day 13 Goodman still won't say 'Corey Glass'' and especially ava and c.i.'s 'TV: Grime & Grit TV.' on the latter, that was secondary topic of the roundtable for several reasons. 1st it is a great article by ava and c.i. 2nd, there was a lot of anger from members. why weren't we linking to it? mike had.
but the rest of us? really hadn't. that wasn't a slam on ava and c.i. and was actually due to the fact that we are all exhausted. you have to understand that we have spent all of may getting out the vote for hillary and some go back to april on that.
but we were called out on that by a member and gina said it was the biggest community complaint that she and krista had heard all week. ava and c.i. said it was no big deal and that every 1 was tired. (which we all are.) but it turned out there was another reason for the anger.
c.i. was ripped off repeatedly this week. i didn't know (nor did others). but it went through the community in e-mails the way it always does.
in 1 instance, c.i.'s very strong feminist statements about hillary appeared word for word for 4 sentences at another blog with the woman presenting them as her own. in another, c.i. linked to something this week.
i can get away with talking about this because c.i. and i go so far back (we're friends since college) so let me do that but do it in a way that c.i. won't be upset.
there's a feminist - and offline feminist. c.i. knows her and they share a common friend. c.i. was noting (all week) women's reactions to the attempts to install barack as the nominee. the common friend said, 'you need to note ___.' c.i. said, 'i didn't know she had a blog.' c.i. said no problem.
it turned out to be a problem because c.i. couldn't find it. the woman writes for (may do more than just write for) a feminist print periodical. so c.i. finally went there. flipping through various pages online, c.i. found a page that listed the woman's blog. c.i. went there and found the hillary commentary. c.i. included it.
last night or this morning (days after c.i. highlighted it) another blog's highlighting it.
i said 'so' in the roundtable and the member loudly said 'so?' back. c.i. stepped in and explained what i didn't know, what c.i. didn't know at the time the feminist was included in the iraq snapshot. that's not the woman's blog. it was the woman's blog. the woman's moved her blog.
point, any 1 wanting to highlight the feminist because she just stumbled upon it by accident would have highlighted the new blog (and c.i. explained 'i didn't realize the blog had switched, i am planning to highlight the new blog as soon as i can' - c.i. heard from the common friend that it was the old blog address after the feminist was quoted in the snapshot).
so the point that the member (and others knew - before c.i. did) was that c.i. had highlighted the old blog when the blog's been moved. any 1 stumbling upon the website today by accident would automatically be taken to the new blog. meaning that, yes, a woman online obviously saw c.i.'s snapshot quoting the feminist and decided to play like (her own words portray it this way), she just happened to find it all on her own.
now it takes 2 seconds to say 'via __, i found __'
and if i'm not being clear, you had to go ass backwards to find the old web address. c.i. did because c.i. couldn't find the feminist's blog. so c.i. went to the feminist periodical and flipped through various webpages to find the site (which gave the old address). the post c.i. was highlighting was from the middle of the may. the feminist later moved her site (to word press or from word press, i don't know that for sure) and there's no way that this 1 post - from the middle of may - was highlighted by another blog (over 24 hours after c.i. had highlighted it) without the blogger having seen c.i.'s snapshot.
why is it an issue?
because c.i.'s too kind with links and c.i. has in fact linked several times in the last 3 weeks to the blog that ripped c.i. off.
it's a very big issue to the community.
it's an issue that people show up asking for highlights and never give anything back. it's an issue when c.i.'s steering traffic to other sites and those sites never do anything back. members know not to complain about that to c.i. c.i. doesn't care. but when 1 of those sites is turning around and ripping off c.i. it is an issue and even c.i. has to hear about it.
okay, i made some notes for myself when this came up. ___ highlighted it this morning and made it their morning post. it is their big post.
the feminist blogging about hillary wrote her post may 14th.
c.i. linked to it in tuesday's snapshot and, in fact, mislinked because it is the old site (the new site has moved all the old stuff over). so this morning, a woman suddenly finds a may 14th blog post on her own? and finds it at the old site?
no.
that woman ripped off c.i. she saw the tuesday snapshot and decided she better link to it as well. that's fine. but pretending like you stumbled upon something written on may 14th when you didn't? refusing to say, 'as c.i. linked to tuesday ...' or some such thing?
'via c.i.' two words. it wouldn't have killed the woman.
now the woman can forget about her site ever being highlighted community wide.
members are outraged.
8 different members have been posting at that woman's site since c.i. linked to her starting 3 weeks ago. and their comments have included highlighting c.i. or ava & c.i.'s writing.
not only has the woman refused to provide any link to c.i., she's now raiding c.i.'s snapshots?
let me explain to the thief, you are outraged that hillary did not receive her just due and you turn around and rip off another woman? you're asking for people paying attention to be outraged.
no 1 in the world believes you found the may 14th post all by yourself. it's not a democratic site and the woman's not a democrat (she's a left feminist). she posts pretty much every day, the feminist, and you want people to believe that on your own you found a may 14th post? that you paged back through the archives (by chance!) on june 5th and found it?
or that you just happened to make the same mistake c.i. did of linking to the old site?
c.i. is always gracious and explained to the member during the roundtable, 'the important thing is that' the feminist got highlighted somewhere else as well.
and that is good.
but good is also giving credit where it's due.
i'm going to return to this topic tomorrow night. but this does piss of the community as a number of websites have learned recently.
in april and may, to show that, yes, blogs are blogging about hillary, c.i. was very free with the links. that's because there was this myth that the hillary community was a tiny 1 and c.i.'s snapshots are read by the media (by friends in it as well as non-friends) so it was a way to refute the msm meme that hillary had no online support.
and what we saw was that c.i. got ripped off by those same blogs. there's 1 that links to me and i'll be ripping into it in the near future. (i'm waiting for a reason that has nothing to do with me being linked to on their blogroll - and to be clear, i'm not talking about susan of random thoughts, she may be the only other 1 that links to me and i don't want people thinking i'm talking about her when i'm talking about a group blog. i will rip into it when the titty baby who hates hillary returns with her 1st post. she's refused to blog while the blog's site has been pro-hillary. played titty baby because she loves barack. so i'm waiting for her big return to cover both topics at the same time.)
and here's the thing about ripping off c.i., the traffic c.i. supplies stops visiting. they see the rip offs and they get sick of it.
the 1st time they see a rip off, their reaction is 'well maybe it's an accident.' then they see the second 1. they note the fact that while c.i.'s being free with the links, these losers are do nothing for the common ills community. so then a member will post something and see what happens. usually a link to c.i. in the comments. sometimes a link and a comment like 'yeah, i love that point. i loved it when it appeared at the common ills.'
on that, we're talking about things like what's in today's snapshot.
did you know ed koch visited war resisters in canada during vietnam? that he was in congress at the time and he introduced 4 bills to give them amnesty?
i vaguely remembered that when i read the snapshot. (i should more than vaguely remember it because i remember c.i. and elaine working on that in real time.) now nobody's writing about that because, frankly, no 1 remembers it that lived through it and those who didn't live through it don't know because it's part of the 'hidden history.'
today c.i. writes about it (via that incredible memory that c.i. has). and it's the sort of thing that no 1 can claim they also just thought of because no 1 else is going to remember it. so when you see that pop up online elsewhere, you immediately know 'oh, s/he read what c.i. wrote and, look, they aren't giving credit.'
we see this happen over and over (we because i am a member of this community) and it is just so shocking.
c.i. has done incredible work over the last 4 years and if the people ripping c.i. off had given even 1/2 the credit owed, the entire blogosphere would know that. but they don't give credit. they grab c.i.'s work and pass it off as their own over and over.
'they' includes 'independent' media journalists.
it's appalling. it's disgusting.
and it happens over and over.
now c.i.'s attitude is always 'i don't need credit.' because c.i. was raised to be modest. but it's getting real old, all this raiding and stealing from c.i.
i give credit here to c.i. when i'm using something c.i.'s written and i could get away without doing so. every 1 knows c.i., elaine and i went to college together. every 1 who comes here knows that and knows that we are best friends. i could rip off c.i. and know 1 would bat an eye because it would be 'oh, they're friends.' but i don't do that. (i so don't do that that c.i. is always telling me, 'rebecca, you don't have to credit me.' or 'becky, we were both talking about that. it as much your point as it is mine.')
now if i'm not trading on my friendship to steal, there's no reason for strangers to think they can get away with theft.
but they do it and then wonder why their readership wanders off? because they know you stole.
and then, after a few weeks or months, these people who never credited c.i. while ripping off, show up at the public account of the common ills begging for links.
but, of course, they never heard of the common ills.
that's always their 'excuse'/lie when they get confronted on their theft. 'i don't even know that site!'
it was especially funny when a man tried that lie and apparently forgot that not only did his site link to c.i. but when his site changed their web address, he e-mailed c.i. to notify about the new address. but we're all supposed to believe that 2 days after c.i. wrote about something, he just found out about it on his own and that he's never heard of the common ills even though he's got it on the blogroll and even though he's repeatedly written asking for links from c.i.
c.i.'s attitude also includes 'maybe i'm too controversial.' i don't buy that excuse.
i'll give an example here. jess pulled the link c.i. had for make them accountable. carolyn whomever wrote to c.i. asking for a link. jess was the 1 who replied to that e-mail to the public account. he told her he would tell c.i. about her site. he told her he was sure c.i. would put on her on the permalinks on the left side of the site. c.i. did that.
that was over 3 months ago. c.i. has highlighted her site since in snapshots and other things. but carolyn, who sent a 152K e-mail to the public account of the common ills today, highlights everything under the sun including some things that are surely 'controversial'. but she never could find time in 3 months to work in even 1 link for the common ills?
brandon brought that to jess' attention and jess pulled the link last friday. i'll quote jess here, 'you've got a lot of nerve asking for links, then getting them and never returning the favor.' i agree with jess. c.i. put her on the permalinks (blogroll but c.i. calls them permalinks) and carolyn never did the same for c.i. carolyn e-mails non-stop asking for links in things c.i.'s writing and c.i. has given them. but to go to make them accountable, you'd never know the common ills even exists.
it's not right. c.i. has never begged for a link (and has, in fact, begged msm friends not to link). but for those who beg for links, the fair thing, the honorable thing, is when you get a link to show some appreciation.
c.i. wrote about gloria steinem and noted there would be no rude comments about gloria. c.i. said gloria campaigns every 4 year for whomever the democratic nominee is and that she would this time as well. c.i. said gloria's just a sweet person (and then quickly noted gloria was strong as well, lest some 1 misread that). gloria is a sweet person but she's got nothing on c.i. and i think both of them would benefit from being less sweet.
they both take an attitude of 'oh well, that's okay.' and it's never okay. it's not okay when gloria gets smeared and slammed. it's not okay when c.i. gets smeared and slammed. they both think 'big picture' and that's great of them. but it pisses off those of us who know them when they're attacked.
gloria's written about her own self-esteem and i think it's safe to surmise that she puts others ahead of herself. i'm not insulting her for that. (i would never insult gloria and if i made the mistake of even sounding like i was, it would be the only thing that would piss c.i. off. i can write anything here and c.i. doesn't care but if i did that, i would get an angry phone call. to be clear, i never would because i like gloria and think she's one of our modern heroines.) read revolution from within (a great book) to find out why gloria's that way.
but c.i.'s that way as well and it's for different reasons. for c.i., it was about 'the big head.' that's what we would have called it in my family. don't get the big head. but modesty was so important in c.i.'s family. c.i. is not false modest. c.i. really doesn't see anything to be proud of.
when i met c.i.'s mother (who was a great woman), i probably pissed her off many times because she'd tell me these stories and i would recoil. there was 1 where c.i. was probably six and she and her friends (c.i.'s mother and her friends) were having an afternoon get together. and 1 of the women, when c.i. walked through the room and came over to say hello, remarked that c.i. had the most beautiful hair. 'no!' was c.i.'s mother's immediate response. (my mother-in-law was at that tea party and still remembers that moment.)
c.i. never got a compliment from any 1 (except a grandfather) growing up. it's not false modesty on c.i.'s part. c.i. and siblings were raised not to be vain. i remember in college when 1 of c.i.'s grandparents was sick, c.i. had to leave immediately. i come from a tight family and i said, 'let me go with.' so we flew out together, went straight to the hospital.
an aunt of c.i.'s whispered, didn't say it to c.i. directly, that c.i. could be a model. c.i. heard it (most people did) and immediately whisked down the hall. that was embarrassing to c.i. they didn't get compliments. (c.i. goes out of the way to be supportive and give compliments. c.i. was like that with her children, always praising them. she didn't repeat the cycle.) but c.i. knew it would be a point raised and sure enough it was. a point of contention with the parents. resulting in, 'you're no better looking than any 1 else.'
and that was in part because, due to the money and the profession, the parents didn't want their children to expect the world and wanted them to now your job is to give back.
but when people hear 9or read) c.i. say something about not being any big deal or not being this good thing or that and they think, 'oh come on.' it's not false modesty. it is the mantra that was instilled growing up and c.i. honestly believes it.
elaine grew up immensely wealthy as well. she lost her parents before she was a teenager but she'll tell you they complimented her on her looks and on her achivements. and my husband got non-stop ego stroking growing up. so it's not a rich thing.
i have no idea what happened to c.i.'s parents (who were very nice and i'm not saying anything against them) but something must have happened with vanity when they were children because they were bound and determined that their children would have no vanity or self-pride.
so when you're dealing with some 1 like that, like c.i., and you see other people ripping her off, it is outrageous. she is the last person to ever rip any 1 off. she gives credit generously (and often gives credit when it's not deserved). she is the last person to ever grab credit for herself.
and when she's ripped off, you have to remember she was raised to believe it's to be expected and you don't toot your own horn. so there's no point in getting angry at c.i. for this.
but those of who know and love c.i. do get outraged by the rip offs and i have no problem calling the rip off artists out. when it gets really bad, elaine will always point out, 'at the end of the day, c.i. can go home to the mansion, can pick up the phone and speak to any 1 in the world. you really think she gives it a second thought that some website ripped her off?'
and that's true but, also true, elaine will be outraged anytime she hears about some 1 ripping off c.i.
now if we get ripped off, if any of us gets ripped off, c.i. is a like a mother bear. c.i. will call them out and do so publicly (like when mike got ripped off by the hack writer who stole his 1st blog post). and when third gets ripped off, the best way to convince c.i. to pull a link or stop linking is to say, 'they ripped off ava, dona, jim, ty and jess.' if you say, 'they ripped you off,' you've lost c.i. c.i. doesn't care. but if you make the argument about dona, jim, etc., c.i. will get outraged.
it's that way offline as well. if any 1 ever speaks meanly about me, there is hell to pay. the same person can call c.i. the worst names in the world and when it gets back, if c.i. even mentions it it's either to explore why that was (assuming blame for some 1's anger) or to laugh at it.
c.i. really has no ego. it just rolls off the back.
on gloria, c.i. has told people before, 'don't talk bad about her to me.' if they have persisted, they get a warning that if it continues, they will no longer be friends. if it does continue, c.i. cuts them off cold. you do not say a word against gloria. that was betty friedan's big mistake and how betty ended up on c.i.'s s**t list and stayed there until she died. (she's probably still on it.) and, as betty friedan learned slowly, you get on c.i.'s s**t list and doors start closing on you.
so when community members or c.i.'s friends like elaine and i defend c.i. so strongly it's because (a) it's the right thing to do, (b) we know c.i. would do the same for us and (c) we also know that c.i.'s never going to acknowledge (even privately) that some 1 c.i. was kind enough to link to turned around and put a knife in her back.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, June 5, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a death, the Senate releases a report and more.
Starting with war resistance. On Tuesday, Canada's House of Commons passed a motion to grant safe harbor status to US war resisters in Canada. Aaron Wherry (Macleans.ca) observes, "Liberal Jim Karygiannis and New Democrat Olivia Chow put together a motion and got it to a vote." Ontario Now notes that the Tory party was against the motiong but they "were outvoted by the other three opposition parties, 1137-110 in the vote" and quotes MP Olivia Chow explaining, "There is a lot of support by ordinary citizens to allow U.S. war deserters the right to stay in Canada." Travis Lupik (The Straight) speaks with US war resister Brad McCall: "Reacting to the news, McCall told the Straight that he planned to celebrate, and then field interviews and prepare for the next battle. McCall said that he was hopeful that the Conservative government will abide by the House's recommendation, but cautioned that the war resisters had not won yet. 'I think they [the Conservatives] will probably just ignore it and see if anybody notices,' he said." [For previous coverage of McCall from The Straight click here and here.] Elliot Robins (Kootenay Western Star) speaks with US war resister Ryan Johnson who states, "We're pretty excited. It's a big step for war resisters here in Canada. We have a direct show of support from Parliament and it could be a very important thing to help end this [Iraq] war. . . . It's pretty hard to start your life based on the hope that a country that you've never been to before will suddenly decide to change its entire law around something to allow me to stay here. My life has been dramatically changed by our [Johnson and his wife, Jenna] decision to come to Canada, but even if I was deported, I wouldn't take back my decision to have come here."
Meanwhile Chris Cook (Pacific Free Press) takes a look at media in Canada (such as the CBC) and finds it lacking as it works hard to ignore the news about Tuesday's vote. What of so-called 'independent' media in the US? What's Panhandle Media in the US doing? As usual, not a damn thing. The Nation hasn't done a story on it or even a blog post (they have at least nine blogs supposedly updated regularly). It's not news to our 'friends' at The Nation. (Ask Katrina what happened on Wife Swap last night and she'll write you an essay.) The Progressive? Matty Rothschild and company are far too busy. CounterPunch -- the allegedly non-electoral hokum Counterpunch? At least 20 articles published today and yesterday. Number on war resisters? Zero. Cost of publicly pretending to give a damn about ending the illegal war? Priceless. Amy Goodman, apparently putting down her copy of Hu**ler magazine for a moment or two, surfaced yesterday morning with four sentences on the ruling. And still managed to do severe damages. "As many as 200 U.S. war resisters are currently living in Canada," she gushed. As many as? 200 was surpassed in 2006. But Goody hasn't sat down with one since November of 2006 so we can't expect up to date info from her. Mike addressed trashy Amy Goodman last night (including linking to the piece on Hu**ler that we can't here due to being 'work safe' for all readers). 14 days and she still hasn't found it worth informing her listeners that US war resister Corey Glass was ordered to leave Canada. 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. Apparently that's not news and not important to Panhandle Media.
Laughably, a Panhandle Media 'conference' takes place this weekend to talk up the importance of a . . . useless echo chamber? We're supposed to strengthen something that already refuses to deliver the news we need? We're supposed to give a damn about Panhandle Media? It's really past time to stop rewarding bad behavior. Now if we didn't have so many in Panhandle Media who were stupid, uncaring or damaged from intensive drug use, we might be able to end the illegal war. We might have ended it some time ago. But to do that, we'd need to be informed of two things (1) what is actually happening and (2) our own history.
Panhandle Media will never save one person, let alone the world. So let's save ourselves while they stay useless. In 1969, a member of the US Congress went to Canada to speak with war resisters. His name? Ed Koch. Better known today as the former mayor of NYC. Between then and the end of 1974, Kokch introduced how many amnesty bills in the US House of Representatives? Four. Now if we know that, we can ask why none of our 'friends' in Congress have yet to make that trip? Dennis Kucinich, Canada is calling. Where are our bills in Congress calling for amnesty for war resisters? Forget "laws" -- which are bills that have been passed -- where are our bills arguing for amnesty. By the end of 1974, because of the work by people like Koch, a Republican would step forward in the Senate with a bill for war resisters (only one group of them). Who was that Republican? Ask Panhandle Media. Remember they care sooo much and they are soooo informed and they have all the information to give you . . . right after the never ending pledge drive cycles.
In the real world, 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).
In today's New York Times, Andrew E. Kramer reports, "American airstrikes in Hilla, the city once known as Babylon, wounded five people on Wednesday, according to the local police, who said the Americans were responding to a mortar attack on the American Consulate." So five people wounded in another 'precision' air strike. File it under 'helping' along with the topic Elaine examined last night (Iraqi women). Also in today's papers is Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) stating that the White House and the puppet of the occupation (Nouri al-Maliki) are putting together "[a] secret deal" which would allow permanent US bases, the US to "conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for the unending conflict in their country." Cockburn was off the mark when attempting to predict US reaction (he thought it would be explosive, Amy Goodman buried the news in a fleeting headline today). What else was he right or wrong about? Sue Pleming (Reuters) quotes Ryan Crocker, the US Amabassador to Iraq, declaring that the White House doesn't want permanent bases and were not putting together anything that would extend in the "long-term." So Cockburn was way off the mark?
No. These statements were repeated in April as well and, to any watching, weren't at all believable. Dropping back to the April 9th snapshot, US House Rep Susan Davis was asking about and echoing US Senator Hillary Clinton's April 8th questions (to Crocker and Petraeus) as to why the US Congress was being cut out of the process. Davis: "That strikes people in our districts as strange. I wonder if you could talk on that" and how such an agreement might or might not "be used as leverage?"
From the statement Senator Hillary Clinton released April 9th:
"I also asked Ambassador Crocker if the United States Congress would have the same opportunity as the Iraqi Parliament will have to review any agreement or long-term security pact that President Bush is negotiating with the Iraqis. Ambassador Crocker said that the Congress, your representatives, would not have that chance. I have two requests of President Bush for his speech on Thursday. First, I call on the President to answer the question that General Petraeus did not. What is our end game in Iraq given the failure of surge to achieve the objective that the president outlined for it? Second, I call on President Bush to pledge to the American people, who have sacrificed greatly for this effort that the United States Congress will have the chance to review and vote on any long-term security agreement he has negotiated with the Iraqis."
It was also an issue in Congress April 10th when the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations heard testimony from the State Dept's David Satterfield and the Defense Dept's Mary Beth Long. The chair of the committee outlined the topics of interest in his opening statements.
Senator Joe Biden: 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.
Meanwhile in the White House today, spokesperson Dana Perino faced some semi-tough questioning and se danced away from every one of them with statements such as "I would say that the issue of pre-war intelligence on Iraq has been thoroughly reviewed over the years by the Congress, as well as by the independent WMD Commission." What was Perino avoiding? The latest report on Iraq from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The chair, Senator Jay Rockefeller, stated today, "Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by intelligence. In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe the threat from Iraq was much greater than actuall existed."
Key points from the report summarized by Rockefeller include:
* Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
* Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
* Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
* Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
* The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
* The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
In a press conference today (here for audio or video), Rockefeller declared, "It has often been said that truth is the first casualty of war and today the Senate Intelligence Committee reports in detail that this was the case in the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq. You don't get to tell the truth just some of the time when going to war. The American people expect their government to tell the truth all the time, that being 100% of the time. Let's be clear as far too many of our own country men and their families know this is a very deadly serious matter Making the case for war is categorically different than any other approach to public policy. There is nothing more serious in public life than the decision to go to war. There is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberatly painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully supported by intelligence. The bottom line is this, we owed it to the troops and the American people to tell the truth about how we got there. These reports are about holding our government accountable and making sure that these mistakes never happen again." PDF format warning, the first report is on public statements (and runs 171 pages), also PDF, the second report focuses on the Counterrorism Evaluation Group and Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (and is 56 pages).
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing killed 1 Iraqi soldier and a Kirkuk roadside bombing wounded seven people.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad today.
Today the US military announced: "A Coalition force Soldier was killed by small arms fire June 4 during a patrol south of Baghdad."
Meanwhile John Stauber (PR Watch) observes, "Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008." Stauber explains that "every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audience."
May 22nd we noted Lavena Johnson who died while serving Iraq and whose parents do not buy the official 'explanation' of Lavena's death. As KMOV reported (link has text and video) last year, "Lavena was apparently abused" and it was impossible for her to have used the gun she's said to have killed herself with. Veterans For Peace notes "After viewing the black and white copies of crime scene photos, viewing multiple bruises on her body, and speaking to different military personnel as they prepared for her burial, her father and uncles realized that LeVena had been murdered. Eight days before her twenthieth birthday, LaVena was beaten, raped, set on fire, shot, and left in a contractor's tent in Iraq. Her family has been fighting for justice for LaVena for over two years now." They are asking you to help Dr. John Johnson (LaVena's father) find out what really happened to his daughter in Iraq by calling 202.225.2876 which is Ike Skelton's number, Skelton is the chair of the House Armed Service Committee. This will be picked up tomorrow and be a regular part of the snapshots.
Turning to the US political race, Allison Stevens (Women's eNews) reports on Hillary Clinton's primary campaign: "And Clinton's candidacy shined a high beam on stubborn strains of sexism, said Clare Giesen, executive director of the National Women's Political Caucus, a group in Washington, D.C., that works to elect pro-choice women to office. 'This campaign has unveiled sexism as none of us thought existed," she said. "It's like some feral object; it's just out of control.' The depth of sexist attitudes became apparent in national news media coverage of Clinton, Giesen said. A Feb. 1 media study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., showed that from Dec. 16 through Jan. 27, five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama were favorable but only half of Clinton were.
Giesen said sexist comments in the media serve as a rallying cry for women's rights advocates. 'There is a definite second act that comes after this election. Even if she got the nomination, what we have looked at is a real resistance to women in power, and a fear. And we've got to do a lot to educate people'." Froma Harrop (Rasmussen Reports) observes, "What's dangerous for the Democratic Party is that, for many women, the eye of the storm has moved beyond Hillary or anything she does at this point. The offense has turned personal. They are now in their own orbit, having abandoned popular Democratic Websites that reveled in crude anti-Hillary outpourings -- and established new ones on which they trade stories of the Obama people's nastiness. But worse than the online malice has been the affronts to their faces." Rev. Renita J. Weems (Something Within) compiles a list of what the campaign season taught her: "Fourth, now I know what I always suspected, namely that while racism is a sin, sexism is perfectly acceptable and tolerated in this country. Women are the worst culprits. The outright woman-hating jibes, the prejudice against Clinton as a middle-age woman, the physical mockery, and the anti-white woman rage have not been easy to witness. Clinton has not run a faultless campaign-- far from it. (Her surrogates need to be fired!) But Hillary Clinton the woman and the politician did not deserve the venom, the acrimony, the hatred, and the name-calling commentators and the public heaped on her throughout this race."
aaron wherrytravis lupickbrad mccallchris cookryan johnsonelliot robins
patrick cockburnandrew e. kramerthe new york times
john stauber
6/04/2008
3 things
okay, i have 3 topics tonight.
1) hillary.
my wish is for hillary to take the battle to denver. i am not the 1 who has to take the non-stop attacks, around the clock, from big and small media. and, as c.i. will point out, hillary can take those. it's the attacks on bill and chelsea that hurt. so hillary's going to make the decision that's right for her. if it's go to denver, i am there. if it's to drop out, i will be sad but i will understand.
i thank her for the battle she fought for america, for americans, and for women.
she gave everything she had and some 1 without her strength would never have made it this far. she is a winner, she is a fighter and she would be the best president the country could ever have.
i have met hillary many times over the years and, as i've noted here many times, never been impressed. i would tag along with c.i. to the white house or whatever (martha's vineyard, for example, which is only a hop from my own house - i live on tim russert island).
what i saw on the campaign trail, what i saw her do, made me 1 of the biggest hillary supporters.
she is every good thing her supporters have always said.
2) cynthia mckinney.
i have been on the road (working to get the vote out on hillary) and for some insane reason, i have had non-stop e-mails on poor cynthia mckinney.
sell that crap to some 1 else.
for those just showing up, cynthia was my choice. but i thought cynthia was a fighter.
cynthia's campaign is that of a whiner.
if that's not representing her, she should have fixed it a long time ago.
she allowed a supporter to say she wasn't running to win, she only wanted 5% of the vote.
not only did she not challenge it, at her campaign site, it was linked to with a 'he speaks for cynthia.'
i don't have time for vanity runs or fake campaigns.
my support for cynthia was conditional upon her pulling out all stops to win.
some whiny ass types keep showing up telling me that 'so what, the green party needs this. you don't understand!'
i damn well do. ralph nader, in 2000, gave them a spot on the ballots. in 2004, they chose to play 527 for the democratic party.
they need cynthia to rebuild now.
tough crap.
they should have run a real campaign in 2004. if cynthia does deliver 5% of the vote, what do the greens (nationally) plan to do?
waste 2012 because they don't want to upset the democratic party?
tough crap on them nationally. i don't give a damn about them and they need to remove people like medea benjamin who claim to be greens and then turn around and support democratic presidential candidates.
they're back to 2000, trying to rebuild. that's no 1s fault but their own.
they need to ditch most of the surrogates and they need to ditch most of their national board.
they are, as a nation party, nothing but a vanity campaign.
until they are willing to go for broke, they are nothing but a vanity party.
cynthia was talking about running a real campaign and going for broke.
does that mean she would have won? maybe, maybe not. but i don't waste my time on people in presidential races who - and this is before she's got the nomination - are saying they're just running for 5% of the vote.
how sweet. what a suck up campaign to the democratic party.
i have no interest in that crap, find someone who does.
i honestly wish cynthia would give a speech at the green party convention in july announcing she was not accepting the nomination and then denouncing the national party as nothing but a faux party.
i would have more respect for her if she did. (and i used to have huge respect for her.)
i've got better things to do than waste my time on some 1 who wants to be in a presidential race but doesn't want to upset the apple cart by actually running to become president.
3) kimberly wilder.
can some 1 explain to her how badly she hurts her own party?
her little slams at hillary have gotten extreme.
she's just trashy.
and her husband is part of the green party machinary so she's not blogging as a green party member, she's blogging as part of the party structure.
she runs off more votes for cynthia than she could possibly know.
of course, she kicked cynthia to the curb when ralph was a possibility.
then she did that post where she was furious with ralph.
why the hell should ralph run on your crap-ass party's nomination?
ralph wants to win. the national green party isn't about winning.
there are some green party candidates i will support (i know elaine already is) for congress. but i'm not interested in the national party which doesn't do a damn thing but suck up to the democratic party.
for the record, no 1 called kimberly a sexist at her site. but i will: sexist.
kimberly wilder never weighed in about the sexism against hillary.
in fact, kimberly wilder contributed to it.
c.i. tried to do that little jerk a favor.
kimberly wilder e-mailed with another press release.
c.i. posted it tuesday in full at the common ills.
now there was no thanks. there never is.
kimberly expects to get her videos, her press releases, her everything highlighted whenever she wants.
she never says 'thank you' to c.i. for any of that.
she never highlights anything c.i. writes at her own site.
she's just an ungrateful, ill mannered taker. she takes and she expects.
she never gives back.
but what she did this week was to spit on the community. she argues with 2 members and insults them.
she is a sexist - and neither member called her that but i will.
she had time to justify jeremiah wright and to blog about how she's not a democrat, but if she were, obama's looking pretty good.
see, that's why the green party is a loser on the national scale.
they butt their ugly noses into a democratic party primary.
they try to say 'we are our own party!' but they butt in.
they try to tip the scales.
and then they want to play like they didn't do it.
people like kimberly wilder are a disgrace to the green party. the party can either deal with them or enjoy national life on the fringes for many years to come.
they aren't trying to build a 3rd party, they're trying to build an off shoot of the democratic party. they're nothing but puppets for the democratic party.
jess, who is a green, avoids people like her like the plauge and they better watch out because when he gets his law degree, he may take on some of the nonsense they pull via lawsuits.
ty is the 1 who has been nicer to her than any 1. and what does white kimberly wilder do? try to lecture him about the plight of black people in this country. uh, white kimmy, ty is black. he doesn't need your white momma ass tell him what it's like to be black in america.
at some point those radicals need to take a good, long look at themselves in the mirror and grasp how pathetic they are and what cartoons they've become.
the green party's 2nd step is going to be kicking out non-greens. the pathetics who burned their bridges with the c.p.u.s.a. don't need to be allowed to pretend they're greens. but that's another story. and i believe i already mentioned i-need-attention benjamin.
4) sylvia e-mailed to ask if marcia knew she still had marjorie cohn linked to on her blog roll?
no, she didn't. i just called her and she's removed it. she said to tell sylvia thank you.
i mentioned:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
you didn't! well, let me rectify that. mike and elaine are doing real posts tonight and be sure to check them out (the rest of us are pretty disgusted and ticked off with the media's continued assault on hillary). wally and cedric were off last night. marcia was depressed and decided to rent a car and drive back home (from south dakota!). wally knew she was too tired to make that trip safely by herself and they really bonded on the road (they worked to get out the hillary vote in indiana, south dakota, puerto rico, west virginia and kentucky together and they really are tight today). the primary contest ended yesterday and wally's attitude was 'i can't think of any 1 i would rather end it with.' so they drove to marcia's together and wally flew back after (he's on the road with c.i., kat and ava right now.)
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, June 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, a Baghdad bombing results in mass deaths, the war resisters in Canada score a historic victory but work remains, and more.
Starting with war resistance. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Canada's House of Commons voted on the motion to grant safe harbor to war resisters and it passed (137 in favor, 110 against). The motion was first proposed in December of 2007. It took Corey Glass and other war resisters to make it happen as much as it took any political party. 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. Maggie Farley (Los Angeles Times) notes of Glass, "he became the first deserter to receive orders to leave the country -- and ended up a symbol of Canada's conflicted sentiments about the war. On Tuesday, Canada's House of Commons passed a motion urging the government to allow deserters to stay. The measure, though nonbinding, could lead to a last-minute reprieve for Glass and nearly 40 others who have asked for refugee statues." UPI files a brief and quotes NDP's Olivia Chow stating, "Ordinary people want the Iraq war resisters to stay. The Harper Conservatives must respect this and immediately implement this motion." Joanna Smith (Toronto Star) explains how US war resisters Megan and Chris Bean (husband and wife) went to Ottawa to observe the House of Commons Vote. Megan Bean explains of their decision to come to Canada, "We were over there to maintain the peace and we were trying to hand it over to the Iraqis. This is what we always heard. You don't sign up for (the U.S. Navy) to see a bunch of people kill for no reason." Paige Aarhus (London Free Press) quotes war resister Rich Droste on the vote, "I almost wanted to cry when I heard, it was amazing. This just shows that support is growing and Canada can still be a refuge against militarism." He wasn't the only one excited by the verdict. "We are very happy that we won. We're hopeful that the government wll respect the democratic process," Phil McDowell tells John Ward (Canadian Press via Nova Scotia News) who also quotes Joshua Key: "We've had one hand tied behind our back because we can't argue the illegality of the Iraq war, which we all know is illegal. But, with that we just take it one step at a time. I just hope it continues going forward." Janice Tibbetts (CanWest News Service) offers an overview of the resistance today explaining how Canada's Federal Court of Appeals refused to grant the first two public war resisters in Canada, Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, who went on to appeal that decision to Canada's Supreme Court and were denied on November 15, 2007. Vietnam era war resister Gerry Condon (writing at Courage to Resist) notes the "historic vote" and how "all the opposition parties -- the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party" came together to vote in favor the motion. Condon outlines a number of steps to take here. In addition, 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").
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a truck bombing that claimed 5 lives (add in another for the driver of the truck) and left ten wounded, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed the lives of 3 police officers and left three police officers and "three civilians" wounded and an Al Anbar Province roadside bombing claimed the lives of 3 police officers with four more wounded. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports "Up to 18 people were killed and many more wounded today when a truck exploded near the house of a police commander in Baghdad" while CBS and AP note over 50 individuals are injured from the blast "near the northeast Baghdad home of a top Inetrior Ministry official".
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "Col. Dhafir Al-Ani of the general inspector office in the interior ministry" was shot dead in Baghdad (his brother was wounded in the assassination) and a jewelry shop owner and his son were shot dead in Zubair.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad. CBS and AP report 13 corpses discovered in Latifiyah (and that 10 were discovered Tuesday in Baghdad).
Kadhim also notes the continued attacks on journalists which includes a TV crew filming a special entitled "The Death Road" in Al Anbar Province and were targeted in a roadside bombing that may have been aimed at the Iraqi military (the military was with the TV crew) while a camer operator for an Iraqi TV station was wounding in a Basra roadside bombing.
Today the US military announced: "Three Multi-National Division -- North Soldiers were killed as a result of a small-arms fire attack in Al Hawijah near Kirkuk June 4." As Haynes (Times of London) notes, this brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4090.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes 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 US political news. Two primaries were held last night, the last two in the contest: South Dakota and Montana. The press told the country Barack Obama was a winner. While he did win Montana, he lost South Dakota. The Christ-child lost South Dakota to Hillary by over 10% -- 55.35% for Hillary, 44.65% for Barack. The same media that told you all day yesterday that Hillary would conceed (see Bob Somerby's piece today) spends today asking when she will drop out of the race? Hillary Is 44 observes, "Obama is unelectable and not qualified to be president. On the night Obama lost South Dakota (Obama's own projections had him winning South Dakota by 15 percent) he spoke in the same hall in which Mondale conceded to the Reagan landslide. Obama will either concede now or in November. Obama won't win Democrats he needs to win (like the Democrats on this very website). In state after state many Democrats clearly state they will either NOT vote, vote for the unacceptable John McCain, or write in Hillary's name. That Democrats, many who have never voted for a Republican or nightmared about voting for a Republican, to say they will vote for a Republican is shocking and foreshadows doom for the Democratic? Party in November - if Superdelegates actually vote for Rezko/Ayres/Pfleger/Wright/Farrakhan's friend - Obama." Actually, some will vote for Ralph Nader if Barack's the nominee. Yesterday, CBS Evening News offered a roundtable (link has transcript and video) featuring some Hillary supporters in Penn.
Sandra Miller, former county commissioner: I think from the very beginning she's been mistreated. I know -- I watched a lot of interviews and so forth where Sen. Clinton was referred to as "Mrs. Clinton" whereas Sen. Obama was "Sen. Obama." Meredith Ciambrello, teacher: It bothers me to think with the kind of coverage that we've had, that we're speaking of, that it's influencing the voters. And when I talk to young men or other young women and they say, "I hate Hillary" and just the venom that comes out of them. And I wonder where is that coming from. Kathleen O'Dell, sales manager: I think we have a little different standard with sexism than we do with, say, racism. I mean there have been people who go to their rallies and stand up - the guy who stood up and said, "hey, iron my shirt." Now consider that if somebody had showed up at an Obama campaign and had a banner saying something about his race or about somebody's religion, we'd be up in arms. Everybody would be like, "how disgusting."
An idiot ("fuzkida") posting at CBS states, "Any so-called Hillary supporter who votes for McCain is not a true progressive. NO progressive wuould [sic] be that spiteful as to screw up the country for another 4 years just bc. they are sore losers." No true "progressive" (unless that's The Idiot Lakoff's 'framing' for "closted Communist") could support a candidate who used homophobia in South Carolina to scare up votes, who demonized gays and lesbians because it could help him recover momentum after losing New Hampshire. So spare us the lectures "fuzkida."
No feminist could support Barack in the primaries. Any who said she was a feminist and did was either uninformed (and didn't know about the use of homophobia) or she's not a feminist because she elected to ignore it. There's no middle ground on this. Some may come around to Barack. But the reality is a number of 'feminists' exposed themselves as not by refusing to call out the use of homophobia as a campaign strategy. "fuzkida" is not a feminist, obviously. And women don't need to hear you lecture. I believe the idiot Mark Karlin of BuzzFlash tried that after Hillary won New Hampshire. It certainly was cute to see those pieces throughout the campaign, where men lectured women telling them over and over that they shouldn't vote based on gender (naturally, they assumed that only by voting based on gender could a woman support Hillary -- working from the sexist premise that no woman could be worthy of the nomination). But, thing is, did they ever lecture any group supporting Barack? Nope. It was only women they thought they felt comfortable trying to boss around. Why was that?
Ellen Willis ("Up from Radicalism: A Feminist Journal") explaining it in 1969:
A genuine alliance with male radicals will not be possible until sexism sickens them as much as racism. This will not be accomplished through persuasion, conciliation, or love, but through independence and solidarity; radical men will stop oppressing us and make our fight their own when they can't get us to join them on any other terms.
True then, true today. But no one was supposed to notice and it was easy not to as Panhandle Media worked overtime not just to smear Hillary Clinton with lies but also to ignore the sexism in the MSM (while contributing their own sexism). Take CounterSpin, the weekly radio program by 'media watchdog' FAIR, which ignored the sexism non-stop and finally, when called out loudly and, repeating, I never asked for that, those were unsolicited e-mails from FAIR) and repeatedly, managed to include Hillary being called a bitch in their May 24th broadcast. Here is CounterSpin's criticism of sexism in the 2008 race in full: "CNN viewers were treated to one pundit explanation that people might call Hillary Clinton a bitch because well isn't that just what some women are." You'll note they don't identify the program or the gas bag speaking. That's a funny sort of 'media criticism,' isn't it? And sadly, that's all the weekly radio program CounterSpin can point to. How very proud they must be. Then there's Free Speech TV's laughable Grit TV ("with Laura Flanders!") which not only brought on sexists who had slammed Hillary to say there was no problem but also got off a joke that Latinos and Latinas in California can't speak English. I guess that was supposed to pass for 'progressive' as well? It was especially hilarious to see Laura Flanders and Betsy Reed move away from Hillary to actually fret over sexism and homophobia (!) as 'applied' to John Edwards who is neither a woman nor gay.
"Now there were days when I had the strength enough to fight for all of us," declared Hillary last night, "and on the days that I didn't, I leaned on you, the soldier on his third tour of duty in Iraq who told his wife, an Iraqi veteran herself, to take his spending money and donate it to our campaign instead. The 11-year-old boy in Kentucky who sold his bike and video games to raise money for our campaign. The woman who came to a rally hours early, waited and waited to give me a rosary. And all those who whispered to me, simply to say I am praying for you."
Peggy Simpson (Womens Media Center) reports:
Hillary Clinton preempted the morning-after critics. She asked the question herslef in a Tuesday night speech after the delegate count from South Dakota and Montana pushed Barack Obama over the top as the Democrats' probably nominee for president.
"I understand that a lot of people are asking: 'What does Hillarywant? What does she WANT?"
Ignoring mounting speculation that she had told the New York congressional delegation that she'd be open to the vice presidential position, which some cynics said was the start of overt lobbying for that post, she said instead:
"Well, what I want is what I have always fought for in this whole campaign. I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to turn this economy around. I want health care for every American. I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential."
And then she added significantly: "And I want the nearly eighteen million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard, and no longer to be invisible."
The Hillary skeptics who bemoaned her ambition should read that and absorb the message. It means far more than being on a national ticket.
Hillary's a fighter and as long as she wants to be in the race, she will be. She won the popular vote. (My own personal feelings -- and those of the community -- are that she should carry this to the convention.) It's cute how the goons and loons want to lecture. They pull that nonsense every four years and whine between about how a message should be sent. The difference for all Hillary supporters is that we saw the pass Barack was given over and over and we found him vapid and lacking. The difference for women especially is that we're not Spastic Keith Olbermann spewing his 'thoughts' instantly. As with Anita Hill earlier, the treatment of Hillary was about all women and it's not about 'sore losers.' The 'unity' talk ignores that (a) there's nothing in the Obama campaign for voters and (b) why would women want to 'unify' with their attackers. Now when the vile Ike Turner died, many of the male gas bags online didn't get it. They thought Tina Turner should forgive her torturer of many, many decades. But that's not how it works.
And I'm down to
Your last cigarette and
this "We are one" crap
as you're invading . . .
-- "Taxi Ride," written and recorded by Tori Amos
'Unity' says the press today just as they said it when Bully Boy stole Florida from Al Gore. The bit players are all the same, they just had facial reconstruction. And I think you'll see a number of women who refuse to play cheerleaders for Princess Tiny Meat Barack. Not all, as Susan (Random Notes) point out, someone will gladly sell out. For the record, whomever the Democratic nominee is, Gloria Steinem will campaign for them. She does that every four years. I am not talking about Gloria. I have not and will not ever insult Gloria. But Gloria's always been the sweetest. Which isn't denying that's she's also very strong. It is pointing out that if Barack's given the nomination, don't expect to see a crowd of feminists skipping happily along -- several paces behind him. Women have witnessed non-stop sexism and grasped that feminism is needed now more than ever. This is the rebirth, not a time to be afraid. (True regardless of whom the Democratic nominee is in August.) And some can be cast aside like Christine and her beau Bernie who launched an attack on our own Kat -- demanding that she change a written opinion and demanding that she do so in his words and act like it was her opinion and her words -- that should have clued us into just how sick and vapid so many passing for 'contemporary' and 'popcult' 'feminists' actually were. So it's a good time for feminism and one in which faux feminists can hit the road and take their (at best) half-assed 'principles' with them.
John Bentley (CBS News) reports John McCain, presumed GOP presidential nominee, stated, "There are many of Sen. Clinton's supporters who believe that I am by far the best qualified to secure this nation's future, who don't want us to sit down with Ahmadinejad and other tyrants. I think there's a lot of Sen. Clinton's supporters who will support me because of their belief that Sen. Obama does not have the experience or the knowledge or the judgement to address this nation's national security challenges when we're in two wars."
Ralph Nader has selected Matt Gonzalez as his running mate and Team Nader's "The Uprising" notes yesterday's Democracy Now where the hosts and guest David Sirota talked a good game about an "uprising against Wall Street and Washington" but somehow avoided ever mentioning the Nader-Gonzalez ticket:
On Democracy Now, Sirota said that there is great anger and disaffection in America directed at not just the government, but also at corporate America, at big business, at banks and the financial system.
And for twenty minutes, he talked and talked and talked about the uprising in this momentous Presidential election year.
But not once did Sirota mention Ralph Nader's candidacy -- which polls indicate millions of people support.
And not once did Amy Goodman or Juan Gonzalez ask him about the Nader/Gonzalez candidacy.
Anger at corporations, big business and banks.
Presidential election year.
And no mention of Ralph Nader?
What we are to make of this?
That David Sirota doesn't really give a damn about the uprising.
If he did, he would happily welcome Nader/Gonzalez into the political arena as the most meaningful political expression of the uprising in 2008.
Sirota has spent hundreds of hours surveying the uprising, but refuses to even acknowledge the work of hundreds of young people working non-stop around the country to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot for what is shaping up to be a four way Presidential race -- McCain, Obama, Nader, Barr.
And Nader/Gonzalez will be the Presidential campaign for the uprising against corporate power in this Presidential election year.
And Sirota doesn't say a peep about it.
Why not?
Because he's concerned but not serious about change.
Meanwhile presumed Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney has bigger problems now than defining 'victory' as getting 5% of the votes (revealing her campaign as not a real run for the office), she now has to deal with her online supporters running voters off. (Yeah, I heard about the e-mails. We'll probably address "Miss Prissy for Cynthia" at Third this weekend.)
So what do we know? Hillary's still in the race. Supporters want her to go to Denver (but that will be her decision -- and after the way she and her family have been smeared and slimed, even her strongest supporters would understand her deciding the victory was in staying in the race when everyone said drop out, staying in the race and winning the popular vote, staying in the race and showing the world just how strong women are). Nader's running a real campaign.
iraqmaggie farleythe los angeles timesjoanna smithpaige aarhusmegan beanchris beanrich drostejohn wardjoshua keyphil mcdowelljanice tibbettsjeremy hinzmanbrandon hugheygerry condoncourage to resistthe world today just nutssir! no sir!iraq veterans against the war
the cbs evening newskatie couric
peggy simpson
ellen willis
1) hillary.
my wish is for hillary to take the battle to denver. i am not the 1 who has to take the non-stop attacks, around the clock, from big and small media. and, as c.i. will point out, hillary can take those. it's the attacks on bill and chelsea that hurt. so hillary's going to make the decision that's right for her. if it's go to denver, i am there. if it's to drop out, i will be sad but i will understand.
i thank her for the battle she fought for america, for americans, and for women.
she gave everything she had and some 1 without her strength would never have made it this far. she is a winner, she is a fighter and she would be the best president the country could ever have.
i have met hillary many times over the years and, as i've noted here many times, never been impressed. i would tag along with c.i. to the white house or whatever (martha's vineyard, for example, which is only a hop from my own house - i live on tim russert island).
what i saw on the campaign trail, what i saw her do, made me 1 of the biggest hillary supporters.
she is every good thing her supporters have always said.
2) cynthia mckinney.
i have been on the road (working to get the vote out on hillary) and for some insane reason, i have had non-stop e-mails on poor cynthia mckinney.
sell that crap to some 1 else.
for those just showing up, cynthia was my choice. but i thought cynthia was a fighter.
cynthia's campaign is that of a whiner.
if that's not representing her, she should have fixed it a long time ago.
she allowed a supporter to say she wasn't running to win, she only wanted 5% of the vote.
not only did she not challenge it, at her campaign site, it was linked to with a 'he speaks for cynthia.'
i don't have time for vanity runs or fake campaigns.
my support for cynthia was conditional upon her pulling out all stops to win.
some whiny ass types keep showing up telling me that 'so what, the green party needs this. you don't understand!'
i damn well do. ralph nader, in 2000, gave them a spot on the ballots. in 2004, they chose to play 527 for the democratic party.
they need cynthia to rebuild now.
tough crap.
they should have run a real campaign in 2004. if cynthia does deliver 5% of the vote, what do the greens (nationally) plan to do?
waste 2012 because they don't want to upset the democratic party?
tough crap on them nationally. i don't give a damn about them and they need to remove people like medea benjamin who claim to be greens and then turn around and support democratic presidential candidates.
they're back to 2000, trying to rebuild. that's no 1s fault but their own.
they need to ditch most of the surrogates and they need to ditch most of their national board.
they are, as a nation party, nothing but a vanity campaign.
until they are willing to go for broke, they are nothing but a vanity party.
cynthia was talking about running a real campaign and going for broke.
does that mean she would have won? maybe, maybe not. but i don't waste my time on people in presidential races who - and this is before she's got the nomination - are saying they're just running for 5% of the vote.
how sweet. what a suck up campaign to the democratic party.
i have no interest in that crap, find someone who does.
i honestly wish cynthia would give a speech at the green party convention in july announcing she was not accepting the nomination and then denouncing the national party as nothing but a faux party.
i would have more respect for her if she did. (and i used to have huge respect for her.)
i've got better things to do than waste my time on some 1 who wants to be in a presidential race but doesn't want to upset the apple cart by actually running to become president.
3) kimberly wilder.
can some 1 explain to her how badly she hurts her own party?
her little slams at hillary have gotten extreme.
she's just trashy.
and her husband is part of the green party machinary so she's not blogging as a green party member, she's blogging as part of the party structure.
she runs off more votes for cynthia than she could possibly know.
of course, she kicked cynthia to the curb when ralph was a possibility.
then she did that post where she was furious with ralph.
why the hell should ralph run on your crap-ass party's nomination?
ralph wants to win. the national green party isn't about winning.
there are some green party candidates i will support (i know elaine already is) for congress. but i'm not interested in the national party which doesn't do a damn thing but suck up to the democratic party.
for the record, no 1 called kimberly a sexist at her site. but i will: sexist.
kimberly wilder never weighed in about the sexism against hillary.
in fact, kimberly wilder contributed to it.
c.i. tried to do that little jerk a favor.
kimberly wilder e-mailed with another press release.
c.i. posted it tuesday in full at the common ills.
now there was no thanks. there never is.
kimberly expects to get her videos, her press releases, her everything highlighted whenever she wants.
she never says 'thank you' to c.i. for any of that.
she never highlights anything c.i. writes at her own site.
she's just an ungrateful, ill mannered taker. she takes and she expects.
she never gives back.
but what she did this week was to spit on the community. she argues with 2 members and insults them.
she is a sexist - and neither member called her that but i will.
she had time to justify jeremiah wright and to blog about how she's not a democrat, but if she were, obama's looking pretty good.
see, that's why the green party is a loser on the national scale.
they butt their ugly noses into a democratic party primary.
they try to say 'we are our own party!' but they butt in.
they try to tip the scales.
and then they want to play like they didn't do it.
people like kimberly wilder are a disgrace to the green party. the party can either deal with them or enjoy national life on the fringes for many years to come.
they aren't trying to build a 3rd party, they're trying to build an off shoot of the democratic party. they're nothing but puppets for the democratic party.
jess, who is a green, avoids people like her like the plauge and they better watch out because when he gets his law degree, he may take on some of the nonsense they pull via lawsuits.
ty is the 1 who has been nicer to her than any 1. and what does white kimberly wilder do? try to lecture him about the plight of black people in this country. uh, white kimmy, ty is black. he doesn't need your white momma ass tell him what it's like to be black in america.
at some point those radicals need to take a good, long look at themselves in the mirror and grasp how pathetic they are and what cartoons they've become.
the green party's 2nd step is going to be kicking out non-greens. the pathetics who burned their bridges with the c.p.u.s.a. don't need to be allowed to pretend they're greens. but that's another story. and i believe i already mentioned i-need-attention benjamin.
4) sylvia e-mailed to ask if marcia knew she still had marjorie cohn linked to on her blog roll?
no, she didn't. i just called her and she's removed it. she said to tell sylvia thank you.
i mentioned:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
you didn't! well, let me rectify that. mike and elaine are doing real posts tonight and be sure to check them out (the rest of us are pretty disgusted and ticked off with the media's continued assault on hillary). wally and cedric were off last night. marcia was depressed and decided to rent a car and drive back home (from south dakota!). wally knew she was too tired to make that trip safely by herself and they really bonded on the road (they worked to get out the hillary vote in indiana, south dakota, puerto rico, west virginia and kentucky together and they really are tight today). the primary contest ended yesterday and wally's attitude was 'i can't think of any 1 i would rather end it with.' so they drove to marcia's together and wally flew back after (he's on the road with c.i., kat and ava right now.)
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, June 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, a Baghdad bombing results in mass deaths, the war resisters in Canada score a historic victory but work remains, and more.
Starting with war resistance. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Canada's House of Commons voted on the motion to grant safe harbor to war resisters and it passed (137 in favor, 110 against). The motion was first proposed in December of 2007. It took Corey Glass and other war resisters to make it happen as much as it took any political party. 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. Maggie Farley (Los Angeles Times) notes of Glass, "he became the first deserter to receive orders to leave the country -- and ended up a symbol of Canada's conflicted sentiments about the war. On Tuesday, Canada's House of Commons passed a motion urging the government to allow deserters to stay. The measure, though nonbinding, could lead to a last-minute reprieve for Glass and nearly 40 others who have asked for refugee statues." UPI files a brief and quotes NDP's Olivia Chow stating, "Ordinary people want the Iraq war resisters to stay. The Harper Conservatives must respect this and immediately implement this motion." Joanna Smith (Toronto Star) explains how US war resisters Megan and Chris Bean (husband and wife) went to Ottawa to observe the House of Commons Vote. Megan Bean explains of their decision to come to Canada, "We were over there to maintain the peace and we were trying to hand it over to the Iraqis. This is what we always heard. You don't sign up for (the U.S. Navy) to see a bunch of people kill for no reason." Paige Aarhus (London Free Press) quotes war resister Rich Droste on the vote, "I almost wanted to cry when I heard, it was amazing. This just shows that support is growing and Canada can still be a refuge against militarism." He wasn't the only one excited by the verdict. "We are very happy that we won. We're hopeful that the government wll respect the democratic process," Phil McDowell tells John Ward (Canadian Press via Nova Scotia News) who also quotes Joshua Key: "We've had one hand tied behind our back because we can't argue the illegality of the Iraq war, which we all know is illegal. But, with that we just take it one step at a time. I just hope it continues going forward." Janice Tibbetts (CanWest News Service) offers an overview of the resistance today explaining how Canada's Federal Court of Appeals refused to grant the first two public war resisters in Canada, Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, who went on to appeal that decision to Canada's Supreme Court and were denied on November 15, 2007. Vietnam era war resister Gerry Condon (writing at Courage to Resist) notes the "historic vote" and how "all the opposition parties -- the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party" came together to vote in favor the motion. Condon outlines a number of steps to take here. In addition, 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").
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a truck bombing that claimed 5 lives (add in another for the driver of the truck) and left ten wounded, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed the lives of 3 police officers and left three police officers and "three civilians" wounded and an Al Anbar Province roadside bombing claimed the lives of 3 police officers with four more wounded. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports "Up to 18 people were killed and many more wounded today when a truck exploded near the house of a police commander in Baghdad" while CBS and AP note over 50 individuals are injured from the blast "near the northeast Baghdad home of a top Inetrior Ministry official".
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "Col. Dhafir Al-Ani of the general inspector office in the interior ministry" was shot dead in Baghdad (his brother was wounded in the assassination) and a jewelry shop owner and his son were shot dead in Zubair.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad. CBS and AP report 13 corpses discovered in Latifiyah (and that 10 were discovered Tuesday in Baghdad).
Kadhim also notes the continued attacks on journalists which includes a TV crew filming a special entitled "The Death Road" in Al Anbar Province and were targeted in a roadside bombing that may have been aimed at the Iraqi military (the military was with the TV crew) while a camer operator for an Iraqi TV station was wounding in a Basra roadside bombing.
Today the US military announced: "Three Multi-National Division -- North Soldiers were killed as a result of a small-arms fire attack in Al Hawijah near Kirkuk June 4." As Haynes (Times of London) notes, this brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4090.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes 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 US political news. Two primaries were held last night, the last two in the contest: South Dakota and Montana. The press told the country Barack Obama was a winner. While he did win Montana, he lost South Dakota. The Christ-child lost South Dakota to Hillary by over 10% -- 55.35% for Hillary, 44.65% for Barack. The same media that told you all day yesterday that Hillary would conceed (see Bob Somerby's piece today) spends today asking when she will drop out of the race? Hillary Is 44 observes, "Obama is unelectable and not qualified to be president. On the night Obama lost South Dakota (Obama's own projections had him winning South Dakota by 15 percent) he spoke in the same hall in which Mondale conceded to the Reagan landslide. Obama will either concede now or in November. Obama won't win Democrats he needs to win (like the Democrats on this very website). In state after state many Democrats clearly state they will either NOT vote, vote for the unacceptable John McCain, or write in Hillary's name. That Democrats, many who have never voted for a Republican or nightmared about voting for a Republican, to say they will vote for a Republican is shocking and foreshadows doom for the Democratic? Party in November - if Superdelegates actually vote for Rezko/Ayres/Pfleger/Wright/Farrakhan's friend - Obama." Actually, some will vote for Ralph Nader if Barack's the nominee. Yesterday, CBS Evening News offered a roundtable (link has transcript and video) featuring some Hillary supporters in Penn.
Sandra Miller, former county commissioner: I think from the very beginning she's been mistreated. I know -- I watched a lot of interviews and so forth where Sen. Clinton was referred to as "Mrs. Clinton" whereas Sen. Obama was "Sen. Obama." Meredith Ciambrello, teacher: It bothers me to think with the kind of coverage that we've had, that we're speaking of, that it's influencing the voters. And when I talk to young men or other young women and they say, "I hate Hillary" and just the venom that comes out of them. And I wonder where is that coming from. Kathleen O'Dell, sales manager: I think we have a little different standard with sexism than we do with, say, racism. I mean there have been people who go to their rallies and stand up - the guy who stood up and said, "hey, iron my shirt." Now consider that if somebody had showed up at an Obama campaign and had a banner saying something about his race or about somebody's religion, we'd be up in arms. Everybody would be like, "how disgusting."
An idiot ("fuzkida") posting at CBS states, "Any so-called Hillary supporter who votes for McCain is not a true progressive. NO progressive wuould [sic] be that spiteful as to screw up the country for another 4 years just bc. they are sore losers." No true "progressive" (unless that's The Idiot Lakoff's 'framing' for "closted Communist") could support a candidate who used homophobia in South Carolina to scare up votes, who demonized gays and lesbians because it could help him recover momentum after losing New Hampshire. So spare us the lectures "fuzkida."
No feminist could support Barack in the primaries. Any who said she was a feminist and did was either uninformed (and didn't know about the use of homophobia) or she's not a feminist because she elected to ignore it. There's no middle ground on this. Some may come around to Barack. But the reality is a number of 'feminists' exposed themselves as not by refusing to call out the use of homophobia as a campaign strategy. "fuzkida" is not a feminist, obviously. And women don't need to hear you lecture. I believe the idiot Mark Karlin of BuzzFlash tried that after Hillary won New Hampshire. It certainly was cute to see those pieces throughout the campaign, where men lectured women telling them over and over that they shouldn't vote based on gender (naturally, they assumed that only by voting based on gender could a woman support Hillary -- working from the sexist premise that no woman could be worthy of the nomination). But, thing is, did they ever lecture any group supporting Barack? Nope. It was only women they thought they felt comfortable trying to boss around. Why was that?
Ellen Willis ("Up from Radicalism: A Feminist Journal") explaining it in 1969:
A genuine alliance with male radicals will not be possible until sexism sickens them as much as racism. This will not be accomplished through persuasion, conciliation, or love, but through independence and solidarity; radical men will stop oppressing us and make our fight their own when they can't get us to join them on any other terms.
True then, true today. But no one was supposed to notice and it was easy not to as Panhandle Media worked overtime not just to smear Hillary Clinton with lies but also to ignore the sexism in the MSM (while contributing their own sexism). Take CounterSpin, the weekly radio program by 'media watchdog' FAIR, which ignored the sexism non-stop and finally, when called out loudly and, repeating, I never asked for that, those were unsolicited e-mails from FAIR) and repeatedly, managed to include Hillary being called a bitch in their May 24th broadcast. Here is CounterSpin's criticism of sexism in the 2008 race in full: "CNN viewers were treated to one pundit explanation that people might call Hillary Clinton a bitch because well isn't that just what some women are." You'll note they don't identify the program or the gas bag speaking. That's a funny sort of 'media criticism,' isn't it? And sadly, that's all the weekly radio program CounterSpin can point to. How very proud they must be. Then there's Free Speech TV's laughable Grit TV ("with Laura Flanders!") which not only brought on sexists who had slammed Hillary to say there was no problem but also got off a joke that Latinos and Latinas in California can't speak English. I guess that was supposed to pass for 'progressive' as well? It was especially hilarious to see Laura Flanders and Betsy Reed move away from Hillary to actually fret over sexism and homophobia (!) as 'applied' to John Edwards who is neither a woman nor gay.
"Now there were days when I had the strength enough to fight for all of us," declared Hillary last night, "and on the days that I didn't, I leaned on you, the soldier on his third tour of duty in Iraq who told his wife, an Iraqi veteran herself, to take his spending money and donate it to our campaign instead. The 11-year-old boy in Kentucky who sold his bike and video games to raise money for our campaign. The woman who came to a rally hours early, waited and waited to give me a rosary. And all those who whispered to me, simply to say I am praying for you."
Peggy Simpson (Womens Media Center) reports:
Hillary Clinton preempted the morning-after critics. She asked the question herslef in a Tuesday night speech after the delegate count from South Dakota and Montana pushed Barack Obama over the top as the Democrats' probably nominee for president.
"I understand that a lot of people are asking: 'What does Hillarywant? What does she WANT?"
Ignoring mounting speculation that she had told the New York congressional delegation that she'd be open to the vice presidential position, which some cynics said was the start of overt lobbying for that post, she said instead:
"Well, what I want is what I have always fought for in this whole campaign. I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to turn this economy around. I want health care for every American. I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential."
And then she added significantly: "And I want the nearly eighteen million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard, and no longer to be invisible."
The Hillary skeptics who bemoaned her ambition should read that and absorb the message. It means far more than being on a national ticket.
Hillary's a fighter and as long as she wants to be in the race, she will be. She won the popular vote. (My own personal feelings -- and those of the community -- are that she should carry this to the convention.) It's cute how the goons and loons want to lecture. They pull that nonsense every four years and whine between about how a message should be sent. The difference for all Hillary supporters is that we saw the pass Barack was given over and over and we found him vapid and lacking. The difference for women especially is that we're not Spastic Keith Olbermann spewing his 'thoughts' instantly. As with Anita Hill earlier, the treatment of Hillary was about all women and it's not about 'sore losers.' The 'unity' talk ignores that (a) there's nothing in the Obama campaign for voters and (b) why would women want to 'unify' with their attackers. Now when the vile Ike Turner died, many of the male gas bags online didn't get it. They thought Tina Turner should forgive her torturer of many, many decades. But that's not how it works.
And I'm down to
Your last cigarette and
this "We are one" crap
as you're invading . . .
-- "Taxi Ride," written and recorded by Tori Amos
'Unity' says the press today just as they said it when Bully Boy stole Florida from Al Gore. The bit players are all the same, they just had facial reconstruction. And I think you'll see a number of women who refuse to play cheerleaders for Princess Tiny Meat Barack. Not all, as Susan (Random Notes) point out, someone will gladly sell out. For the record, whomever the Democratic nominee is, Gloria Steinem will campaign for them. She does that every four years. I am not talking about Gloria. I have not and will not ever insult Gloria. But Gloria's always been the sweetest. Which isn't denying that's she's also very strong. It is pointing out that if Barack's given the nomination, don't expect to see a crowd of feminists skipping happily along -- several paces behind him. Women have witnessed non-stop sexism and grasped that feminism is needed now more than ever. This is the rebirth, not a time to be afraid. (True regardless of whom the Democratic nominee is in August.) And some can be cast aside like Christine and her beau Bernie who launched an attack on our own Kat -- demanding that she change a written opinion and demanding that she do so in his words and act like it was her opinion and her words -- that should have clued us into just how sick and vapid so many passing for 'contemporary' and 'popcult' 'feminists' actually were. So it's a good time for feminism and one in which faux feminists can hit the road and take their (at best) half-assed 'principles' with them.
John Bentley (CBS News) reports John McCain, presumed GOP presidential nominee, stated, "There are many of Sen. Clinton's supporters who believe that I am by far the best qualified to secure this nation's future, who don't want us to sit down with Ahmadinejad and other tyrants. I think there's a lot of Sen. Clinton's supporters who will support me because of their belief that Sen. Obama does not have the experience or the knowledge or the judgement to address this nation's national security challenges when we're in two wars."
Ralph Nader has selected Matt Gonzalez as his running mate and Team Nader's "The Uprising" notes yesterday's Democracy Now where the hosts and guest David Sirota talked a good game about an "uprising against Wall Street and Washington" but somehow avoided ever mentioning the Nader-Gonzalez ticket:
On Democracy Now, Sirota said that there is great anger and disaffection in America directed at not just the government, but also at corporate America, at big business, at banks and the financial system.
And for twenty minutes, he talked and talked and talked about the uprising in this momentous Presidential election year.
But not once did Sirota mention Ralph Nader's candidacy -- which polls indicate millions of people support.
And not once did Amy Goodman or Juan Gonzalez ask him about the Nader/Gonzalez candidacy.
Anger at corporations, big business and banks.
Presidential election year.
And no mention of Ralph Nader?
What we are to make of this?
That David Sirota doesn't really give a damn about the uprising.
If he did, he would happily welcome Nader/Gonzalez into the political arena as the most meaningful political expression of the uprising in 2008.
Sirota has spent hundreds of hours surveying the uprising, but refuses to even acknowledge the work of hundreds of young people working non-stop around the country to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot for what is shaping up to be a four way Presidential race -- McCain, Obama, Nader, Barr.
And Nader/Gonzalez will be the Presidential campaign for the uprising against corporate power in this Presidential election year.
And Sirota doesn't say a peep about it.
Why not?
Because he's concerned but not serious about change.
Meanwhile presumed Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney has bigger problems now than defining 'victory' as getting 5% of the votes (revealing her campaign as not a real run for the office), she now has to deal with her online supporters running voters off. (Yeah, I heard about the e-mails. We'll probably address "Miss Prissy for Cynthia" at Third this weekend.)
So what do we know? Hillary's still in the race. Supporters want her to go to Denver (but that will be her decision -- and after the way she and her family have been smeared and slimed, even her strongest supporters would understand her deciding the victory was in staying in the race when everyone said drop out, staying in the race and winning the popular vote, staying in the race and showing the world just how strong women are). Nader's running a real campaign.
iraqmaggie farleythe los angeles timesjoanna smithpaige aarhusmegan beanchris beanrich drostejohn wardjoshua keyphil mcdowelljanice tibbettsjeremy hinzmanbrandon hugheygerry condoncourage to resistthe world today just nutssir! no sir!iraq veterans against the war
the cbs evening newskatie couric
peggy simpson
ellen willis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)