i called elaine at 6 my time (she's at c.i.'s so she's in pst zone while i'm in est). she filled me in on how mad c.i. was over a jerk-ass who e-mailed (from canada - 1 of the 'helpers' doing so damage today) c.i. accusing c.i. of all this crap. we had a bet and elaine won. i said, 'i know c.i., there's no way there's going to be a snapshot today.' elaine shot back she knows c.i. as well and she bets that there will be 1 late, late tonight. she called a little while ago and said, 'you lost.'
i did and that's fine. but idiot 'helpers' in canada better take note, c.i.'s the only 1 pushing war resisters regularly online. find another website. piss off c.i. and not only do you lose that, you'll also lose c.i.'s friends in the press. i think a little dumb ass who lied and pretended to be a democratic found that in april when her love-in, set to get some big media attention, ended up with zilch. when it comes to media attention from real media, c.i. giveth and c.i. can taketh away.
elaine was telling me about the e-mail (including who it was from and i would love to give his name here but i'll be kind). who the hell does that little piss ant think he is?
right now - not trying to alarm any 1 - the common ills ends in november. c.i. does not like long term committments and will have given that site 4 years, every day, no day off. and this is the thanks?
some ass wipe e-mailing and screaming at c.i. about something c.i. never wrote? accusing c.i. of a bunch of crap?
that's what it will take to push c.i. off line. 4 years with no day off is a long, long time. and this sort of s**t e-mailed from a know-nothing in canada isn't going to make c.i. decide to 'renew' 'the contract.' (i'll name the asshole in my column in el spirito sunday so that every 1 can be sure never to do anything that puts money in the asshole's pocket.)
i kept asking, 'how mad is c.i.?' elaine kept saying 'very' and pointing out that c.i. was focused on the party but you could sense an undercurrent the entire time if you looked for it.
mike wrote about it this morning and if c.i. was hauling out the 'breakables' (plates and bowls c.i. keeps on hand just to break), c.i. was pissed. (i passed on a hello to c.i. through elaine but we did not speak because if we had, i'd have to worry about what i was writing. let me be clear, i have not spoken to c.i. about this. we spoke thursday night on the phone and have not talked since then. c.i. saw the e-mail friday morning.) i know of 5 times over three decades that the breakables were used (and twice during college when c.i., elaine and i lived together). when it's time for the breakables, c.i. is pissed more than any 1 knows.
and i'm not surprised.
just hearing the gutter garbage that was in that e-mail, i'm ticked off.
who the hell does that little piss ant think he is?
c.i.'s response to the e-mail is here and you can tell c.i. was pissed.
i really am surprised that a snapshot went up. i know c.i. and i wouldn't have been surprised after that screaming e-mail with false accusations (presented as on behalf of 'organizers' in canada) if c.i. had done 1 last post that said 'f**k you.'
i really wouldn't have been surprised.
i know c.i.'s had it with the nonsense in the u.s. 'movement' and in the canadian 1. i know c.i. advised a war resister to go overseas last week and has been doing that for some time because c.i. can't believe that canadian 'helpers' still can't get their damn act together.
so this nonsense of 1 pompous idiot thinking he's going to falsely accuse c.i. of anything and try to speak for others was really the last straw.
and it should be, to pick up on mike's point. none of those groups or organizations that have begged for attention have ever even acknowledge the common ills publicy. c.i. doesn't care in most ways but i wouldn't doubt if the attitude right now is 'you do s**t for the common ills and you beg for attention and then you want to attack me for something i didn't even do?'
i wouldn't be surprised if c.i. didn't just move away from highlighting canadian war resistance but dropped the topic all together.
in c.i.'s response, it's noted that c.i. will not go into a bad situation. that is very true. i've seen c.i. walk away from huge pay days just because there a bad situation before. it's not worth it to c.i. who takes the position that a bad experience leaves a long lasting scar.
now if c.i.'s walked away from big money repeatedly for that reason, i don't see any thing shocking in assuming c.i. might walk away from promoting a topic. it's not like c.i.'s being paid for it. and, let's face it, c.i.'s not even being thanked for it. now c.i.'s getting some liar insisting c.i. wrote something when it never was written and c.i.'s pissed.
and you really do not accuse c.i. of doing something that didn't happen and scream about the non-existant 'it' to c.i.
i remember in college, a woman showed up out of the blue, upset and needing to sleep on our sofa (have i told this story before). she showed up after midnight (and i'll leave out the details in case i have told this story before). but no sooner did she have her pillow and blanket and was supposed to be asleep than she needed this. then she needed that. as this went on until 3 in the morning, i awoke to c.i. cursing, 'try to do some 1 a ___ ___ favor.' i had to get out of bed and run to the hall for that where i found elaine and we looked at each other and burst out laughing. c.i. will do anything for any 1 but there is a limit. and when it is reached, it is reached. whining from the living hour every 20 minutes and calling out to us to come do something or get something or whatever had pissed c.i. off. c.i. never spoke to that woman again - including that morning when we were all up and eating breakfast.
after the 7th or 8th time she suddenly needed something, c.i. was done with her. it was after midnight. we were all trying to sleep. we were kind enough to put her up for the night. she could have gone to sleep, she could have turned on the tv and amused herself. she could have done anything. but to holler from the living room every 20 minutes - after midnight when we were all trying to sleep - and she abused any good will. she had exhausted it.
a lot of times with c.i. when some 1 is cut off they never see it coming. they are so oblivious that they think because c.i. is generous, they can take and take and take. but when you've gone to that well 1 damn time to many and you've shown no manners (manners are a big deal to c.i.), you can find yourself frozen out for good.
i wanted to tell a c.i. story and since i already have, i'll pick it up here. a few weeks ago, i wrote something about c.i. and parenting. i don't remember what it was. but c.i.'s son called me and i said i'd sneak the story in at some point.
it's about c.i. and disagreements. and i'll call the son 'mark' (not his real name). mark called me up and said the only time c.i. and his father ever argued (c.i. really did have a great marriage) was when his father did something 'stupid.' there were 2 times. in 1 of them (the 1 i will share), c.i. arrived home to hear noise from the roof. c.i. went through the house and finally found her late husband to ask, 'what am i hearing on the roof?' it was the kids and their friends. mark said they'd lied to their dad and told him that c.i. always lets them play on the roof. (this is a story i do know. c.i.'s husband loved to tell this story.) c.i. said, 'they lied to you. that's what kids do. they want to have fun, they come up with a story, it's your job to have the sense to know that no 1 lets kids play on the roof of a house, let alone a two story house. go get them down now.' c.i. wouldn't get them down. c.i. said, 'if i do and 1 of them falls and is hurt, i will feel guilty forever. if you do it and 1 of them falls, i will hold it against you for life.' and that would have happened. but he got them off the roof. and that's when mark heard them argue. c.i. was all 'woah, woah, woah. i didn't allow them to go up on the roof, you did. don't turn this around.' the other argument was also a safety issue. other than that, c.i. didn't give a damn.
i don't mean that in a rude way, i just mean the things that would set most of us (including me) off, c.i. didn't care about. a safety issue and c.i. would hit the roof.
(which is a funny way for me to put it considering the story i just told!)
mark told me the fight was over who was going to punish (and that's the same story his father loved to tell). c.i.'s attitude was, 'that's your dance. i wasn't here. you allowed it. you serve up the punishment. and make it clear that unless they become licensed roofers, they're never going back up on the roof.' so here's what happened. he went into the room, closed the door and didn't punish them. (this wouldn't have been corporal punishment. c.i. doesn't believe in that.) 2 days later, c.i. caught them trying to go back up on the roof and that's where the 2nd argument came in. (with c.i. noting, 'if you'd dealt with when you should have, they wouldn't be trying to go on the roof now!')
i wish i could remember what i wrote that made mark call. whatever it was, we were laughing about a ton of things on the phone. (elaine and i are his godmothers, he has 3 godfathers.) he might have called about something i wrote about my child. but anyway, that's a story i told him i would include at some point but warned him 'you know how your mother is.' (meaning, if i got any response from c.i. on what i wrote it would be, 'i'm sure there were more important things going on in the world you could have written about.') but let me add that mark (who is now a father) was talking about how great his parents were and how they never said 'no, you can't do that. that's a crazy dream.' they were always encouraging. (and mark turned out to be a very fine young man.) at 1 point, mark was convinced he could fly if he worked at it. not an airplane, that he could actually fly. they didn't shoot that down (though i'm sure when c.i. realized the kids were on the roof that was the 1st thought: 'oh no, he's going to try to jump off so he can fly!'). instead it was, 'let's learn about how birds fly. let's find out how they do it and go from there.' every thing was a teachable moment.
mark also said that 'cut it out, i'm not in the mood for that nonsense' was the warning that always stopped whatever was going on. i can remember elaine, c.i. and i (in the late 70s or early 80s) going to lunch with an old friend from college and children and the friend's kid threw a fit and refused to get off the floor. the woman said, 'i don't know how to deal with this.' c.i. got up, went over to the boy and told him, 'i've about had it with your nonsense. get off the floor, sit your damn butt in a chair and don't say another word until you can act your age. i'm not joking.' and c.i. wasn't and that kid rushed to his chair. when c.i.'s got the don't-push-it attitude, kids know not to. i don't know if c.i. picked that up in college (when 1 of the many jobs was a day care) or if it was just a gift.
i'll tell that story. c.i. had pre-k kids. and the rule was 20 in class. it was 2 workers per class. except for c.i. who was the only worker for that class. and the kids learned a ton. they also had a ton of fun but c.i. was a great teacher. there was this whole 'land of learning' thing that c.i. set up (i was in and out of the class for college class credit and research, i was not 1 of the workers and i only note that because they were supposed to have 2 workers but they knew c.i. could handle it) on a circle rug. 'it's time to go to the land of learning.' and the kids would run to the rug and sit down. c.i. would pick 1 of them to be the captain of the spaceship and she or he would pretend to shift gears and steer (and make car noises). when they were 'up' letters would come 'flying at the spaceship.' c.i. would hold the alphabet letters and to avoid it hitting the ship, it had to be identified. every 1 of the kids in c.i.'s class knew their full alphabet.
and because they knew that and other basics, parents were always asking that their kids be put in c.i.'s class. but c.i. never got help. c.i. was on the 3rd floor of a church building while every 1 else was on the 2nd floor. with 40 kids that had to go down the stairs to the playground. and the other 2 classes (that fell to 10 or less kids each) got to keep their 2 workers.
but c.i. ran that class so well. there was a record (this is the days of vinyl) that when it went on, every 1 knew it was time to get on their mats for naptime. c.i. was not going to spend forever saying, 'nap time.' when naptime was over? there was a song for that as well. if a kid asked if naptime was over, c.i. would ask, 'do you hear ___?' (i don't remember the song. it was probably a beatles song by john lennon.) single handledly, c.i. ran that class (for at least 2 years) and could take them to the park with no problems. every 1 knew they did not get in the street (the park was 1 block away) and they knew what was expected of them at the park.
it was like mary poppins. especially when other classes were going to the park and the kids were all over the sidewalk and headed for the road and not walking single-file, etc.
and before you think c.i. got the angels, the first 20 that were with c.i. were the 'difficult' children. c.i. was the newbie and the other teachers picked their favorites. c.i. had the 'trouble makers' only they weren't trouble makers. i just think some women were too busy playing favorites (i remember a blonde headed boy named miles that 1 teacher acted like she wanted to marry always going about how cute he was and letting him get away with murder). there was a very beautiful young girl in c.i.'s class who was thought to be dumb as a doornail. that was why the other teachers didn't want her. c.i. spoke to her parents and got permission before saying, 'pretty isn't enough, ___.' (c.i. wasn't 1 of those teachers who said, 'it was a great day. see you tomorrow.' if you wanted a report at any time, c.i. would say, 'give me 1 second' and then pull out the key events of that day or week.) the girl went from this little princess to the smartest in her class and was actually writing her vowels (remember this was pre-k) when she graduated to the next class. but it was easy to ignore her and that's what had happened to her before. like it was easy to scream at 1 child who was hyperactive. c.i. didn't care that the child was hyperactive, it was never a problem. c.i. would find things for him to do that got rid of some of the energy while others expected him to just keep it bottled up. those are the reasons c.i. was so good with children and why the parents loved having their kids in c.i.'s class. there wasn't a bunch of petty nonsense that parents had to sort out and stuff didn't disappear. (c.i. got a labeled 'thief' 1 year who was not a thief but had been labeled that because a pet in another class was a thief and so many of the women played favorites with the kids.) they learned their alphabet, they learned to play (which included 'go find some 1 else to play with if you're only going to argue), to color, to use scissors (children's scissors), tie their shoes. all the basics. and this was classroom wide. this wasn't a few. or the majority. i was there when the pretty girl i was talking about a 2nd ago named a hard letter during land of learning. c.i. noticed and congratulated her. after the 'spaceship' landed, c.i. made a point to say, 'i think ___ knows her whole alphabet now.' and she did. c.i. held up the letters and, 1 after the other, she named them all. 'look how smart you are,' c.i. said and the whole class applauded her. and that girl started off way behind the others because no 1 ever bothered with her (i'm not talking about her parents). it had just been 'sit still, you look so pretty.'
so i hope, having observed so much, i can do some of that with my own child. mark told me the most important thing was to stick up for your kids. he said c.i. always stuck up for them and he can't watch goldie hawn's overboard (where she tells off the teacher) without thinking of c.i. 'we weren't told we couldn't accomplish something, we were encouraged, and we always knew our parents were there for us.' that's how mark outlines his happy childhood and i plan to try really hard to do the same thing as a parent.
but i am a yeller. my whole family is. (the reason the 2 fights stand out to mark is that c.i. was yelling at his father and c.i. did not yell. when c.i.'s angry, the normal response is to get very quiet.
oh, i just saw kat's post. elaine mentioned it was a must-read and it is. check it out.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, July 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue (if little reported), .Barack can't eat his waffles but he can waffle, Ralph Nader takes his presidential campaign to the people and more.
Starting with war resistance. Brett Clarkson and Jason Buckland (Toronto Sun) report US war resister Corey Glass, scheduled to be deported from Canada July 10th, is believing nothing "until he receives a DD 214 -- a form from the US department of defence that confirms he has been discharged from active duty service -- he can still be charged when he returns to the U.S." Lindsey Weibe (Winnipeg Free Press) reports that supports of US war resisters staged a sit-in at the "Pembina Highway office of Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge yesterday".
In the US, Courage to Resist is planning "July 9th actions at Canadian Consulates nationwide:"Join a vigil and delegation to a Canadian consulate near you on Wednesday, July 9th to support war resisters! On the eve of Corey Glass' possible deportation, we will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide by the June 3rd resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" More details and cities to be confirmed soon!
Washington DC - Time TBA - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace. Info: TBA San Francisco - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info: 510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net Seattle - Time TBA - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info: 206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com Dallas - Time TBA - 750 North St Paul St (map). Sponsored by North Texas for Justice and Peace. Info: 214-718-6362; hftomlinson(at)riseup.net New York City - Noon to 1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters' League. Info: 212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org Philadelphia - Time TBA - 1650 Market St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info: 215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org Minneapolis - Time TBA - 701 Fourth Ave S (map). Info: TBA Los Angeles - Noon to 1pm - 550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA. Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com Help organize a vigil at one of these other Canadian Consulates: Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Anchorage, Houston, Raleigh, Phoenix, or San Diego. Please contact Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559. Veterans for Peace issued a joint call with Courage to Resist and Project Safe Haven for July 9th vigils at Canadian Consulates: "Dear Canada: Do Not Deport U.S. War Resisters!" Contact us if you can help organize a vigil, or can otherwise get involved. Locations of the 22 Canadian Consulates in the United States.Recently on June 3rd the Canadian Parliament passed an historic motion to officially welcome war resisters! It now appears, however, that the Conservative government may disregard the motion. Iraq combat veteran turned courageous war resister, 25-year-old Sgt. Corey Glass of the Indiana National Guard is still scheduled to be deported July 10th.We will ask that the Canadian government respect the democratic decision of Parliament, the demonstrated opinion of the Canadian citizenry, the view of the United Nations, and millions of Americans by immediately implementing the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other current and future war resisters. Join Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, and Project Safe Haven at Canadian Consulates across the United States (Washington DC, San Francisco, New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles confirmed--more to be announced).We mailed and delivered over 10,000 of the original letters to Canadian officials. Please sign the new letter, "Dear Canada: Abide by resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" http://www.couragetoresist.org/canada
To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
It's Fourth of July weekend. Reuters made it through it without filing a single "Factbox" report of the violence. Not everyone had the day off . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings resulting in four people being wounded. And dropping back to Thursday, MNF announced today, "Two local nationals were killed and one was wounded when an explosion occurred near the Yarmouk Hospital in west Baghdad at approximately 8:55 p.m., July 3."
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Iraqi civilian shot dead and two more wounded by US forces as they were driving on a highway and that they shot dead the a six-year-old girl, wounded four of her brother and her mother as they stormed into the home of Hasen Atiyah al-Iqabi in Baquba.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Turning to the US presidential race. Barack Obama? Arab News notes, "For Obama, who recently changed his positions on campaign finance and a wiretapping law, the suggestion that he was also changing course on a central premise of his candidacy holds particular peril. While Obama has long said he would consult commanders in the field when withdrawing troops, that point might have been lost on many Democratic primary voters who supported his call to end the war." What's going on? A bit of reality on War Hawk Barack. Suzanne Goldenberg (Guardian of London) puts it this way, ".Barack Obama was yesterday fending off charges from right and left that he had abandoned the core premise of his candidacy - the withdrawal of all US combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office - in an attempt to attract voters from the political centre." Suzanne's a little out of it. So were Katrina vanden Heuvel and Arianna Huffington on ABC's This Week last Sunday. Withdrawal in 16 months? That's 'so January 2008.' Barack promised withdrawal of all (combat) troops within 10 months in a speech in Houston, Texas. Always one to carry water for Barack, Tom Hayden immediately penned "End the War in 2009" (which popped up online at The Nation, Feb. 20th and elsewhere a bit later). Hayden: "In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009, a new commitment that parallels recent opinion pieces in The Nation. Prior to his Houston remarks, Obama's previous position favored an American combat troop withdrawal over a sixteen-to-eighteen-month timeframe. He has been less specific on the number and mission of any advisors he would elave behind." (The Texas primary was in March. Barack was in Texas campaigning, for any more confused than usual by Tom-Tom's bad-bad writing.) Texas community members saw the 10 month 'promise' pushed in advertising as well as on the campaign trail. Those were his words (and Tom-Tom notes 'words matter') so let's all drop the nonsense that Barack's plan was 16 months (or at least leave the lying to Katrina who's become so very good at it). Goldenberg's uninformed, ignorant or lying -- take your pick. In her piece (dated tomorrow), she traces the uproar to Thursday when Barack said he might 'refine' his Iraq 'plan.' If that's when the uproar started, is Arianna Huffington psychic? Arianna was calling him out for 'refining' on Iraq Sunday on This Week. More water carrying from the allegedly 'independent' Guardian of London (which never wrote about the Downing Street Memos because 'independence' did not include informing people that Tony Blair lied England into an illegal war -- no time for 'truth-telling' while Blair was in office at any rate.) CNN reports that presumed GOP presidential candidate John McCain and the RNC are calling Barack a "flip-flopper" and they quote Barack's 'clarification' where Barack lies and says he has always said 16 months. No, Barack, you went to ten months in February. AP reports he celebrated the 4th of July in Butte, Montana (Kansas, he's done with you, he got what he needed) eating a hot dog. Tom Baldwin (Times of London) observes, "Grassroots activists whose energy and donations have helped to propel Barack Obama towards the White House are suddenly choking on the bitter pill of disillusion.
In less than a month since clinching the Democratic nomination, he has performed a series of policy pirouettes to assuage concerns about his candidacy among a wider and more conservative electorate." Geoff Elliott (The Australian) points out, "Barack Obama has started a dramtic reversal of the policies that helped him defeat Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination, softening hardlines stances on the Iraq war and troop withdrawals.
Campaigning in North Dakota, Senator Obama said that while the US could not sustain a long-term presence in Iraq, his trip to the Gulf nation this month might prompt him to "refine my policies" on the war." John Bentley (CBS News) quotes Brian Rogers of the McCain campaign stating, "Today, Barack Obama reversed that position, proving once again his words do not matter. He has now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground. Now that Barack Obama has changed course and proven his past positions to be just empty words, we would like to congratulate him on taking John McCain's principled stand on this critical national security issue. If he had visited Iraq sooner or actually had a one-on-one meeting with Gen. Petraeus, he would have changed his position long ago." Jonathan Weisman (Washington Post) terms it Barack exploring "the possibility of slowing a promised, gradual withdrawal from Iraq". NPR has two audio reports here. How bad it is? A friend just called to laugh at ____'s latest nonsense. In place of a now killed feature for Third, we may address ____'s latest nonsense and his plethora of lies throughout the campaign. Poor ____, it's even harder to airbrush out reality today than it was following his expulsion from the Red Family commune in his "smash the state" days (when he fancied himself Chris Jones in Wild In The Street).
Ralph Nader is opposed to the illegal war and has always been opposed to it. He called it before it started and throughout. He has not waffled like Saint Barack. Yesterday he spoke at the University of Hawaii-Manou. Craig Gima (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) reports:
In a news conference before the speech, Nader said Hawaii voters are being marginalized by the major candidates.
"When political candidates do not campaign in a state, voter turnout suffers," Nader said, adding that he has campaigned in all 50 states in the last two elections.
Nader said he supports the Akaka Bill and native Hawaiian rights, and said Hawaii should be a model for the rest of the country in renewable energy.
"This is the only place in the world where every form of renewable energy occurs," he said.
Nader also said that if elected he would push for universal health care, an increase in the minimum wage to $10 an hour and the repeal of what he called the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act.
Derrick DePledge (Honolulu Advertiser) notes that no presidential candidate has campaigned in Hawaii since Richard Nixon in 1960, notes Nader is already on the ballot in Hawaii for the presidential election and quotes him explaining, ""I didn't start running for president until the doors started closing in Washington against consumer, environmental, labor and other citizen groups. So when you don't have a chance to have a chance to improve your country on Capitol Hill and before the regulatory agencies, you either close up shop and go to Monterey and watch the whales or you go into the electoral arena." Third Party Watch covers it here. Ahead of the apperance KHNL, AP and KITV reported on it. Thursday the Reno Gazette Journal reported Nader's campaign had turned in their signatures to be on the ballot in Nevada. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that the campaign collected 12,000 signatures -- far more than needed to qualify. KRNV reports that if the Democrats attempt any of the manuevers they did in 2004, the Nader campaign will fight it.
The Nader Team notes:
Declare your independence from the flip-floppers McCain and Obama.
Drop $4 now on Nader/Gonzalez for the Fourth of July weekend.
Thank you.
As you enjoy your Fourth of July weekend with friends and family, keep an eye on Nader/Gonzalez:
Ralph Nader will appear on CNN and C-Span this weekend.
Steve Scully's interview of Ralph will run on C-Span twice on Sunday night at 6:30 and 9:30 p.m. EST. You can also watch on line now here.
CNN's Rick Sanchez interview with Ralph will run on Saturday night.
Ralph is a huge sports fan. Check out Dave Zirin's recent interview with Nader on sports here.And Dan Patrick's Sports Illustrated interview here.
When Ralph Nader was growing up in Winsted, Connecticut, his hero was Yankee slugger Lou Gehrig. Gehrig was known as the Iron Horse for his stamina and persistence. (Now you know where Ralph gets it.)
Ralph is campaigning in Hawaii this weekend. See story here.
Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in Nevada. See story here.
We here at the Nader/Gonzalez campaign are pumped about the possibilities this summer.
Ralph is polling at 6 percent.
We'd like to bump it to ten percent and get Ralph into the Presidential debates.
We're shooting for 45 states by September.
And the possibilities of a three way race.
Two flip floppers.
And the real deal.
So, drop four dollars now on the real deal.
And declare your independence from the flip-flopping, corporate controlled McCain and Obama.
Together, we are making a difference.
Have a safe and happy holiday weekend.
Onward
The Nader Team
7/05/2008
7/03/2008
go read kat!
DZ:When did you become a sports fan?
RN: I was really taken by Lou Gehrig when I was a little boy because of his demeanor and his stamina. Remember, he played in over 2,000 consecutive games at that time, which was since eclipsed by Cal Ripken. But you know how everyone has a sports hero when they're a boy? This one really stayed with me. The concept of stamina and persistence. And it turned me into a Yankees fan.
DZ: Persistence is a word that a lot of people associate with you in your public life. Is Gehrig an inspiration in this regard?
RN: Oh, most definitely. There's only one picture in my office on the wall, only one: Lou Gehrig.
that's from dave zirin's 'Talkin' Sports with Ralph Nader' (edge of sports). it's a big day for nader news. ralph's speaking in hawaii tonight at a rally. and hist campaign turned in 12,000 signatures (more than required) in nevada today which should mean nader-gonzalez are on the ballot in that state. on the 2nd topic, krnv notes: 'A CNN poll released July 1 found Nader would receive about 6 percent of the vote in a four way matchup with Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain, and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr.'
i'm excited about the fourth and all that. hope you are as well. i really hope you have a 3 day weekend and get rest and fun.
i had no idea what i was writing but c.i. just called and said, 'you might want to link to kat.' uh, don't keep it a secret! i pull up kat's page and am going 'oh good . . .' kat's nailed amy goodman. read her 'Amy Goodman, selling it for the Aspen Institute'. it's as if every time you think goody can't go any lower, she's determined to prove you wrong.
kat says everything that needs to be said so i'm just going to say, read her!!!! now!!!
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, July 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, war resistance in Puerto Rico (long going on) becomes more public, the White House continues to twist arms in Iraq, sexism watch and more.
Starting with war resistance. Corey Glass is a US war resister in Canada. Yesterday, Russell Goldman (ABC News) reported: "Unbeknownst to him and his legion of supporters, Glass, 25, was actually discharged from the U.S. Army shortly after he went AWOL in 2006. . . . According to U.S. Army documents and officials Glass was discharged from the California National Guard on Dec. 1, 2006, four months after he arrived in Canada and six months after he failed to show up to a required muster." Matthew Campbell (Globe & Mail) reports, "Like thousands of other discharged American soldiers, once back in the United States Mr. Glass coulld still be called up as part of the Indvidual Ready Reserve, a program in which former soldiers can be forced to re-enter service." War Resisters Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofsky terms the announcement by the military "spin." David Wylie (Canwest News Service) notes that the announcement did not derail a planned event tonight in Toronto where supporters are to gather at the May Robinson Building. UPI notes the recent poll which found 64% of Canadians are in favor of allowing US war resisters safe harbor status. Workers World files "Iraq veteran faces deportation, wins support" observes, "The struggle to make Canada a sancurary for war resisters takes on greater importance as more soldiers refuse to return to Iraq. The increasing support for resisters demonstrates widespread opposition to the war and determination to stop it the simplest way: by helping the troops refuse to fight." They also note that IVAW chair Camilo Mejia wrote a letter of support for war resisters in Canada which noted that "it is because of what we saw and experienced [in Iraq] that we support our brothers and sisters seeking a new home in Canada. They are avoiding participation in a criminal, illegal and immoral occupation so that other families can live in peace in their own land. They are doing the right thing! . . . We call upon the Canadian government to implement the motion stopping all deportations of U.S. war resisters and allowing them to stay in Canada, not only because it is your duty to the people you represent to heed to their will, but also because it is a clear statement of support and solidarity for the people of Iraq."
As Camilo's letter makes clear, Corey Glass is not the only US war resister in Canada and he is also not necessarily in the clear. But all war resisters in Canada (and in the US) deserve support. In the US, Courage to Resist is planning "July 9th actions at Canadian Consulates nationwide:"Join a vigil and delegation to a Canadian consulate near you on Wednesday, July 9th to support war resisters! On the eve of Corey Glass' possible deportation, we will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide by the June 3rd resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" More details and cities to be confirmed soon!
Washington DC - Time TBA - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace. Info: TBA San Francisco - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info: 510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net Seattle - Time TBA - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info: 206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com Dallas - Time TBA - 750 North St Paul St (map). Sponsored by North Texas for Justice and Peace. Info: 214-718-6362; hftomlinson(at)riseup.net New York City - Noon to 1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters' League. Info: 212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org Philadelphia - Time TBA - 1650 Market St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info: 215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org Minneapolis - Time TBA - 701 Fourth Ave S (map). Info: TBA Los Angeles - Noon to 1pm - 550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA. Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com Help organize a vigil at one of these other Canadian Consulates: Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Anchorage, Houston, Raleigh, Phoenix, or San Diego. Please contact Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559. Veterans for Peace issued a joint call with Courage to Resist and Project Safe Haven for July 9th vigils at Canadian Consulates: "Dear Canada: Do Not Deport U.S. War Resisters!" Contact us if you can help organize a vigil, or can otherwise get involved. Locations of the 22 Canadian Consulates in the United States.Recently on June 3rd the Canadian Parliament passed an historic motion to officially welcome war resisters! It now appears, however, that the Conservative government may disregard the motion. Iraq combat veteran turned courageous war resister, 25-year-old Sgt. Corey Glass of the Indiana National Guard is still scheduled to be deported July 10th.We will ask that the Canadian government respect the democratic decision of Parliament, the demonstrated opinion of the Canadian citizenry, the view of the United Nations, and millions of Americans by immediately implementing the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other current and future war resisters. Join Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, and Project Safe Haven at Canadian Consulates across the United States (Washington DC, San Francisco, New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles confirmed--more to be announced).We mailed and delivered over 10,000 of the original letters to Canadian officials. Please sign the new letter, "Dear Canada: Abide by resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" http://www.couragetoresist.org/canada
To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.
And in the US, AP's "Mothers of 2 US soldiers say their sons left bases to hide in Puerto Rico," addresses Maria Santiago and Luz Eneida Morales -- two women in San Juan, Puerto Rico who have stated their two sons are there, not going back to the US military and that the police need "to stop searching" for the men. Hiram Lozada is representing the two families. Santiago states she went to Fort Campbell ("last March) and she and her son returned to Puerto Rico while Morales went to her son's base in Colorado and returned to Puerto Rico with him.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Friday is July 4th, in the US, the day of independence. Kelly Dougherty (IVAW) reflects, "Just a few days ago Independence Day came and went, and did anyone notice? June 28th was the day the US returned sovereignty to Iraq in 2004, and it should be a day of celebration, a day when Iraqis mark their equal status among nations, just as America did more than two centuries ago. But even when, finally, the Iraqi people are truly able to steer their own course and run their country as they see fit, I doubt that June 28th will be celebrated as a true Independence Day in Iraq. Would we be celebrating if our Declaration of Independence had been edited by King George III? What if Britain maintained troops and military bases inside our major cities? Would we mark the day this 'independence' began with fireworks and parades?"
As Dougherty explains, there is no independence in Iraq for Iraqis. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reporting on the efforts by the White House to push through a treaty and notes that the complications include "political currents in both countries. Iraqi officials facing elections in the fall do not want to be seen as capitulating to the United States." The White House is pushing the notion that they want a "Status Of Forces Agreement" and not a treaty. By not calling it a "treaty," they hope to bypass the US Senate and the Constitutional provision that the Senate must ratify all treaties. In Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki already stated he would follow Iraq's Constitution and send the treaty to Parliament. (However, this is the same al-Maliki who pushed through last year's United Nations renewal of the authorization for the occupation -- after promising the Parliament that doing so in 2006 was a mistake he wouldn't make again.) With the White House timeline now 'iffy' (they want the treaty by the end of this month), Rubin reports that Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbari has began pushing the notion of a "memo." Doug Smith and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report that (regardless of what is called) the Iraqi Parliament isn't too high on the agreement and quote MP Rashid Azzawi stating, "He was like an American negotiator and not an Iraqi one. He didn't specify many details" and MP Nassar Rubaie declaring, "It is an unequal convention between an occupier and an occupied country." Again, as Kelli Dougherty noted, the Iraqis have no independence today. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) quotes Mirembe Nantongo ("U.S. Embassy spokeswoman") stating that the White House and it's occupied, client-state of Iraq are speaking to one another with "a constructive spirit." Raghavan also notes Zebari's excitement over the possiblity that Iraq might maybe, fingers-crossed, deep breath, control their own airspace . . . if the White House lets them. Hiba Dawood (UPI) surveys the landscape and notes an Al-Basaer editorial entitled "Al-Maliki's dilemma between Tehran and Washington" which Dawood sums up as: "Maliki, the paper said, is in a state where he must choose between his old ally and main support, Iran, or his new ally that placed him at the premiership, the United States. The influential Sunni newspaper said that satisfying the United States means accepting the establishment of 50 permanent military bases, handing over Iraq's oil wealth to American companies, granting amnesty to thousands of U.S. troops and security contractors as well as granting the United States authority over Iraq's land and airspace. The paper said that among the various Iraqi political blocs opposing the status-of-forces agreement, only the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front supports it because it would deter Iranian influence in Iraq." While everyone pretends the White House is playing it above-board on this issue, James Glanz and Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal" (New York Times) details Henry Waxman's House committee's findings that the US State Dept, despite denials to the contrary, actively assisted Hunt Oil in their contract with the Kurdish region of Iraq -- a contract called out by the central government in Baghdad and one that benefits Ray L. Hunt ("a close political ally of President Bush"). Meanwhile Reuters notes that the TSCs (technical support contracts) that were no bid, that the US State Department had a role in (despite denying) and which still have not been signed are in jeopardy with "payment terms" being one of the issues for the Iraqi Parliament.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
The Turkish Press notes a Baghdad car bombing outside Al-Yarmukh Hospital which claimed 4 lives and left ten people wounded. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad home bombing targeting Iraqi Parliamentarian Shatha al-Musawi (of the "majority Sunni bloc") which "destroyed the house" (the house was empty), "damaged two adgjacent houses and injured four civilians" and a Nineveh Province roadside bombing left two police officers injured. Reuters notes a Tikrit roadside bombing that left five convoy guards injured, and a cafe bombing outside of Hilla claimed 4 lives.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that "late Wednesday" unknown assailants shot dead a police officer in Nineveh Province and left another person wounded. Reuters notes 2 people shot dead in a Mosul armed clash, another person shot dead in Mosul "inside a computer games arcade" and 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul as well.
Kidnappings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Diyala Province was the location for two kidnappings on Thursday, 1 cab driver and 1 truck driver.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes the US military says the bones of 2 corpses were discovered in Samarra but that local officials state it was "14 decaying corpses" and they note (with no conflicting accounts) 2 corpses were discovered in Suwayra.
On the sexism front, notice the new target? We don't highlight Maureen Dowd at this site. I'm not a Dowd fan. But, if you missed it, it's time for Bash the Bitch and it's Dowd's turn. Maybe you didn't notice that? Maybe you think David Brooks or Frank Rich just isn't deserving of calling out for their own problems -- which really do exceed Dowd's. (And for the record, leaving facts aside, Dowd can out-write either of them -- both of whom also leave facts aside.) It's brewing. You saw Judith Miller take the fall not just for her own bad work but for Michael Gordon and a hundred others. Now it's time to throw another woman on the fire and it appears it will be Maureen Dowd. Can ____ honestly say he's referred to a male journalist being "spanked" before? Can ____ pretend that they've focused on any male the way they're focusing on Dowd now? Watch them try to if anyone calls them out. More than likely, no one will. Dowd's not above criticism. But we're not talking about criticsm. We're talking about (nod to Blondie) "Rip Her To Shreds" and note the "her." Dowd's got a twice-weekly column. Are we honestly supposed to believe that anything she could do the MSNBC no-stars don't out do her on? There's a free floating rage over a number of issues and it appears it's about to glom on Dowd. As usual, the woman's male peers will remain exempt. And let's see when anyone will stand up and say: "That's about enough." I doubt they will. And this nonsense of you have to like Dowd to defend her is nonsense. All you have to support is fairness and equality. But that's never existed online and let's stop pretending it will by magic. In the meantime try to pretend that Dowd's actions are worse than Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, et al. And try to pretend that sexual degredation that's aimed at her would be used to 'critique' a man. (That's not a tone argument. We came up with Todd S. Purdum 'cupping' the story here in response to all the 'knee pads' nonsense about Elisabeth Bumiller. It's noting that, regardless of the 'tone' you choose to use, you apply it fairly regardless of gender or you're a sexist pig.) If it's summer, it's Bash The Bitch.
Turning to the US race for president, Dominic Lawson (Independent of London) reflects on Primary Barack and the flip-flops that have ensued of late, "Those who actually supported Obama during this process now divide neatly, if unevenly, into two groups. The first, smaller, group is full of buyer's remorse. The blogosphere is hissling like a catherine wheel with their anger with Obama, obviously, but above all with themselves. The second, much bigger group, continues to buy Obama's story. They argue that everything and anything is justified if it helps to get a Democrat back in the White House; some of them add that 'of course' Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the 'redneck states' and that once in the White House he will revert to his 'true beliefs'. To this group we must address a simple question. How do you know what Obama really believes in, other than his own destiny -- and, of course, his conscience?" As Brian Montoli (CBS News) observes today, "What a difference a presidential campaign makes." Yeterday, Montopoli was noting Time's report of the religious right coming together in Denver to support Senator John McCain (the presumptive GOP nominee).
Meanwhile Hillary Supporters Vote Nader lists four reasons why: "(1) Single Payer Health Care will be back on the table, (2) The Wasteful, Bloated and Secretive Military Budget will be brought back to the forefront of the American People's minds. (3) Renewable Energy and American Jobs back on the front burner. (4) Persecution Protection From Corporate and Political Criminals will be spotlighted. This includes: Net Neutrality, Telecom Spying and the outrageous lies that put the American and Iraqis People in harms way, destroyed the US economy and our children's future. McCain and Obama have taken all these issues off the table." This as Honolulu's KITV notes Ralph Nader will be at the University of Hawaii tonight while Barack "has no immediate plans to campaign here" and the McCain campaign says "Hawaii is not on his schedule."
Team Nader announces:
Ralph Nader said on ABC's This Week that the Nader/Gonzalez campaign will be on at least 45 states in November.
Well, time to get it done.
Need a summer job?
We've got one for you.
Become a Roadtripper for Ralph.
Collect signatures to put the Nader/Gonzalez team on the ballot.
Optimum profile for a Roadtripper for Ralph - energetic, youthful spirit, personable, fun loving, adventure seeking, democracy warrior.
Check out Ralph making the pitch for more roadtrippers in this video.
Interested? Contact mark@votenader.org.
By the way, in case you didn't notice, on Saturday, we launched our campaign to raise $40,000 in ten days - by July 6.
You did it in six days.
Kaboom!
Thanks to you, Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in ten states, as promised, by July 6.
Our goal - 45 states by September 15.
We must now thank all of our roadtrippers. (Pictured above - our Illinois road trip crew turning in their signatures last week.)
You help fund them.
But they go out - day in and day out - and collect the necessary signatures to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot.
Our nationwide team has been busting it all around this country.
Today, our crew in Nevada will turn in 12,000 signatures - more than twice the 5,000 needed.
As they say - what was collected in Nevada, stays in Nevada.
And as a result, Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in that key swing state.
Thank you and congratulations Nevada road trip crew.
Finally, why we are doing all of this?
We are doing this because we have no alternative.
McCain is the candidate of perpetual war.
Obama is the corporate Democrat and panderer in chief. (Still doubt it? Check out this article in the New York Times documenting his flip-flop on telecom immunity and the political fallout.)
Let's keep our eye on the ball.
And get it done.
By the way, Ralph is in Honolulu, Hawaii tonight for a campaign speech and rally. If you are in the area, please stop by.
Onward
TV notes. Bill Moyers Journal will reair the program revolving around Tomas Young, an Iraq War veteran and a member of IVAW, including interviews with Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue who made the documentary Body of War which tells Young's story which is strong way to note the Fourth of July. NOW on PBS notes: A reminder: There is no NOW on PBS on July 4, 2008. However, on the website we do have an insightful interview with a North Korea expert commenting on the thawing of relations between our country and North Korea, including a look ahead and analysis of McCain's and Obama's reactions.
iraqcorey glassworkers world
iraq veterans against the warmatthew campbelldavid wyliebrett clarksonabcrussell goldmanellen spirophil donahuemichael winshipbill moyers journaltomas youngpbsnow on pbsjames glanzrichard a. oppel jr.the new york times
alissa j. rubinthe los angeles timesdoug smithraheem salmanthe washington postsudarsan raghavan
brian montopoli
RN: I was really taken by Lou Gehrig when I was a little boy because of his demeanor and his stamina. Remember, he played in over 2,000 consecutive games at that time, which was since eclipsed by Cal Ripken. But you know how everyone has a sports hero when they're a boy? This one really stayed with me. The concept of stamina and persistence. And it turned me into a Yankees fan.
DZ: Persistence is a word that a lot of people associate with you in your public life. Is Gehrig an inspiration in this regard?
RN: Oh, most definitely. There's only one picture in my office on the wall, only one: Lou Gehrig.
that's from dave zirin's 'Talkin' Sports with Ralph Nader' (edge of sports). it's a big day for nader news. ralph's speaking in hawaii tonight at a rally. and hist campaign turned in 12,000 signatures (more than required) in nevada today which should mean nader-gonzalez are on the ballot in that state. on the 2nd topic, krnv notes: 'A CNN poll released July 1 found Nader would receive about 6 percent of the vote in a four way matchup with Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain, and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr.'
i'm excited about the fourth and all that. hope you are as well. i really hope you have a 3 day weekend and get rest and fun.
i had no idea what i was writing but c.i. just called and said, 'you might want to link to kat.' uh, don't keep it a secret! i pull up kat's page and am going 'oh good . . .' kat's nailed amy goodman. read her 'Amy Goodman, selling it for the Aspen Institute'. it's as if every time you think goody can't go any lower, she's determined to prove you wrong.
kat says everything that needs to be said so i'm just going to say, read her!!!! now!!!
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, July 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, war resistance in Puerto Rico (long going on) becomes more public, the White House continues to twist arms in Iraq, sexism watch and more.
Starting with war resistance. Corey Glass is a US war resister in Canada. Yesterday, Russell Goldman (ABC News) reported: "Unbeknownst to him and his legion of supporters, Glass, 25, was actually discharged from the U.S. Army shortly after he went AWOL in 2006. . . . According to U.S. Army documents and officials Glass was discharged from the California National Guard on Dec. 1, 2006, four months after he arrived in Canada and six months after he failed to show up to a required muster." Matthew Campbell (Globe & Mail) reports, "Like thousands of other discharged American soldiers, once back in the United States Mr. Glass coulld still be called up as part of the Indvidual Ready Reserve, a program in which former soldiers can be forced to re-enter service." War Resisters Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofsky terms the announcement by the military "spin." David Wylie (Canwest News Service) notes that the announcement did not derail a planned event tonight in Toronto where supporters are to gather at the May Robinson Building. UPI notes the recent poll which found 64% of Canadians are in favor of allowing US war resisters safe harbor status. Workers World files "Iraq veteran faces deportation, wins support" observes, "The struggle to make Canada a sancurary for war resisters takes on greater importance as more soldiers refuse to return to Iraq. The increasing support for resisters demonstrates widespread opposition to the war and determination to stop it the simplest way: by helping the troops refuse to fight." They also note that IVAW chair Camilo Mejia wrote a letter of support for war resisters in Canada which noted that "it is because of what we saw and experienced [in Iraq] that we support our brothers and sisters seeking a new home in Canada. They are avoiding participation in a criminal, illegal and immoral occupation so that other families can live in peace in their own land. They are doing the right thing! . . . We call upon the Canadian government to implement the motion stopping all deportations of U.S. war resisters and allowing them to stay in Canada, not only because it is your duty to the people you represent to heed to their will, but also because it is a clear statement of support and solidarity for the people of Iraq."
As Camilo's letter makes clear, Corey Glass is not the only US war resister in Canada and he is also not necessarily in the clear. But all war resisters in Canada (and in the US) deserve support. In the US, Courage to Resist is planning "July 9th actions at Canadian Consulates nationwide:"Join a vigil and delegation to a Canadian consulate near you on Wednesday, July 9th to support war resisters! On the eve of Corey Glass' possible deportation, we will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide by the June 3rd resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" More details and cities to be confirmed soon!
Washington DC - Time TBA - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace. Info: TBA San Francisco - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info: 510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net Seattle - Time TBA - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info: 206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com Dallas - Time TBA - 750 North St Paul St (map). Sponsored by North Texas for Justice and Peace. Info: 214-718-6362; hftomlinson(at)riseup.net New York City - Noon to 1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters' League. Info: 212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org Philadelphia - Time TBA - 1650 Market St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info: 215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org Minneapolis - Time TBA - 701 Fourth Ave S (map). Info: TBA Los Angeles - Noon to 1pm - 550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA. Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com Help organize a vigil at one of these other Canadian Consulates: Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Anchorage, Houston, Raleigh, Phoenix, or San Diego. Please contact Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559. Veterans for Peace issued a joint call with Courage to Resist and Project Safe Haven for July 9th vigils at Canadian Consulates: "Dear Canada: Do Not Deport U.S. War Resisters!" Contact us if you can help organize a vigil, or can otherwise get involved. Locations of the 22 Canadian Consulates in the United States.Recently on June 3rd the Canadian Parliament passed an historic motion to officially welcome war resisters! It now appears, however, that the Conservative government may disregard the motion. Iraq combat veteran turned courageous war resister, 25-year-old Sgt. Corey Glass of the Indiana National Guard is still scheduled to be deported July 10th.We will ask that the Canadian government respect the democratic decision of Parliament, the demonstrated opinion of the Canadian citizenry, the view of the United Nations, and millions of Americans by immediately implementing the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other current and future war resisters. Join Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, and Project Safe Haven at Canadian Consulates across the United States (Washington DC, San Francisco, New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles confirmed--more to be announced).We mailed and delivered over 10,000 of the original letters to Canadian officials. Please sign the new letter, "Dear Canada: Abide by resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" http://www.couragetoresist.org/canada
To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.
And in the US, AP's "Mothers of 2 US soldiers say their sons left bases to hide in Puerto Rico," addresses Maria Santiago and Luz Eneida Morales -- two women in San Juan, Puerto Rico who have stated their two sons are there, not going back to the US military and that the police need "to stop searching" for the men. Hiram Lozada is representing the two families. Santiago states she went to Fort Campbell ("last March) and she and her son returned to Puerto Rico while Morales went to her son's base in Colorado and returned to Puerto Rico with him.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Friday is July 4th, in the US, the day of independence. Kelly Dougherty (IVAW) reflects, "Just a few days ago Independence Day came and went, and did anyone notice? June 28th was the day the US returned sovereignty to Iraq in 2004, and it should be a day of celebration, a day when Iraqis mark their equal status among nations, just as America did more than two centuries ago. But even when, finally, the Iraqi people are truly able to steer their own course and run their country as they see fit, I doubt that June 28th will be celebrated as a true Independence Day in Iraq. Would we be celebrating if our Declaration of Independence had been edited by King George III? What if Britain maintained troops and military bases inside our major cities? Would we mark the day this 'independence' began with fireworks and parades?"
As Dougherty explains, there is no independence in Iraq for Iraqis. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reporting on the efforts by the White House to push through a treaty and notes that the complications include "political currents in both countries. Iraqi officials facing elections in the fall do not want to be seen as capitulating to the United States." The White House is pushing the notion that they want a "Status Of Forces Agreement" and not a treaty. By not calling it a "treaty," they hope to bypass the US Senate and the Constitutional provision that the Senate must ratify all treaties. In Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki already stated he would follow Iraq's Constitution and send the treaty to Parliament. (However, this is the same al-Maliki who pushed through last year's United Nations renewal of the authorization for the occupation -- after promising the Parliament that doing so in 2006 was a mistake he wouldn't make again.) With the White House timeline now 'iffy' (they want the treaty by the end of this month), Rubin reports that Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbari has began pushing the notion of a "memo." Doug Smith and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report that (regardless of what is called) the Iraqi Parliament isn't too high on the agreement and quote MP Rashid Azzawi stating, "He was like an American negotiator and not an Iraqi one. He didn't specify many details" and MP Nassar Rubaie declaring, "It is an unequal convention between an occupier and an occupied country." Again, as Kelli Dougherty noted, the Iraqis have no independence today. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) quotes Mirembe Nantongo ("U.S. Embassy spokeswoman") stating that the White House and it's occupied, client-state of Iraq are speaking to one another with "a constructive spirit." Raghavan also notes Zebari's excitement over the possiblity that Iraq might maybe, fingers-crossed, deep breath, control their own airspace . . . if the White House lets them. Hiba Dawood (UPI) surveys the landscape and notes an Al-Basaer editorial entitled "Al-Maliki's dilemma between Tehran and Washington" which Dawood sums up as: "Maliki, the paper said, is in a state where he must choose between his old ally and main support, Iran, or his new ally that placed him at the premiership, the United States. The influential Sunni newspaper said that satisfying the United States means accepting the establishment of 50 permanent military bases, handing over Iraq's oil wealth to American companies, granting amnesty to thousands of U.S. troops and security contractors as well as granting the United States authority over Iraq's land and airspace. The paper said that among the various Iraqi political blocs opposing the status-of-forces agreement, only the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front supports it because it would deter Iranian influence in Iraq." While everyone pretends the White House is playing it above-board on this issue, James Glanz and Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal" (New York Times) details Henry Waxman's House committee's findings that the US State Dept, despite denials to the contrary, actively assisted Hunt Oil in their contract with the Kurdish region of Iraq -- a contract called out by the central government in Baghdad and one that benefits Ray L. Hunt ("a close political ally of President Bush"). Meanwhile Reuters notes that the TSCs (technical support contracts) that were no bid, that the US State Department had a role in (despite denying) and which still have not been signed are in jeopardy with "payment terms" being one of the issues for the Iraqi Parliament.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
The Turkish Press notes a Baghdad car bombing outside Al-Yarmukh Hospital which claimed 4 lives and left ten people wounded. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad home bombing targeting Iraqi Parliamentarian Shatha al-Musawi (of the "majority Sunni bloc") which "destroyed the house" (the house was empty), "damaged two adgjacent houses and injured four civilians" and a Nineveh Province roadside bombing left two police officers injured. Reuters notes a Tikrit roadside bombing that left five convoy guards injured, and a cafe bombing outside of Hilla claimed 4 lives.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that "late Wednesday" unknown assailants shot dead a police officer in Nineveh Province and left another person wounded. Reuters notes 2 people shot dead in a Mosul armed clash, another person shot dead in Mosul "inside a computer games arcade" and 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul as well.
Kidnappings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Diyala Province was the location for two kidnappings on Thursday, 1 cab driver and 1 truck driver.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes the US military says the bones of 2 corpses were discovered in Samarra but that local officials state it was "14 decaying corpses" and they note (with no conflicting accounts) 2 corpses were discovered in Suwayra.
On the sexism front, notice the new target? We don't highlight Maureen Dowd at this site. I'm not a Dowd fan. But, if you missed it, it's time for Bash the Bitch and it's Dowd's turn. Maybe you didn't notice that? Maybe you think David Brooks or Frank Rich just isn't deserving of calling out for their own problems -- which really do exceed Dowd's. (And for the record, leaving facts aside, Dowd can out-write either of them -- both of whom also leave facts aside.) It's brewing. You saw Judith Miller take the fall not just for her own bad work but for Michael Gordon and a hundred others. Now it's time to throw another woman on the fire and it appears it will be Maureen Dowd. Can ____ honestly say he's referred to a male journalist being "spanked" before? Can ____ pretend that they've focused on any male the way they're focusing on Dowd now? Watch them try to if anyone calls them out. More than likely, no one will. Dowd's not above criticism. But we're not talking about criticsm. We're talking about (nod to Blondie) "Rip Her To Shreds" and note the "her." Dowd's got a twice-weekly column. Are we honestly supposed to believe that anything she could do the MSNBC no-stars don't out do her on? There's a free floating rage over a number of issues and it appears it's about to glom on Dowd. As usual, the woman's male peers will remain exempt. And let's see when anyone will stand up and say: "That's about enough." I doubt they will. And this nonsense of you have to like Dowd to defend her is nonsense. All you have to support is fairness and equality. But that's never existed online and let's stop pretending it will by magic. In the meantime try to pretend that Dowd's actions are worse than Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, et al. And try to pretend that sexual degredation that's aimed at her would be used to 'critique' a man. (That's not a tone argument. We came up with Todd S. Purdum 'cupping' the story here in response to all the 'knee pads' nonsense about Elisabeth Bumiller. It's noting that, regardless of the 'tone' you choose to use, you apply it fairly regardless of gender or you're a sexist pig.) If it's summer, it's Bash The Bitch.
Turning to the US race for president, Dominic Lawson (Independent of London) reflects on Primary Barack and the flip-flops that have ensued of late, "Those who actually supported Obama during this process now divide neatly, if unevenly, into two groups. The first, smaller, group is full of buyer's remorse. The blogosphere is hissling like a catherine wheel with their anger with Obama, obviously, but above all with themselves. The second, much bigger group, continues to buy Obama's story. They argue that everything and anything is justified if it helps to get a Democrat back in the White House; some of them add that 'of course' Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the 'redneck states' and that once in the White House he will revert to his 'true beliefs'. To this group we must address a simple question. How do you know what Obama really believes in, other than his own destiny -- and, of course, his conscience?" As Brian Montoli (CBS News) observes today, "What a difference a presidential campaign makes." Yeterday, Montopoli was noting Time's report of the religious right coming together in Denver to support Senator John McCain (the presumptive GOP nominee).
Meanwhile Hillary Supporters Vote Nader lists four reasons why: "(1) Single Payer Health Care will be back on the table, (2) The Wasteful, Bloated and Secretive Military Budget will be brought back to the forefront of the American People's minds. (3) Renewable Energy and American Jobs back on the front burner. (4) Persecution Protection From Corporate and Political Criminals will be spotlighted. This includes: Net Neutrality, Telecom Spying and the outrageous lies that put the American and Iraqis People in harms way, destroyed the US economy and our children's future. McCain and Obama have taken all these issues off the table." This as Honolulu's KITV notes Ralph Nader will be at the University of Hawaii tonight while Barack "has no immediate plans to campaign here" and the McCain campaign says "Hawaii is not on his schedule."
Team Nader announces:
Ralph Nader said on ABC's This Week that the Nader/Gonzalez campaign will be on at least 45 states in November.
Well, time to get it done.
Need a summer job?
We've got one for you.
Become a Roadtripper for Ralph.
Collect signatures to put the Nader/Gonzalez team on the ballot.
Optimum profile for a Roadtripper for Ralph - energetic, youthful spirit, personable, fun loving, adventure seeking, democracy warrior.
Check out Ralph making the pitch for more roadtrippers in this video.
Interested? Contact mark@votenader.org.
By the way, in case you didn't notice, on Saturday, we launched our campaign to raise $40,000 in ten days - by July 6.
You did it in six days.
Kaboom!
Thanks to you, Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in ten states, as promised, by July 6.
Our goal - 45 states by September 15.
We must now thank all of our roadtrippers. (Pictured above - our Illinois road trip crew turning in their signatures last week.)
You help fund them.
But they go out - day in and day out - and collect the necessary signatures to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot.
Our nationwide team has been busting it all around this country.
Today, our crew in Nevada will turn in 12,000 signatures - more than twice the 5,000 needed.
As they say - what was collected in Nevada, stays in Nevada.
And as a result, Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in that key swing state.
Thank you and congratulations Nevada road trip crew.
Finally, why we are doing all of this?
We are doing this because we have no alternative.
McCain is the candidate of perpetual war.
Obama is the corporate Democrat and panderer in chief. (Still doubt it? Check out this article in the New York Times documenting his flip-flop on telecom immunity and the political fallout.)
Let's keep our eye on the ball.
And get it done.
By the way, Ralph is in Honolulu, Hawaii tonight for a campaign speech and rally. If you are in the area, please stop by.
Onward
TV notes. Bill Moyers Journal will reair the program revolving around Tomas Young, an Iraq War veteran and a member of IVAW, including interviews with Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue who made the documentary Body of War which tells Young's story which is strong way to note the Fourth of July. NOW on PBS notes: A reminder: There is no NOW on PBS on July 4, 2008. However, on the website we do have an insightful interview with a North Korea expert commenting on the thawing of relations between our country and North Korea, including a look ahead and analysis of McCain's and Obama's reactions.
iraqcorey glassworkers world
iraq veterans against the warmatthew campbelldavid wyliebrett clarksonabcrussell goldmanellen spirophil donahuemichael winshipbill moyers journaltomas youngpbsnow on pbsjames glanzrichard a. oppel jr.the new york times
alissa j. rubinthe los angeles timesdoug smithraheem salmanthe washington postsudarsan raghavan
brian montopoli
7/02/2008
lies and truth
ruth and i both want to do a pop quiz tonight. so if you've already read ruth (you should) then you know the answer. if not, read the following quote and guess who said it:
"After 9-11, it's now become quite clear that whatever emphasis there was on the al Qaeda apparatus, there was a superior emphasis on removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq. What's interesting about this is the following. It illustrated -- in ways perhaps never before illustrated in our country -- the fragility of our democratic institutiatons. Here is a nation run by a tottering dictator presiding over a diplated army, with troops not willing to fight for him, surrounded by hostile Kurds to the north, hostile Shiites to the south, surrounded by three very powerful countries compared to his military ability: Iran, Turkey and Israel. And had he directed one aggressive threat toward any of them, they would have obliterated his regime. And yet Iraq under Hussein was viewed as a threat to the United States? But what was most troubling was the lack of any deliberative process by the US Congress which was stampeded into this situation, lack of any deliberative or investigative process by the mass media which clicked their heels and loved the graphics that they were given, and without a deliberative attentiveness to the perceived concerns of the American people. Before the invasion of Iraq, we tried to have Bush meet with one or more distinct groups in our country who had knowledge and were concerned about the invasion of Iraq. Thirteen of these groups, with very little press attention, wrote open letters to President Bush in February and early March, asking for a meeting. They included letters signed by the National Council of Churches, former military officers, former intelligence officials, student groups, women's peace advocates, a business group, labor group. I don't know of any other impending hostility that had such an ecumentical coming-together, expressing doubt and opposition to the pending move. None of these letters were answered by the White House. There were no meetings. President Bush, being the messianic militarist that we've come to know so well, was not interested in meeting with anyone who was critical of his proposed Iraq policies. That was a severe scar on our democratic fabric."
pretty powerful words, pretty strong words. believe it or not, they are the words of a presidential candidate. do you know who? ralph nader.
ralph nader has never waivered in his opposition to the illegal war.
he has never believed that an illegal war could be 'won.' he was saying that in the spring of 2004. when every 1 was afraid to talk about the illegal war. that's john kerry and a lot of others. barack obama? he'd tell the new york times in july that he didn't know how he would have voted if he was in the senate in 2002.
ralph nader was against the illegal war before it started. he was against it after the iraq war started. he has not waivered in his position. he has not tried to finesse it. he has stayed consistent.
that's really important. if you doubt it, have you met the 2 baracks?
primary barack said he was going to end the illegal war. (only pulling out combat troops, actually.) he said he'd do it in 16 months, then he said he'd do it in 10 months. he wanted your support.
he lied to you.
today barack obama confirms samantha power's april revelations to the bbc, that there was no 'plan' or a 'promise.' barack, if he was elected, would decide what to do when he got into the white house. june 5th, he repeated that himself to cnn.
but we're not supposed to have noticed.
ralph nader hasn't lied. he hasn't tried to trick you into supporting him. he's been clear about where he stands and that's against the illegal war.
let's make it real simple. barack and ralph ask you out to lunch. you say, 'okay, but i am not in the mood for thai.' ralph tells you he's not in the mood for thai either. barack tells you he's not in the mood for thai and he has been opposed to thai since 2002 when he gave a speech about being opposed to thai. he promises you that you will not be eating thai.
ralph takes you to a mexican or chinese or whatever place.
you get out of the car with barack and you're at a thai place. 'barack, what happened? we agreed no thai. you promised. you said you'd spoken out against thai food in 2002.'
barack explains, 'well the rhetoric can be a little heated when you are trying to decide about lunch. i never said 100% no thai.'
for the record, i love thai food (and ate it today, which is why it popped into my mind). you may say, 'oh that's silly because lunch is so basic.' lunch is so basic. so is living and dying. and barack can't decide where he is from 1 moment to the next on the illegal war.
i wrote a long time ago that women don't trust barack. the reason is we have known too many men who say anything and then do whatever they want. he's got a new commercial. it's claiming he worked his way through college. that's cute, isn't it? this is from viveca novak's 'Obama's Work Claim' (newsweek):
The ad begins with the announcer telling us that Obama "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." Actually, Obama took out loans to get himself through college, as we heard in a 60-second ad his campaign began running last month. We don't know how much assistance his family provided.
But "worked his way" through college and law school? The only back-up the campaign provided for this claim was a quote from Obama's book "Dreams from My Father" having to do with a construction job he had one summer while he was in college, and an article mentioning his job as a summer associate one year at a big Chicago law firm. We asked campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor if Obama held jobs during the school year, or other summer jobs, but he said only, "He had the two jobs I told you about." Unless Obama had a good bit more employment than his spokesman was able to describe for us, it's a real stretch to claim he "worked his way" through school.
he's now lying so much he can't even keep his commercials straight.
in 1 he says he took out loans (did he?) in the other he says he worked his way through college. but the reality is that he held two summer jobs.
that's not working your way through college. because c.i. wouldn't major in journalism, c.i. was cut off. i've told this story before. but it was really thought that if they sprung that on c.i. at the last minute, c.i. would cave. c.i. didn't. c.i. worked through college. c.i. worked multiple jobs each semester. when the trust fund kicked in at 21, c.i. continued working. by that point, c.i. had learned to handle 2 and 3 jobs (1 semester there were 4 jobs) and classes. without work, c.i. didn't feel focus was possible. knowing there was X amount of time for studying or papers (or speaking out and being active) meant that c.i. was highly structured and accomplished things.
so the notion that barack wants to toss out that he held 1 job 1 summer and another 1 another summer is a joke. did barack go to a 2 year college? i mean, come on. he graduated with a b.a. (or b.s., but he seems the b.a. type) and then went for a law degree. so let's drop this nonsense that he was working his way through college. he did no such thing.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
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).
"After 9-11, it's now become quite clear that whatever emphasis there was on the al Qaeda apparatus, there was a superior emphasis on removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq. What's interesting about this is the following. It illustrated -- in ways perhaps never before illustrated in our country -- the fragility of our democratic institutiatons. Here is a nation run by a tottering dictator presiding over a diplated army, with troops not willing to fight for him, surrounded by hostile Kurds to the north, hostile Shiites to the south, surrounded by three very powerful countries compared to his military ability: Iran, Turkey and Israel. And had he directed one aggressive threat toward any of them, they would have obliterated his regime. And yet Iraq under Hussein was viewed as a threat to the United States? But what was most troubling was the lack of any deliberative process by the US Congress which was stampeded into this situation, lack of any deliberative or investigative process by the mass media which clicked their heels and loved the graphics that they were given, and without a deliberative attentiveness to the perceived concerns of the American people. Before the invasion of Iraq, we tried to have Bush meet with one or more distinct groups in our country who had knowledge and were concerned about the invasion of Iraq. Thirteen of these groups, with very little press attention, wrote open letters to President Bush in February and early March, asking for a meeting. They included letters signed by the National Council of Churches, former military officers, former intelligence officials, student groups, women's peace advocates, a business group, labor group. I don't know of any other impending hostility that had such an ecumentical coming-together, expressing doubt and opposition to the pending move. None of these letters were answered by the White House. There were no meetings. President Bush, being the messianic militarist that we've come to know so well, was not interested in meeting with anyone who was critical of his proposed Iraq policies. That was a severe scar on our democratic fabric."
pretty powerful words, pretty strong words. believe it or not, they are the words of a presidential candidate. do you know who? ralph nader.
ralph nader has never waivered in his opposition to the illegal war.
he has never believed that an illegal war could be 'won.' he was saying that in the spring of 2004. when every 1 was afraid to talk about the illegal war. that's john kerry and a lot of others. barack obama? he'd tell the new york times in july that he didn't know how he would have voted if he was in the senate in 2002.
ralph nader was against the illegal war before it started. he was against it after the iraq war started. he has not waivered in his position. he has not tried to finesse it. he has stayed consistent.
that's really important. if you doubt it, have you met the 2 baracks?
primary barack said he was going to end the illegal war. (only pulling out combat troops, actually.) he said he'd do it in 16 months, then he said he'd do it in 10 months. he wanted your support.
he lied to you.
today barack obama confirms samantha power's april revelations to the bbc, that there was no 'plan' or a 'promise.' barack, if he was elected, would decide what to do when he got into the white house. june 5th, he repeated that himself to cnn.
but we're not supposed to have noticed.
ralph nader hasn't lied. he hasn't tried to trick you into supporting him. he's been clear about where he stands and that's against the illegal war.
let's make it real simple. barack and ralph ask you out to lunch. you say, 'okay, but i am not in the mood for thai.' ralph tells you he's not in the mood for thai either. barack tells you he's not in the mood for thai and he has been opposed to thai since 2002 when he gave a speech about being opposed to thai. he promises you that you will not be eating thai.
ralph takes you to a mexican or chinese or whatever place.
you get out of the car with barack and you're at a thai place. 'barack, what happened? we agreed no thai. you promised. you said you'd spoken out against thai food in 2002.'
barack explains, 'well the rhetoric can be a little heated when you are trying to decide about lunch. i never said 100% no thai.'
for the record, i love thai food (and ate it today, which is why it popped into my mind). you may say, 'oh that's silly because lunch is so basic.' lunch is so basic. so is living and dying. and barack can't decide where he is from 1 moment to the next on the illegal war.
i wrote a long time ago that women don't trust barack. the reason is we have known too many men who say anything and then do whatever they want. he's got a new commercial. it's claiming he worked his way through college. that's cute, isn't it? this is from viveca novak's 'Obama's Work Claim' (newsweek):
The ad begins with the announcer telling us that Obama "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." Actually, Obama took out loans to get himself through college, as we heard in a 60-second ad his campaign began running last month. We don't know how much assistance his family provided.
But "worked his way" through college and law school? The only back-up the campaign provided for this claim was a quote from Obama's book "Dreams from My Father" having to do with a construction job he had one summer while he was in college, and an article mentioning his job as a summer associate one year at a big Chicago law firm. We asked campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor if Obama held jobs during the school year, or other summer jobs, but he said only, "He had the two jobs I told you about." Unless Obama had a good bit more employment than his spokesman was able to describe for us, it's a real stretch to claim he "worked his way" through school.
he's now lying so much he can't even keep his commercials straight.
in 1 he says he took out loans (did he?) in the other he says he worked his way through college. but the reality is that he held two summer jobs.
that's not working your way through college. because c.i. wouldn't major in journalism, c.i. was cut off. i've told this story before. but it was really thought that if they sprung that on c.i. at the last minute, c.i. would cave. c.i. didn't. c.i. worked through college. c.i. worked multiple jobs each semester. when the trust fund kicked in at 21, c.i. continued working. by that point, c.i. had learned to handle 2 and 3 jobs (1 semester there were 4 jobs) and classes. without work, c.i. didn't feel focus was possible. knowing there was X amount of time for studying or papers (or speaking out and being active) meant that c.i. was highly structured and accomplished things.
so the notion that barack wants to toss out that he held 1 job 1 summer and another 1 another summer is a joke. did barack go to a 2 year college? i mean, come on. he graduated with a b.a. (or b.s., but he seems the b.a. type) and then went for a law degree. so let's drop this nonsense that he was working his way through college. he did no such thing.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, July 2, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Corey Glass gets big news, 'discussions' in Iraq (at the direction of DC), attacks on Iraqi judges continue, and more.
Starting with war resistance. In a dramatic development for US war resister Corey Glass, currently residing in Canada, there are no charges against him. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Corey Glass is an Iraq War veteran and a US war resister. He went to Canada seeking asylum -- the kind of welcoming Canada provided to war resisters ("draft dodgers" and "deserters") during Vietnam. After being told he was being deported, he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. This morning Russell Goldman (ABC News) reported: "Unbeknownst to him and his legion of supporters, Glass, 25, was actually discharged from the U.S. Army shortly after he went AWOL in 2006. . . . According to U.S. Army documents and officials Glass was discharged from the California National Guard on Dec. 1, 2006, four months after he arrived in Canada and six months after he failed to show up to a required muster." Goldman quotes Corey stating, "I had absolutely no idea that I had been discharged. This is insane. This is so weird. There are no warrants? No one is looking for me?" According to Major Nathan Banks, the US military does not consider Glass AWOL or a deserter, there are no charges against Glass and Glass is out of the military.
Events planned are still being held. Corey Glass is not the only US war resister in Canada and he is also not necessarily in the clear. In the US, Courage to Resist is planning "July 9th actions at Canadian Consulates nationwide:"
Join a vigil and delegation to a Canadian consulate near you on Wednesday, July 9th to support war resisters! On the eve of Corey Glass' possible deportation, we will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide by the June 3rd resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" More details and cities to be confirmed soon!
Washington DC - Time TBA - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace. Info: TBA
San Francisco - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info: 510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net
Seattle - Time TBA - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info: 206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com
Dallas - Time TBA - 750 North St Paul St (map). Sponsored by North Texas for Justice and Peace. Info: 214-718-6362; hftomlinson(at)riseup.net
New York City - Noon to 1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters' League. Info: 212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org
Philadelphia - Time TBA - 1650 Market St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info: 215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org
Minneapolis - Time TBA - 701 Fourth Ave S (map). Info: TBA
Los Angeles - Noon to 1pm - 550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA. Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com
Help organize a vigil at one of these other Canadian Consulates: Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Anchorage, Houston, Raleigh, Phoenix, or San Diego. Please contact Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559.
Veterans for Peace issued a joint call with Courage to Resist and Project Safe Haven for July 9th vigils at Canadian Consulates: "Dear Canada: Do Not Deport U.S. War Resisters!" Contact us if you can help organize a vigil, or can otherwise get involved. Locations of the 22 Canadian Consulates in the United States.
Recently on June 3rd the Canadian Parliament passed an historic motion to officially welcome war resisters! It now appears, however, that the Conservative government may disregard the motion.
Iraq combat veteran turned courageous war resister, 25-year-old Sgt. Corey Glass of the Indiana National Guard is still scheduled to be deported July 10th.
We will ask that the Canadian government respect the democratic decision of Parliament, the demonstrated opinion of the Canadian citizenry, the view of the United Nations, and millions of Americans by immediately implementing the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other current and future war resisters.
Join Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, and Project Safe Haven at Canadian Consulates across the United States (Washington DC, San Francisco, New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles confirmed--more to be announced).
We mailed and delivered over 10,000 of the original letters to Canadian officials. Please sign the new letter, "Dear Canada: Abide by resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!"
http://www.couragetoresist.org/canada
Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign will hold a "Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass" July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008. Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this motion." They are also asking for a July 2nd call-in. Diane Finley is the Immigration and Citizenship Minister and her phone numbers are (613) 996-4974 and (519) 426-3400 -- they also provide her e-mail addresses minister@cic.gc.ca ("minister" at "cic.gc.ca") and finled1@parl.gc.ca ("finled1" at "parl.gc.ca").
To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Turning to Iraq, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports that, unlike the US Congress, the Iraqi Parliament is postponing the summer vaction. Zavis reports that this is said to be in response to the allegedly upcoming provinical elections and the failure to pass the legislation that the US White House wants. For those remember last summer, the Iraqi Parliament was under criticism last year for taking a summer break. They ended up taking one resulting in some harsh criticism from inside the US. Meanwhile Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) paints a portrait (intentionally or not) of Iraqis being conned: Hoshyar Zebari (Iraq's Foreign Minister) declares that immunity for contractors has been lifted and Iraq might have control of their own air space and . . . . Who is advising Iraqis on these contracts? Attorneys for the White House? The US State Department? Doubt it? James Hider (Times of London) speaks with a contractor who explains what the 'law' says and the 'reality': "But bringing to book any Western security guards accused of shooting civilians would be difficult, the contractor noted. 'If it's someone like Blackwater, nine times out of ten the individual is spirited out of the country'." Zebari was talking it up in Baghdad again today. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reports that Zebari declared at a Baghdad press conference today, "We have reached a comfortable stage of negotiations and the differences have been narrowed." As Raghavan and the Los Angeles Times' Doug Smith and Raheem Salman all note, Zebari is talking 'concessions' already (on both sides!). That would put the US client-state in an even weaker position. And is anyone else starting to note that 'progress' always 'happens' when Jalal Talabani is absent? Fresh from having the Mayo Clinic unplog his arteries, the ever-expanding Jalal Talabani is back in the news. BBC reports that yesterday, in Athens, Jalal (attending a conference, he wasn't there for sunbathing) shooks hands with Irsrael's Defense Minister Ehud Barak. And that Talabani's office quickly issued a "statement [which] said he was responsding to a request from Mr Abbas and was acting as leader of his Kurcihs party and deputy president of the Sociliast International, not as Iraq's president." Finishing the Talabani portion, Turkish Daily News reports he "was elected to a vice-chairmanship in the Socialist International over the leader of the main opposition Republican People's Party, or CHP, who avoided attending the summit in Greece and therefore was not nominated". On the issue of the treaty, Watching America has translated Palestinian Writer's piece (written for al Jazeera):
The first step in getting Iraq out from underneath its catastrophe is the withdrawal of American troops. . . . The most stunning of those who fear for an Iraq in which the Americans leave are those who want to sign a security agreement with the Bush administration, or an American-Iraqi treaty which is now on the agenda and of which some items have already been leaked. It gives the right for the occupation to stay in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time of up to several years, or even a permanent occupation. And with a permanent occupation would come a permanent catastrophe that would be renewed and everlasting. Signing a security agreement or a militay/political/security treaty alongside the crime that is the proposed oil agreement would require a hand in treachery to Iraq, to Arabs and to Muslims, under any and all circumstances.
Meanwhile the United Arab Emirates' The National sees talk that the Sunni bloc -- (Tawafaq Front) boycotting for a year now -- might return to the Iraqi Parliament as a sign of optimism. Remember that in a few weeks. (False hopes always die hard.) Closer to reality, Sabrina Tavernise reported today: "Another judge was the target of an intimidation campaign on Tuesday, at least the sixth in two days, in a trend that has alarmed Iraq's judiciary. A bomb was placed near the house of Judge Qusay al-Bayati, of the Court of Appeals in eastern Baghdad. The judges previously attacked were on the same court. The bomb was defused and did not explode."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a US military camp in Baghdad was the target of an attack early this morning which started with exchanges of gunfire and then had "two 107mm rockets" fired at it (according to the US military) and 2 civilians were killed when the US returned fire, three Baghdad roadside bombings resulting in 2 deaths and nine people wounded
Kidnappings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Azad Argoshi was kidnapped Wednesday morning and later "found in very bad shape".
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Turning to the US presidential race. Barack Obama continues to attempt to prove he is patriotic. Meanwhile this is how Ralph Nader described the country to Jim Lehrer (PBS' NewsHour) in 2000, "Well there are ups and downs. Obviously the slavery period was counteracted by the antislavery movement, women got the right to vote, workers got the right to form trade unions. They built the middle class. As they say, they gave us our weekend, they gave us benefits. The farmers' popular progressive movement against the banks and railroads companies that leavened power more; it gave people a chance to have more voice. So I think we have to look back at our history and say why is it every time concentrated power got too much and social justice movements opposed them, and the dominant business community opposed a social justice movement and finally lost, America was better as a result. Everybody benefited, including the businesses because democracy tends to expand markets." In 2000 at this time, Nader was coming in at four-percent in most polls. The most recent CNN-Opinion Research Poll found him to be holding at 6%.
On the Iraq War, while Barack wants credit for a speech he 'gave' in 2002 (online recording is a 're-creation'), what has he done since? While Barack was supporting Bully Boy's illegal war throughout 2004 and stating repeatedly that he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate, Ralph Nader knew where he stood in 2004: "Every day our exposed military remains in war-torm Iraq, we impreil U.S. security, drain our economy, ignore urgent domestic needs, and prevent Iraqi demonstratic self-rule. We need to announace a withdrawal of our troops, not increase them." In May of 2004, speaking to the Council of/for/from Foreign Relations, he would explain (in the belly of the beast): "After 9-11, it's now become quite clear that whatever emphasis there was on the al Qaeda apparatus, there was a superior emphasis on removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq. What's interesting about this is the following. It illustrated -- in ways perhaps never before illustrated in our country -- the fragility of our democratic institutiatons. Here is a nation run by a tottering dictator presiding over a diplated army, with troops not willing to fight for him, surrounded by hostile Kurds to the north, hostile Shiites to the south, surrounded by three very powerful countries compared to his military ability: Iran, Turkey and Israel. And had he directed one aggressive threat toward any of them, they would have obliterated his regime. And yet Iraq under Hussein was viewed as a threat to the United States? But what was most troubling was the lack of any deliberative process by the US Congress which was stampeded into this situation, lack of any deliberative or investigative process by the mass media which clicked their heels and loved the graphics that they were given, and without a deliberative attentiveness to the perceived concerns of the American people. Before the invasion of Iraq, we tried to have Bush meet with one or more distinct groups in our country who had knowledge and were concerned about the invasion of Iraq. Thirteen of these groups, with very little press attention, wrote open letters to President Bush in February and early March, asking for a meeting. They included letters signed by the National Council of Churches, former military officers, former intelligence officials, student groups, women's peace advocates, a business group, labor group. I don't know of any other impending hostility that had such an ecumentical coming-together, expressing doubt and opposition to the pending move. None of these letters were answered by the White House. There were no meetings. President Bush, being the messianic militarist that we've come to know so well, was not interested in meeting with anyone who was critical of his proposed Iraq policies. That was a severe scar on our democratic fabric."
Meanwhile Steve Holland (Reuters) notes Barack's "flexibility" and "nuance on Iraq". Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report), endorsing Cynthia McKinney (presumed Green Party nominee), observes, " The true voices of peace speak clearly, in simple language. 'The U.S. should withdraw all troops and mercenaries from Iraq in as orderly a fashion as possible,' says former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, candidate for the Green Party's presidential nomination. 'This withdrawal should be quickly accomplished, since the troops and the equipment were all pre-positioned in the area to start with, at the start of the invasion'."
And Team Nader notes:
Here's something you can do right now for Nader/ Gonzalez.
Why six dollars, you may ask?
Because yesterday, CNN reported that Ralph Nader is at six percent in its most recent national poll.
And while the flip-floppers Obama and McCain might look down on six percent, we are excited.
Our goal of course is much higher.
Right now, our goal is ten percent in the national polls.
Why ten percent?
Because ten percent gets us into the Google sponsored debates in New Orleans on September 18.
If we get on the Google sponsored debates, we're convinced Nader/Gonzalez will move toward 20 percent.
At twenty percent, people see a three way race.
When people see a three way race, everything is possible.
And we believe that in this momentous election year, everything is possible.
But right now our motto is as follows:
Get it done.
Now, what exactly do we mean by get it done?
We mean get Ralph Nader on the ballot in at least 45 states (Ralph was on only 34 in 2004)
Here's our ambitious ballot access timetable:
Ten states by July 6.
Fifteen states by July 20.
Thirty states by August 8.
Forty states by September 1.
Forty five states by September 15.
Right now, we're in stage one: ten states by July 6.
And we're in the middle of the stage one fundraising campaign.
Right now, we need to raise $40,000 by July 6, 2008.
Thanks to your generous donations, we're at $27,672.
But we want to get to ten states as soon as possible.
So, help us blow by our $40,000 goal early.
If we can get stage one done early, then we can move onto stage two ahead of schedule.
So, please, drop a six spot here now.
There's nowhere to go but up.
Together, we are making a difference.
sudarsan raghavan
the washington post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)