Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude: 08/17

8/22/2008

ralph and barack's guessing game

where to start? how about with team nader:

Next Wednesday, Denver is going to be rockin.

Thousands will be gathered at the University of Denver Magness arena to protest the corporate lockdown on the Presidential debates.

Sean Penn, Val Kilmer, Cindy Sheehan, Tom Morello, Jello Biafra and others will join Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez.

Demanding an end to the corporate control over the Presidential debates.

So, if there is any chance you can get to Denver Wednesday, you can make a donation to reserve your ticket here.

If you can't get to Denver, no problem.

Free Speech TV will be streaming the event live on the Internet. (Wednesday, August 27, 7 p.m. Mountain time, 9 p.m. Eastern.)

Just click here to watch.

Also, the Free Speech TV will be broadcasting the event live on Dish Network Channel 9415.

And many local public access channels will be carrying the Free Speech TV feed.

(If your public access channel doesn't carry it, call them and ask them to do so. Click here for a list of public access channels.)

Anyway, it's going to be an historic event -- protesting the corporate control over our politics -- in the midst of the corporate Democratic spectacle.

So, join us in Denver if you can.

If not, invite your friends over, and dial up the live Internet feed -- or watch on television via satellite or on your public access channel.

Onward to November.

now if you didn't already read To The Contrary's bonnie erbe's 'More Bad Polling News for Barack Obama' (u.s. news & world reports) already, go read it. she asks the very important question of did barack peak too soon? and wouldn't you know it would take a woman to ask that question? :D

okay, go to Marcia's site tonight. she's putting her feelings into prose/poetry.

it's really more of a monologue. and it's very powerful.

she's speaking for herself as an african-american lesbian and how the low life beggars of panhandle media in particular have made her feel.

i love it.

i'm going to ask her to record that for the audio of hilda's mix because if you can hear her read it out loud, you really get another sense of it.

she's using all the words, so you have been warned.

but you don't want to miss it.

so baby barack didn't make his announcement today.

which most likely means some 1 got cold feet.

he's blown it.

if i were representing him, i'd tell him to hold off until monday for the announcement.

but he promised it this weekend.

therefore it will not get the news momentum it would have.

i assumed all day that he would announce it sometime after 3:30 est and prior to 6:00 this afternoon. that would have allowed the topic to dominate the evening news. to dominate saturday's news flow. to domainate the sunday chat & chews.

but here's the thing, friday was the day.

friday, people would have heard it at work on the radio. they would have heard on the radio in the car. they would have come home and seen it on the news.

by the time monday's evening news rolls around, it's not as fresh.

barack missed the big rollout.

now, yes, public relations was my field. but barack's got a lot of p.r. people working for him.

they know they needed to make friday afternoon roll out. they're fully aware that an international event over the weekend could compete with it on the monday evening newscasts.

so i'm saying it looks like some 1 got cold feet.

that may mean that barack couldn't decide who he wanted.

it may mean that his 1st pick turned him down. or that when they talked, there was conflict. (like gerry ford when he and reagan talked in 1980. it was supposed to be a 'done deal.' gerald ford was going to be reagan's v.p. but there was conflict and, at the last minute, ford was out.)

if it's none of the above, then barack's team is pretty stupid.

you wanted it in the friday news cycle to get it maxium attention.

people consume news less on the weekends.

that's why if you want to bury something, you make the announcement late friday - to late to make the evening news.

poor barack, can't close the deal with the voters and can't even figure out how to run his own campaign.

no wonder he's polling so badly. 1 poll had him at 48% disapproval.

it's not going away.

he is inexperienced. he is catty. he wears lip gloss in public very often and will most likely be wearing it next week when speaking at the dnc.

he's too elitist and too efette.

that's how he comes off.

that is the perception he leaves.

and he could have dominated the news today but turned it into a guessing game all week long.

there's always the threat of a backlash.

now barack looks indecisive.

if the party had any brains, they would nominate hillary for top of the ticket next week.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, August 22, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the Shi'ite thugs want the Sunni ones gone, US war resister Robin Long is court-martialed and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, there is no treaty ('agreement') between the US and Iraq yet, and more.

Starting with war resistance. US war resister Robin Long was extradited from Canada in July. He was turned over to US authorities at the border by Canadian authorities (that is not deportation) and has spent the last weeks at Fort Carson in Colorado. Utah's Daily Herald noted last night that Robin "plans to plead guilty Friday to a reduced charge of desertion, his lawyer said." The Detroit Free Press added: "He faces a dishonorable discharge as well as prison time." The Whig Standard explains that Robin's attorney James "Branum said Long has reached an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to desertion with intent to remain away permanently, a lesser charge than desertion with intent to shirk hazardous duty." Nick Kyonka (Toronto Star) quotes Branam explaining, "In exchange for him pleading guilty, they've agreed to (lower) the three-year maximum sentence that usually comes with those charges." Branum added, "I think they want to prosecute him for free-speech issues without actually charging him for them." Free Speech Radio News will have an audio report today (for those needing or requiring audio).

Karen, with Fort Carson Public Affairs Office, states Robin was sentenced to 15 months, reduced in Rank E1 and given a dishonorable discharge. Long has been held at the Criminal Justice Center in El Paso County while awaiting the court-martial. He will received credit for the time he has served ("about 40 days").

The Canadian government has announced that US war resister Jeremy Hinzman will be deported if he does not leave their country by September 23rd. Whether he would be deported or "deported" is an unanswered question. Actions are taking place to make the Stephen Harper government respect the will of the people and let Jeremy remain in Canada. Jeremy is being highly pro-active and has already taped a video, which you can find at the War Resisters Support Campaign, where he speaks directly to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada:

Jeremy Hinzman: Hello, Mr. Harper. This is my family Nga, Liam and Meghan. We've been in Canada for the last four and a 1/2 years. I was a specialist in the 82nd Air borne division of the United States Army and served honorably in Afghanistan. In 2004, my family and I came to Canada because we would not participate in the Iraqi War, a war which Canada also refused to participate in because it was condemned by the international community. One of your predecessors, Pierre Trudeau, once said that Canada should be have from militarism and we took him at this word. On June 3, 2008, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion saying that United States war resisters should be able to remain in Canada. We're asking you to abide by this motion and allow us to stay in Canada. Thank you.

Title Card: On September 23rd, the Harper government plans to deport the Hinzman family back to the United States.

Title Card: Hinzman faces a court martial and up to 5 years in military prison for opposing the Iraq war and coming to Canada.

Title Card: War Resisters Support Campaign (Canada): www.resisters.ca

In addition, Independent Catholic News reports that demonstrations will take place in support of war resisters (10-hour vigil outside Canada House in Trafalgar Square) and "members of Pax Christi, the Oxford Catholic Worker and Fellowship of Reconciliation will join Voices in the Wilderness". The War Resisters Support Campaign announces:

September 13th is a pan-Canadian Day of Action to support U.S. Iraq war resisters and to demand that the Harper government immediately stop the deportations. Actions, demonstrations, and pickets will take place in cities and towns all across Canada. Click here to see a list of actions and to download materials.

If your city is not listed, consider organizing a local action for September 13th. Whether it is petitioning in your local farmer's market, picketing a Conservative MP's office or rallying at a federal building, we need to go all out to stop the deportation of resisters like Jeremy Hinzman and Corey Glass!

In addition they are coordinating screenings of Michelle Mason's documentary on war resisters Breaking Ranks for September 14th. Spencer Spratley (Center for Research on Globalization) publishes an open letter to Stephen Harper where he notes, "I feel that some of your polices are beginning to depart from deeply held traditional Canadian values. And you are transforming the face of Canada with the mandate of a minority Government. You also have a majority in the House of Commons who voted, on behalf of Canadians, to support the request made by American War resisters to remain in Canada. I believe you are turning your back on a majority of Canadians on an issue that is very important to us. That is not the sign of a democratic Prime Minister. Somehow Canada has always been a little bit different and we have always been proud of that. We don't want to be more like anyone else. . . . . Sir, in the name of decency, compassion, and a higher justice, I request you to allow American War resisters to remain in Canada as conscientious objectors. Please don't send them off to have their lives and families desroyed by an unjust war. Your decision to begin deporting American war resisters lacks decency and compassion. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position."

Courage to Resist alerts, "Supporters are calling on Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to intervene. Phone 613.996.4974 or email finley.d@parl.gc.ca,"Iraq Veterans Against the War also encourages people to take action, "To support Jeremy, call or email Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and ask her to intervene in this case. Phone: 613.996.4974 email: finley.d@parl.gc.ca."

In England, police are announcing that three suspects have been taken into custody for threats against Gordon Brown, the country's Prime Minister. Reuters explains that did not just happen and at least two of the three have been in custody since last week. The threat against Brown was in written form (Telegraph of London has posted it), from "the Leader of al-Qaeda in Britain, Shaykh Umar Rabie al-Khalaila" and demanded both "A complete withdrawal of the British troops from Afghanistan and Iraq" and "To free all Muslim captives from Belmarsh prison, and the foremost of them Shaykh Abu Qatada al-Filistini and Shaykh Abu Hamza al-Misri." The threat gave the deadline of "the last day of March 2008" and, yes, that has passed. "Threats" may be too strong of a word. If the demands weren't met (and they clearly weren't) the note promised to "target all the political leaders especially Tony Blair" former Prime Minister "and Gordon Brown, and we will also target all Embassies, Crusaders Centers and their Interest through out the country, with the help of Allah." 'Target'? Via protests? Via violence? The letter is not clear. Which may be why the BBC -- which is hyping the story to high-alarm-level -- tucks this at the end of their report, "Police have until Thursday to charge the men, release them or seek an extension to their custody." We'll go ahead and bring in presumed Republican candidate in the US, John McCain who, as Kat explained last night, had campaign headquarters in New Hampshire and Colorado evacauted yesterday as a result of 'strange' envelopes with at least one containing substance. CNN reports that the substance remains unknown ("tested positive for protein") but is "not dangerous." Mary Hudetza (AP) notes that there's a suspect "Sheriff's officials said the inmate suspected of sending the letter is Marc Harold Ramsey, 39, who has been incarcerated since September 2007 on investigation of felony menacing, harassment and second-degree assault on a peace officer. Ramsey may face federal felony charges for Thursday's incident, sheriff's officials said." Back to Iraq.

Today on NPR's News & Notes, Farai Chideya hosted a roundtable with Eric Deggan (St. Petersburg Times) and John Yearwood (Miami Herald) where they dealt with such non-news topics as the Olympics, political conventions (where the question was at least asked as to whether or not they were "legitimate news events") and "Just this morning US and Iraqi negotiators announced they've reached a deal to withdraw US troops from Iraq." No. There is no deal. At best there is draft. In the US, the treaty (which is what the SOFA actually is) needs Senate ratification -- and Republicans and Democrats in Congress made noises in April of bucking the White House if it attempted to bypass the Senate's Constitutional duties and powers. In Iraq, it will a draft would go through a number of processes including approval by the Parliament. Yearwood made a real ass of himself when Chideya stated that US combat troops would be out by 2011 and that the rest would be out by 2013. Yearwood: "I'm sure that this will be approved by the Parliament as soon as they come back from vacation and they get their act together." When will Yearwood get his act together? Deggan was equally foolish noting that there was talk that timetables were impossible (and "ill advised") "And here we've done it." No, idiot, nothing's been done. And if the two 'reporters' were less concerned with cheerleading Barack and more concerned with reality, they could have avoided making asses out of themselves. David Alexander and Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) explained: "A draft agreement between the United States and Iraq contains no fixed dates for U.S. forces to withdraw, but Iraq would like combat troops out by the end of 2011, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Thursday." No deadlines. NPR needs to stop wasting the tax payer's dime with bad gas bagging that's so bad, it's downright embarrassing. No one, not the host, not either of the guests, grasped that it was a draft (and approval isn't a mere formality) nor did they grasp that there was not enough information on the draft for them to know what was in it. The New York Times front paged the nonsense today -- no facts, just a lot of tease conducted by Stephen Farrell. Also missing the boat are Paul Richter and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) who make a point to note that US Secretary of State Condi Rice "downplayed expectations that approval of an agreement was imminent" -- Condi was correct on that but the reporters had trouble grasping it. She's quoted stating, "We'll have agreement when we have agreement." Leila Fadel and Jonathan S. Landay (McClatchy Newspapers) explain what happens on the Iraq side, first stop the Executive Council and "If the council agrees to the draft, it will move to the Political Council for National Security before going to the Iraqi parliament, which must approve the agreement before the U.N. mandate expires."

Here is Gordon Johndroe, White House spokesperson, speaking today (in Crawford) about the draft, "Towards the end of July, after a secure video conference between President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, we announced that, as part of any agreement with the Iraqis establishing our future bilateral releationship, would include aspirational time horizons -- goals for women Iraqi troops begin to take over more of the combat mission in various parts of Iraq, which allow for more US troops to come home. So any discussions that are ongoing, that we are having with the Iraqis right now, include these aspirational timelines, these goals for more troops to come home." Afterwards, asked if the talks were still "ongoing," Johndroe replied, "And ongoing and ongoing."

Real news was reported by a small number of reporters. One was Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) who explores the latest on the "Awakening" Council -- Sunni thugs lured by coin. The White House repeatedly credited the "Awakening" Council members with the small reduction in violence in Iraq. Appearing before Congress in April, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker repeatedly hailed the "Awakening" as a reason for the reduction. Oppel reports that, "The Shiite-domination government in Iraq is driving out many leaders of Sunni citizen patrols, the groups of former insurgents who joined the American payroll and have been a major pillar in the decline in violence around the nation." Throughout the article, US voices will pop up objecting. Comments made by a Shi'ite general should alarm Americans who mistakenly believe the puppet is anything but a thug himself.

Of the "Awakening" members, Brig Nassir al-Hiti declares, "These people are like cancer and we must remove them"; while Gen Nassir declares the "Awakening" are "like a drug addict who quits only to take drugs again." There's no question that the "Awakening" members are thugs; there's also no question that Nouri has put thugs in place in the Interior Ministry, the police force and more. The only difference is one group of thugs is Sunni ("Awakening") and one group is Shi'ite. The US installed the Shi'ite thugs. Elections will take place (provincial elections) at some point. A great deal of what is taking place (the targeting and arrests of "Awakening" members) has to do with Nouri & company shoring up their own power base before going into those elections.

Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes US Gen David Petraeus declaring of the "Awakeing" Councils (also known as Sawa and Sons of Iraq), "We're not going to walk away from them, and as I said, Prime Minister Maliki committed to taking care of them. I do think it is somewhat understandable that the government struggles to hire former insurgents for its security forces or for its ministerial positions... But this is how you end these kinds of conflicts. That's why they call it reconciliation. It's not done with one's friends, it's done with former enemies." Fadel also notes that a "senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad" who states of SOI, "We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently." The illegal war has not improved but you can be sure Bully Boy's worried about the little bump (provided by the "Awakening" Councils) that he had hoped to ease out (sneak out?) of office on and how it's fading. Reuters reporter Ali al-Mashhadani (see was noted in the July 31st snapshot) made news yesterday. Karin Laub (AP) reports that Ali al-Mashhadani has been released (finally) and that US Maj John C. Hall told the press the release came about "because he was deemed not to be a security threat."

It's Friday. Violence is rarely reported on. Reuters notes an aide of Moqtada al-Sadr was shot dead in Baghdad as was 1 other person, while "guards" were wounded in Samarra when an "Awakening" Council member opened fire on those he worked with, and there was a mortar attack on the Green Zone with at least one mortar making it inside "the heavily fortified Green Zone."

Turning to the US presidential race. The Democratic and Republican Parties have not declared nominees. John McCain is the presumed GOP nominee, Barack Obama is the presumed Democratic Party nominee. Beginning tonight (in most markets) both Bill Moyers Journal and Washington Week travel to Denver but not to cover Robin Long's court-martial. No to cover the same old and tease it out and tease it out. The DNC convention (barring a surprise shocker) is nothing but a pageant and shouldn't even be broadcast, let alone covered. It's garbage, it's trash and IT'S OLD AND OUT OF DATE. But let's all pretend there's something to be learned in Denver at a political convention. (And let's pretend like either show gave a damn when the Green Party had their convention last month.) (They didn't and they didn't provide coverage. So much for the 'diversity' of public television.) Bill Schneider (CNN) breaks down the basics: "Conventions are relics. They don't decide the nominees anymore . . . No one pays much attention to the party platforms except a few ideological activists. So why do we still have them? Two reasons: money and publicity." NOW on PBS uses its time more effectively by traveling to Africa to again examine health care. Book note: Independent journalist and artist David Bacon has his latest book published next month. September 1st, Beacon Press released Bacon's Illegal People: How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants which the publisher notes "explores the human side of globalization, exposing the many ways it uproots people in Latin American and Asia, driving them to migrate. At the same time, U.S. immigration policy makes the labor of those displaced people a crime in the United States. Illegal People explains why our national policy produces even more displacement, more migration, more immigration raids, and a more divided, polarized society."

Back to the US presidential race. Ralph's Daily Audio -- is independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's audio commentary. Monday through Friday, the campaign provides audio commentary at that page. This is "Bob Herbert's World" from earlier in the week:

This is Ralph Nader. The New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has a problem.
He's written numerous columns complaining about presidential candidates and their campaigns ignoring serious policy issues. It's as if no one else is running for president in Bob Herbert's world other than Barack Obama and John McCain.
In a recent article that he wrote in the New York Times, he complains about how the two major candidates and their campaigns are ignoring the problems of the cities: the poverty, the transportaion problems, the lack of repair and expansion of public works and facilities, the crime. He complains that the mayors have been complaining that they have been abandoned by Washington, citing a recent gathering of city mayors that he attended.
In one of these gatherings he cites the mayor of Meridian, Mississippi, John Robert Smith saying that he believes the nation should devote the same level of commitment to developing a first-rate passenger rail system as was marshalled for the interstate highway system in the Eisenhower era. Well, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign has taken a strong stand for the expansion and modernization of passenger rail as a way to save energy, to reduce casualties on the highway and to provide more immediate evacuation of the cities in case of a calamity or a natural disaster.
But to Bob Herbert, the Nader Gonzalez campaign which supports almost one-for-one so many of the issues that he advances and champions doesn't exist. To him, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign or any progressive third party campaign doesn't exist in his column so I say to Bob Herbert, "At least level with your readers, Mr. Herbert, tell them that you think the two major parties, Republican and Democrat, own all the voters and there's no one else on the ballot. At least level with them."
This is Ralph Nader.

And (again from Ralph's Daily Audio) this is "Forestalling More of the Same:"

This is Ralph Nader. This year two and a half to three million Americans will lose their homes to foreclosures. Next year another two and a half to three million Americans will probably lose their homes. Instead of helping these Americans keep their homes, both the Democrats and the Republicans are bailing out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Wall St. banks and their high paid executives -- the same executives who got us into this mess by betting the house on sub-prime mortgages. I call this "Socialism for Spectators."
Senator McCain takes a hands-off approach to the mortgage meltdown. Senator Obama talks about helping the home owners but is surrounding himself with the culprits: Wall St. bankers. Obama's economic director? Robert Rubin protege Jason Furman.
Rubin was the Clintons' Treasury Secretary. He engineered the disastrous deregulation of Wall St. including the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. This Depression-era law separated investment banks from commercial banking. Had it been in effect, the current mortgage crisis would have been limited.
Rubin went on to be an overpaid executive at Citigroup which he helped tank. Rubin is now advising Senator Obama.
Nader-Gonzalez would bring back Glass Steagall.
Nader-Gonzalez would re-instate the usury laws that cap interest rates and we would regulate Wall St. instead of bailing it out on the backs of American tax payers.
This would include forcing mortgage companies to re-negotiate the mortgages of millions of home owners who are currently faced with being thrown out onto the street as a result of foreclosure.
Instead of punishing the home owners, Nader-Gonzalez would bring justice to the predatory lenders on Wall St. who deceived them and who got us into this mess in the first place.

Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential nominee. The Green Party of Michigan announces Cynthia will be campaigning in Michigan:

The Green Party of Michigan (GPMI; www.MIGreens.org) will
be hosting a press conference for Congresswoman McKinney at
7pm Saturday, August 30 at the International Institute (111
E. Kirby, Detroit). The press conference will be followed by
a rally with other GPMI Federal, state, and local candidates
at 7:30pm at the same location. The rally is open to the
public, and free.

The following evening -- Sunday, August 31 -- Congresswoman
McKinney will deliver a key policy speech on the elimination
of poverty at the National Welfare Rights Union (www.MWRO.org)
Awards Dinner. The dinner, starting at 6:30pm, will be held
at St. Paul of the Cross Retreat House, 23333 Schoolcraft,
Detroit.

On Monday, Labor Day, Congresswoman McKinney will be joining
thousands of union members in Detroit celebrating Labor Day by
marching down Woodward Avenue.

August 27th, while the DNC holds their corporate dog and pony show, Ralph Nader is staging a Super Rally in Denver. From Team Nader:

Next Wednesday, Denver is going to be rockin.

Thousands will be gathered at the University of Denver Magness arena to protest the corporate lockdown on the Presidential debates.

Sean Penn, Val Kilmer, Cindy Sheehan, Tom Morello, Jello Biafra and others will join Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez.

Demanding an end to the corporate control over the Presidential debates.

So, if there is any chance you can get to Denver Wednesday, you can make a donation to reserve your ticket here.

If you can't get to Denver, no problem.

Free Speech TV will be streaming the event live on the Internet. (Wednesday, August 27, 7 p.m. Mountain time, 9 p.m. Eastern.)

Just click here to watch.

Also, the Free Speech TV will be broadcasting the event live on Dish Network Channel 9415.

And many local public access channels will be carrying the Free Speech TV feed.

(If your public access channel doesn't carry it, call them and ask them to do so. Click here for a list of public access channels.)

Anyway, it's going to be an historic event -- protesting the corporate control over our politics -- in the midst of the corporate Democratic spectacle.

So, join us in Denver if you can.

If not, invite your friends over, and dial up the live Internet feed -- or watch on television via satellite or on your public access channel.

Onward to November.

iraq

independent catholic reporter

the new york times

stephen farrell

richard a. oppel jr.

the los angeles times

pbs

bill moyers journal
free speech radio news

8/21/2008

ralph interviewed on tv!

okay, i'm noting fox news. that's your warning. you do not have to click on the link. this is a neil cavuta show:

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: CAVUTO: Ralph Nader says he has figured out something, that Barack Obama is desperate, and he is so worried he is going to lose, he is going to go for Hillary Clinton as his running mate. No one says that. Ralph Nader does.

Ralph is here to explain.

Mr. Nader, good to have you. Thank you for coming.

RALPH NADER, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Pretty good, Neil.

• Video: Watch Neil's interview with Ralph Nader

That's a bit of a stretch. I was just saying that, if he wanted a plus for his campaign, Hillary Clinton would get him more votes than anyone else, because -- if only in a negative way, because a quarter of her supporters have not jumped on board of the Obama bandwagon. They're flirting with McCain. There are some actually supporting Nader/Gonzalez, our campaign. So, he's got to get those votes back.

CAVUTO: But how many -- how many of them would go to you or McCain, realistically, in enough numbers to worry him, that he would make this leap?

NADER: Yes. Well, it's a quarter of her supporters, according to the polls, of Hillary supporters. That's -- that is a lot of people, especially in a close election.

The other candidates they are tossing around, just they won't give him much at all in terms of votes. And I doubt whether they will even give him an extra state. But Hillary and her supporters can give him a lot of money. And he's need three or four times what McCain is going to receive from the public funding of $83 million.

And she has got a lot of very, very vigorous supporters, you know, knocking on doors, and grassroot get-out-the-vote. So, you remember, John F. Kennedy did not like Lyndon Johnson. They were really not friends. But he picked him. And Johnson delivered Texas and won the election against Richard Nixon. So, it's a...

ralph gets so little t.v. time that there was no way i wasn't noting that interview.

it also lets him speak for himself regarding last night's topic. again, he's probably right about the v.p. pick.

it won't change a thing for me. hillary should be the democratic nominee. if she's going to have to bust her ass for barak, he's still not going to get my vote. i'm not going to vote for her to do all the hard work while he goes around with his goofy, wide mouthed smile.

he really is a starlet. sorry.

with the lip gloss, the wide eyes the open mouth.

no wonder americans don't take him seriously.

by the way, in today's 'snapshot,' c.i. notes robin long's court-martial which starts tomorrow. kat & i were screaming at c.i. to note 'hello! i was right!'

c.i. revealed that the military was toying with the idea of court-martialing robin during the denver convention and that robin would be court-martialed in august. but 'experts' said it would be in september so c.i. left it alone.

people need to learn to trust c.i.'s sources.

after kat & i screamed and screamed for about 5 minutes, c.i. added 'as expected ...' it should have read, 'as i was explaining when no 1 wanted to listen ...'

now let's go to team nader's latest blog post, from ralph:

Banking on Congress

Posted by Ralph Nader on Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 10:37:00 AM

ShareThis

This week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) officials are pushing various agencies charged with regulating banks, such as the Treasury’s Office of Thrift Supervision to more aggressively give problem banks lower ratings than they may now be receiving from regulators. Regulators give banks a rank between 1 and 5. Well-managed banks get a 1, problem banks receive a 4 or 5. The FDIC wants to see more banks getting 4s or 5s.

In late July, I wrote to U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass. to suggest that they jointly hold hearings on the FDIC’s ability to deal with potential bank failures in the next several years. In the letter, I noted that in a March 10, 2008 memorandum on insurance assessment rates, Arthur J. Murton, Director of the Division of Insurance and Research for the FDIC stated:

While 99 percent of insured institutions meet the “well capitalized” criteria, the possibility remains that the fund could suffer insurance losses that are significantly higher than anticipated. The U.S. economy and the banking sector currently face a significant amount of uncertainty from ongoing housing sector problems, financial market turbulence and potentially weak prospects for consumer spending. These problems could lead to significantly higher loan losses and weaker earnings for insured institutions.

FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair, however, has been singing a more upbeat tune. She recently said, "The banking system in this country remains on a solid footing through the guarantees provided by FDIC insurance. The overwhelming majority of banks in this country are safe and sound and the chances that your own bank could fail are remote. However, if that does happen, the FDIC will be there - as always - to protect your insured deposits."

Despite these reassuring words, the recent failure of IndyMac highlights the need for tough Congressional oversight. Banking experts have indicated that the cost of the collapse of IndyMac alone will be between $4 billion and $8 billion. The FDIC has approximately $53 billion on hand to deal with bank failures. This amount may not be adequate, given the cost of IndyMac and given the approximately $4 trillion in deposits the FDIC insures.

Congressional oversight of the financial services industry and its regulators should be a topic priority for Congress. I even suggested several questions that should be put to FDIC officials such as:

1. Was IndyMac on the list of “Problem Institutions” before it failed?

2. Were the other banks that failed this year on the FDIC list of “Problem Institutions”?

3. What is the anticipated cost of dealing with the failures of the other four banks that failed this year?

4. As of March 31, 2008 the FDIC reported 90 “Problem Institutions” with assets of $26 billion. What is the current number of “Problem Institutions” and what are the assets of these “Problem Institutions”?

5. How many banks are likely to fail in 2008 and 2009 respectively?

6. What is the estimated range of costs of dealing with the projected failures?

7. What will the effect of higher losses than those projected be on the FDIC’s estimate of the proper reserve ratio?

8. What are the FDIC’s projections for reserves needed and potential bank failures beyond 2009?

9. Is the FDIC resisting raising the current rates of assessments on FDIC insured banks so that the cost of any significant bailouts will have to be shifted to the taxpayers?

10. Does the Government Accountability Office (GAO) believe that the existing rate schedule for banks to pay into the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) is set at the proper level?

It would also make sense for Congress to revisit the FDIC’s current approach to setting reserve ratios for banks.

The FDIC is not likely to address its own inability to clearly assess the current risks posed to depositors and taxpayers by the high-rolling, bailout-prone banking industry.

When Congress reconvenes after Labor Day it would be prudent for Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank to focus on the FDIC and our nation’s troubled banks through some tough no-holds-barred hearings. These two lawmakers are going to have to hear from the people back home soon.

Neither Senator Dodd nor Congressman Frank have responded to my letter of July 23, 2008.

END

ShareThis

it's interesting the message that chris dodd and barney frank choose to send: 'we only respond if you are a democrat.' the democrats in congress are already blocking ralph as a witness at hearings and now they won't even respond to him. big babies.

big babies who apparently do not understand what it means to be in the u.s. congress. it's not about them and if they can't let go of their big egos and their sour grapes, they may need to consider leaving congress.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, August 21, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, there's no treaty (would the press please calm down?), Robin Long due to be court-martialed tomorrow, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Tim Richard is a US war resister. Courage to Resist interviewed him this month, noting that he enlisted in the National Guard in 1999 and that his service was supposed to end in 2005 but he was instead stop-lossed and informed he would be deploying to Iraq.

Tim Richard: After 9-11, I just like about any other American kind of wanted a piece of somebody especially me being in the military. You know, I had thought that, you know, I want to do the right thing. I want to go get, you know, who ever did this to America. And then I started doing some research and stuff. And I was behind the Iraq War when it started because I had thought it was -- had to do with 9-11. So, you know, but after the Iraq War dragged on for a bit, I realized that there's no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there's nothing but poor people and a lot of dead bodies. So I started doing some research on the war and I realized that, well, it's basically a bunch of bull that has been fed to us. So I thought maybe, I mean I'd been thinking about becoming an officer, I'd been thinking about making a career out of the military but I decided at the end of my six years I would just get out of the military. I had to say, you know, six years is enough. I'm not going to re-enlist, I don't want anything to do with the Iraq War.

Courage to Resist: Tell me about the research that you did. Did you go to websites? Did you read books?

Tim Richard: Yeah, I mean, Wikipedia is an excellent source -- non-academic, of course. But I started asking questions, I started talking to people with different perspectives on things and I just learned about the whole, you know, President Reagan - Donald Rumsfeld connection to Iraq, the how Saddam Hussein was installed to counter the Iranian revolution which came about because the US installed a puppet shah in Iran. And once I started realizing what the root cause of all these things were -- basically the US -- that really got me thinking about what's the point of even being there? I also started thinking in my mind: Is really military intervention and killing people in this manner right?" I mean, it's one thing if you're defending yourself. But morally, I just had problems with the idea of going into a foreign, sovereign country, invading it, toppling the leadership, taking their resources and killing people. To me that was a huge moral dilemma.

Courage to Resist: So you began to develop serious misgivings -- both politically and morally -- about what the US was doing in Iraq?

Tim Richard: Yes, well I would say the moral misgivings were much stronger than the political misgivings. Cause, like I said, I joined the military with the idea of defending the United States and, you know, if that had been the case, I might feel differently about the Iraq War. But now I just felt like what they were asking me to do was just flat wrong. Shooting somebody who is virtually defenseless is wrong and that's something that I didn't think I could be any part of.

Courage to Resist: Alright so you joined the National Guard, as you said, in 1999. And your time was up in about November 2005. What happened then?

Tim Richard: Well in about August of 2005, our unit got a warning saying that some members would be going to Iraq. They had told us when we joined that they don't break up units, they don't send individual soldiers. If you go, you go with your unit. But it turned out, once the Bush administration had got done with us, that was simply not true because they kept basically using us to populate other units that were going over to Iraq. And you know, I was a few months out of the military when I got a warning order saying I would be deployed to Iraq. I asked what about my contract and they said I was stop-lossed. I found out later, after I had come to Canada and after I had gotten a hold of my personnel file, they did not let me see this, but it turned out my contract had been extended from November 23, 2005 to December 24, 2031.

Courage to Resist: What? 2031?

Tim Richard: I've got the paper work. You know, everyone says, "You signed the contract, you'll just have to deal with it." That's not in the contract. No one tells you about it when you sign up. So as far as I am concerned, what they did is illegal but the Supreme Court of the the United States held up that they are allowed to stop-loss. So I mean there's really nothing you can do in that situation.

Courage to Resist: So what did you do, Tim?

Tim Richard: Well I decided that they weren't going to keep me -- I knew they weren't going to keep me for that long, that's silly, they're not going to keep me for 25 years, I don't think. Even -- well that was my thinking at the time. So I decided that I will deploy to Iraq. I decided that -- they pulled me out of my unit, which was a calvary unit, in which I was fixing radios, and they started training me with an infantry unit -- along with communications duties, they also started training me in regular infantry duties such as house-to-house, like house raids, and defending convoys and that sort of thing. And I decided in around November of 2005, that, you know, this is just -- this is just ridiculous. I -- I -- I cannot morally, I cannot do what they are asking me to do. If I were to deploy to Iraq I would basically -- I felt like I would be a liability because there's no way I could shoot somebody who was simply trying to defend their own home from a foreign invader. They did all this mock training exercises in which we were in full battle gear and we were raiding mock houses -- mock houses with, you know, actors yelling out Arabic and that sort of thing. I had like my rifles and everything. And during the exercise, I shot two unarmed civilians with the blanks of my rifle and I -- and no one said anything to me about it. I don't know if anyone even saw me. But I realized at that time, you know, that if this was Iraq, those people would be dead. All they were doing was trying to defend their home. So I almost just threw away my rifle and just ran right there but, you know, I sort of needed a plan so I decided that I'd wait a few days. And on November 23, 2005, the date my original contract was set to expire, that's when I went AWOL.

Courage to Resist: How did you do it? What did you do?

Tim Richard: Well, uh, they were training us in Mississippi and this is kind of -- this is kind of strange because we were under lock-down. Lock-down means that, you know, you can't go anywhere without someone knowing, not even to the bathroom. You had your rifle with you, you had your uniform on at all times. But because November 23rd was Thanksgiving, they decided to cancel training for the day, they let us wear civilian clothes and lock up our rifles. And they decided that they were going to bus us into town to go to Wal-Mart so we could pick stuff up. And they said, "Oh, by the way, we'll just drop you off in town. Have fun. Come back in 9 hours and we'll pick you up." So I figured, you know what, if this isn't a sign, I didn't know what was. So I got onto the first bus I could, snuck away from the main group. I called a cab. Meanwhile my mom's on the other end. I didn't tell her exactly what all was going on but she bought me a plane ticket from New Orleans to Seattle. So the plan was to get to New Orleans, take the plane to Seattle, cross the border in Seattle to Vancouver then meet my mom where she was living in Nanaimo, BC at the time. And, well that's the short version, that's what I did.

Courage to Resist: It's kind of like the plot for a thriller.

Tim Richard: Oh, yeah, if I gave you all the details, man, I don't think you enough tape for that.

Courage to Resist: Were-were you nervous at all?

Tim Richard: Oh I was. My heart was pounding the whole time. I was sweating. You know, I was so paranoid, you know, because it really only takes one phone call, one person to realize what you're up to, and your name goes on like every computer, like every single military, FBI, local police, everything. You know, it doesn't take that much these days for them to put a looking out for you. So, I mean, I tried to alter the way I walked. As soon as I got to New Orleans, I threw away my dog tags. I threw away my military ID. I tried to, you know, act normal. You know, I tried to the best I can to just sort of blend in. Of course, you know, the haircut and walk just sort of gave it away. So, you know, I just tried my best to blend in and, you know, when I got to the Canadian border, I basically had a one-way car rental, I had out-of-country driver's license, you know, from the US, $400 cash. So I'm thinking, "Okay, I'm busted." My plan was to get out of the car and start screaming, "I'm a Canadian citizen!" and let them not kick me out until they figure out that I'm not. Which I was a Canadian citizen so they wouldn't kick me out. But, you know, the border guard was just really nice and said, "Alright, have fun. Welcome to Canada." And that was pretty much it.

Courage to Resist: You said you were a Canadian citizen. It's possible to have dual citizenship? Canada and the US?

Tim Richard: According to the United States, no. But according to Canada, yes. I, because my father's Canadian, when I came to Canada -- and I'm glad I did not claim my Canadian citizenship earlier because if I had claimed my Canadian citizenship as a child, I wouldn't have been able, the US military would have made me forfeit it upon joining the military. Because when I came to Canada, I was able to go ahead, fill out all the paperwork, everything, basically sit on my hands for eight months and wait for the citizenship card to come in. And now I'm a full-fledged Canadian citizen and I've got the rights and privileges of every other Canadian citizen.

Courage to Resist: We know a few hundred other GIs up there who would like to have those same rights and privileges.

Tim Richard: And that's why I'm up here with the War Resisters Support Campaign. Here in London, Ontario, we've got a London chapter and we care for, I know, four war resisters here and we've had ten others pass through. We do several fundraisers, a lot of political lobbying, a lot of talking to the public. That sort of thing. And I try and be as active as I can with the group in order to -- because I feel these guys are up here, in some ways I feel really guilty because, you know, just because I'm a Canadian citizen, just because my dad was born in New Brunswick, I somehow have a privilege they don't and I don't think that's right that I have a privilege that they don't simply because of where my father was born. I've done the same thing they did. In fact, I think what they've done is a little bit more courageous because I came up here knowing that I had Canadian citizenship. These guys that come up now, they've got no claim to Canadian citizenship. They don't know what's going to happen to them. So that's why I try and work and try and be as outspoken as I can about the war resisters support group.

Regarding the stop-loss, as Chris Hedges explains in the afterword to Camilo Mejia's Road to Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, Camilo was also stop-lossed and given the 2031 year. Last month, Robin Long was extradited from Canada. As expected, his court-martial is this month. Scheduled for tomorrow. From Courage to Resist:

Ft. Carson court martial Friday, August 22.
7:30am - Supporters are encouraged to attend the trial
Arrive at the Ft. Carson Main Gate at 7:30 am to ensure you can get to Bldg. 6221 in time. You will need to provide a drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance if driving. Do not wear any political buttons, t-shirts, etc.
5:00 pm - Main Gate vigil and press conference
Join Robin's lawyer James Branum and supporters for a vigil and press conference at the Main Gate

1. Donate to Robin’s legal expenses
2. Send Robin letters of support, more
3. Leaflet: Support Robin Long! (PDF)

The Canadian government has announced that US war resister will be deported if he does not leave their country by September 23rd. Whether he would be deported or "deported" is an unanswered question. Actions are taking place to make the Stephen Harper government respect the will of the people and let Jeremy remain in Canada. Jeremy is being highly pro-active and has already taped a video, which you can find at the War Resisters Support Campaign, where he speaks directly to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada:

Title Card: On September 23rd, the Harper government plans to deport the Hinzman family back to the United States.

Title Card: Hinzman faces a court martial and up to 5 years in military prison for opposing the Iraq war and coming to Canada.

Title Card: War Resisters Support Campaign (Canada): www.resisters.ca

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Yovany Rivero, William Shearer, Michael Thurman, Andrei Hurancyk, 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, Daniel Baker, 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).

US Secretary of State Condi Rice snuck into Baghdad. She held a press conference there with Hoshyar Zebari (Green Zone spokesmodel for Jenny Craig as well as the country's foreign minister) to discuss the treaty they're attempting to pass off as a SOFA. Jonathan S. Landy (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes Rice relaxing at Nouri al-Maliki's palatial digs declaring, "Nothing will be signed today." Of course not. Even Gordon Johndroe was attempting to slowly explain that to the press via the traveling White House (in Crawford, TX) on Tuesday. ("Drafts aren't final until they're final," Johndroe declared. "So there are drafts and there have been drafts for the last few weeks.") For those who still can't grasp it, Condi and Hoshy held a joint-press conference in the Green Zone. It was cute the way Hoshy thanked her (repeatedly) for dropping by as he pointed out that "you have so many other preoccupations, but thank you for making the time to visit us." Yes, Condi, "thank you for making the time" despite your "many other preoccupations." She's just the Secretary of State. How nice of her to make time for a war that the US launched. As the White House announced Tuesday: "Secretary Rice was scheduled to lead a delegation to the closing ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing this coming weekend. Because of ongoing events around the world she is no longer going to be leading that delegation."

Landay was at the press confernece and asked Hoshy, "You have to put it" SOFA "through your political and national security committee, your Parliament, and Ramadan falls early this year. What will you do if you can't get this done by December 31st." Hoshy's optimistic but also noted that the draft of the agreement has to go to the Executive Council as well ("an important body").

Stephen Farrell and Thom Shanker (New York Times) reported this morning: "The main sticking points, in fact, are also the most delicate: setting a timeline for American troops to leave and declaring whether American forces would be granted immunity from Iraqi prosecution." Today at the White House, Gordon Johndroe again tried to stress the obvious: "Discussions are ongoing. We have made some progress in the recent days on an agreement with the Iraqis, but there is no final agreement yet. We will continue to have these discussions with the Iraqis." Johdnroe danced around Senate ratification at first when asked about the US Congress' role by saying certain members had been consulted but then, pressed, stated, "So it's not a treaty, so it would not require Senate ratification or anything like that." At the Pentagon, Bryan Whitman explained that "it's very premature at this point to say that we have an agreement." And it's premature to assume the US Congress is going to go along with being shut out of any process. Among the House members on record publicly raising objection to ignoring the Constituation are US House Rep Susan Davis, US Senators Russ Feingold and Hillary Clinton and US Senator and chair of the Committee of Foreign Relations Joe Biden. And for those confused about the basics, US House Reps Bill Delahunt and Rosa DeLauro explained it in a column for the Washington Post last month explained how "congressional approval of the agreement" is required and urged an alternative to the treaty:

We should extend the U.N. mandate for a short period to maintain the status quo and ultimately turn this issue over to the next president and Congress, who must implement any agreement. Rather than dictating the terms of our long-term relationship with Iraq, such a policy would allow us to work with Iraqis to craft an agreement that includes the carefully coordinated withdrawal of U.S. combat forces that majorities in both countries support. Doing so would also solidify the type of sustainable partnership that the people of the United States and Iraq need and deserve.

As so many in the press corps rush to gush and pretend a treaty has been finalized, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) appears to be the only one who looked beyond the arranged press briefings who notes that "a flying visit to Baghdad by Dr Rice, which drew a scathing reaction from the anti-US cleric Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr. He accused Washington of trying to pressure the Iraqi authorities to bend to its will."

Meanwhile, Campbell Robertson and James Glanz (New York Times) explore the Iraqi Finance Ministry claims (in figures they handed over to the Times as well as in statements to the paper) that they are spending 57% "of their annual reconstruction budget" and the paper's examination of the figures finds that 18% is the better number and if monies for the Kudistan region (which have not been spent, only allocated) is removed, the figure "drops to 8.7 percent." Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reports that Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora followed "in the footsteps of King AbdullahII of Jordan" by visiting Baghdad yesterday where he held a joint-press conference with Nouri al-Maliki "about an agreement to export oil to Lebanon." China's Xinhua quotes Sinora stating that "we advise the Arab leaders that Iraq should return to the Arab group. The return of Iraq is an essential goal." CNN adds: " Saad Hariri, the leader of Lebanon's parliamentary majority, visited Iraq last month. Lebanon named an ambassador to Iraq two years ago, but he died, and a replacement has not yet been chosen. There is an Iraqi Embassy in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon." And Dexy's back in Iraq. And apparently hasn't learned a damn thing while gone as he rushes to write a 'peace in the valley' piece for the New York Times today. In some sort of a Karmic Smackdown, his fluff runs the same day the paper editorializes "Afghanistan On Fire" (A22) which should serve to remind everyone that Kandahar is where the puppet of Afghanistan can semi-freely roam and the Green Zone in Baghdad is where the puppet of Iraq can semi-freely roam. There is no peace in either country. Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 1 life and left four more people wounded and a Baghdad "sound bomb" resulted in three people being injured.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Maj Gen Ahmed Rasheed ("director of the government office that issues identification cards") was shot in Baghdad today and is "injured seriously," in another Baghdad shooting 1 person was killed and another wounded and, in seperate incidents, 2 police officers were shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 1 headless corpse discovered in Mosul. Reuters notes 2 more corpses were discovered in Mosul.

In the US, Congressional opponent of the Iraq War Stephanie Tubbs Jones is dead. Tubbs Jones was a courageous member of the House who stood up for the voters and for the vote in January 2005 (along with US Senator Barbara Boxer). The New York Times had long ridiculed questions of voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Tubbs Jones and Boxer's stand meant the press had to take it a little more seriously. Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a judge, a prosecutor and, following the November 1998 elections, a member of the House of Representatives. The Clintons -- Bill, Hillary and Chelsea -- issued the following joint-statement:

There are few words to express the shock we feel at this time our deepest condolences are with Stephanie's son, Mervyn, her family, and her many loved ones, friends, and supporters. Stephanie's friendship meant the world to us, a friendship that deepened through every trial and challenge. We could always count on her to be a shoulder on which to lean, an ear to bend, a voice to reassure. Over the course of many years, with many ups and many downs, Stephanie was right by our side -- unwavering, indefatigable. It was that fighting spirit -- safely stowed behind her disarming smile, backed by so much integrity and fiery intelligence -- that allowed Stephanie to rise from modest beginings, to succeed in public service, to become a one-woman force for progress in our country. All of us who were lucky to know her and love her can only hope now to live like her -- to be as passionate, loyal, hard charging, and joyful in life's pursuits. Stephanie was one of a kind. We will miss our friend always.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a strong foe against the Iraq War so her passing is included for that reason. There are many other reasons. As 2005 community members will recall, there's the White Man who refused to highlight Tubbs Jones' continued work on the Ohio vote and dismissed it (and her) in what we will just call here 'far from left' comments. No, we don't link to that trash. Among the many other reasons to note Stephanie Tubbs Jones' passing is Ruth Conniff. Apparenly Ruth's unaware that Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a friend of and super delegate for Hillary. When she does find out, she will, no doubt embarrass herself again -- as she did earlier this month by using the murder of Bill Gwatney -- a friend of Bill and Hillary's -- as an excuse to trash the Clintons. A man was shot dead in Arkansas and, for Ruth Conniff, his friendship with the Clintons provided her the perfect opportunity to scribble some more garbage attacking them. How proud she must be so have sunk so far into the gutter. Kat called Conniff out here.

Turning to the US presidential race, independent candidate Ralph Nader is providing audio commentaries at Ralph's Daily Audio and the one below is "Debates Declaration:"

This is Ralph Nader. The two major parties -- Republican and Democratic Parties -- and their candidates seem to want to ration debates in this country. Why do we allow presidential debates to be rationed?
We don't allow weather reports to be rationed, entertainment to be rationed, sporting events to be rationed. But when it comes to the future of our country and it's place in the world, when it comes to the livelihoods and the necessities of the American people, we're left with three debates, so-called, in the fall with only Barack Obama and John McCain on the stage. Their own debate commission/corporation ensures that no one else on the stage and they're really not debates, they're like parallel interviews.
So we want people to open up the debates and to support the following declaration:
"We call for opening up the debates. The scope of discussion must be as broad and deep as the serious challenges we face as a nation. We agree that vibrant debate is the heart beat of our democracy and our First Amendment especially during an election year. We recognize that smaller third parties and independents have traditionally played a vital role in our democracy including leading the charge for the abolition of slavery, the women's right to vote and economic justice for workers and farmers. We support opening up the debates beyond the two parties and the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates -- which is a private corporation, co-chaired by former chairman of the Republican and Democratic Parties -- it's time for our presidential debates to once again be hosted by truly non-partisan, civic minded associations."
If you support this declaration, let's hear from you.