From Team Nader, Lynda notes:

Help Fuel Ralph’s Tour of the South and West

We need gas money.

Why?

Starting today, Ralph Nader is on the road again.

This time campaigning through the South and then out West.

Over the next two weeks, Ralph will be in South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Utah and up and down California.

His VP, Matt Gonazalez, will be joining Ralph on the campaign trail starting in Texas.

Check out the schedule below.

If you are in the neighborhood, come on out to hear and meet Ralph and Matt.

With both Obama and McCain saber rattling over Iran, the Nader/Gonzalez message of peace through justice is now more important than ever.

If your friends or relatives in the neighborhood, give them a shout and let them know.

But right now, we need gas money to fuel Ralph's South and West Coast Tour.

We've rented a car.

Gas prices are high.

And Ralph is on the move.

So, please donate whatever you can now to fill up our tank.

You can give up to $4,600.

But $500, $100, $50 - whatever you can donate is what we need.

Help us fill 'er up.

So we can get 'er done.

Onward.

The Nader Team

Ralph Nader's Tour of the South and West

Friday July 25, 2008 5:30 p.m.
Athens, Georgia
Nader for President 2008 Rally
University of Georgia, Georgia Center- “Masters Hall”
1127 South Lumpkin St. Athens, GA 30602
Contribution- $10/ $5 student
(404) 446-7093 or events@votenader.org

Friday July 25, 2008 8 p.m.
Atlanta, Georgia
Evening with Ralph
Suggested Contribution $100 min
RSVP (202) 471-5833

Saturday July 26, 2008, 6 p.m.
Jackson, Mississippi
Book Signing/ Speech
Lemuria Bookstore
202 Banner Hall- I-55 North Jackson, MS 39206
(601) 842-6769 or events@votenader.org

Saturday July 26, 2008 8:00 p.m.
Jackson, Mississippi
Evening with Ralph Nader
RSVP (202) 471-5833
Suggested Contribution $50

Sunday July 27, 2008 2:00 p.m.
Houston, Texas
Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez
Hilton University of Houston
4800 Calhoun Suite 207, Houston, TX77204
Contribution- $10/$5 student
(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org

Sunday July 27, 2008 7:30 p.m.
Austin, Texas
Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez
Trinity United Methodist Church
600 East 50th St. Austin, TX 78751
Contribution $10/$5 student
(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org

Thursday July 31, 2008 7:30pm
Salt Lake City, Utah
Nader for President 2008 Rally w/ Rocky Anderson
Libby Gardner Concert Hall
1375 E President Circle, Salt Lake UT
Contribution-$10/ $5 students
(801) 916-6307 or ashley@votenader.rog

Saturday, August 2, 2008, 8:00 p.m.
Davis, California
Nader for President 2008 Speech
Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez
Varsity Theater
616 Second Street
Davis, CA 95616
Contribution: $10/ $5 students
(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org

Sunday August 3, 1:30 p.m.
Sebastopol, California
Nader for President Speech
Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez
Sebastopol Community Center
390 Morris St., Sebastopol, California 95472
Contribution: $10/ $5 students
(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org

August 3, 2008, 4:30pm
Healdsburg, California
Nader for President Speech
Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez
Copperfield's books
104 Matheson St., Healdsburg, California 95448
Contribution: $10/ $5 students
(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org

August 3, 7:30 p.m.
Kentfield, California
Nader for President 2008 Speech in Marin
Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez
College of Marin- Olney Hall
835 College Ave., Kentfield, California
Contribution: $10/ $5 students
More Info: (415) 897-6989 or events@votenader.org

PS: We invite your comments to the blog.

Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.

ShareThisShareThisShareThis

---

We're going to note US Senator Patty Murray's Senate floor remarks in full. They were delivered Tuesday (and the link contains audio as well as text). This is her "Military and VA Must Address Rising Number of Suicides by Troops and Veterans:"

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to raise awareness about one of the most heartbreaking and alarming consequences of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the five years since we invaded Iraq, we have seen a disturbing increase in the number of young men and women who return home struggling with the psychological impacts of war -- and then take their own lives. About 1,000 war veterans being treated by the VA attempt suicide each month. And it is a problem affecting communities across this country.
Earlier this month, we lost a young man in my home state of Washington just hours after he sought care at the Spokane VA hospital. He was the sixth veteran in that community to take his own life this year. Now, the Spokane VA is investigating all six of those cases. I have also spoken to Secretary Peake. He has assured me that his team is also on the ground, taking a hard look to see what went wrong and what they can learn from the situation.
But, Mr. President, while I appreciate the work Secretary Peake and the Spokane VA are doing, the fact is that this is a serious problem across the country. Every suicide is a tragedy. Those young men and women are someone's son or daughter, best friend, spouse, or even a parent. Our hearts go out to all of their families and friends. And their deaths are an urgent reminder that we must keep our eye on the ball. We owe it to all of our service members and veterans to demand that the VA and the Department of Defense make it a national priority to bring these numbers down.
VA is Taking Steps by Promoting Prevention Hotline
Mr. President, I want to acknowledge that the VA is taking steps to reach out to veterans and their families to let them know that help is available. This week, the VA is rolling out a public service campaign here in Washington, D.C. As part of a three-month long pilot program, the VA will run a series of ads on TV, and in buses, trains, and on the subway. The ads will highlight the VA’s 24-hour suicide prevention hotline, 1-800-273-TALK, and help assure veterans that it's OK to ask for help.
I applaud the VA for this effort because it's a good step. We absolutely must get the word out to our veterans -- and their families. If this helps prevent even one tragedy, then it's more than worth it. I hope that the Defense Department will also publicize this number among its active duty troops so that when they leave the service they will already be aware of it.
But, Mr. President, this is only a step. An ad campaign is only as good as the resources that are there when our service members seek help. And if we are truly going to make a difference, we need a bigger effort. We must do more to reach out, break down the barriers to seeking mental health care, and back up those efforts with enough resources to ensure that when a veteran goes into the hospital asking for help, the VA can offer the best care possible.
VA and DoD Must Do More Outreach
And so, Mr. President, while I applaud the idea of publicizing the suicide prevention hotline -- I believe the military and the VA must reach out long before our young men and women pick up the phone and call for help. And that will take creativity and leadership.
Mr. President, the VA and the Defense Department can't keep doing things the way they've always done them -- because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't like any we have ever fought. Our all-volunteer force has been on the ground in those two countries for longer than we fought in World War II. Troops get very little down time. And many of them are serving on their third, fourth, or even fifth deployments. The stress takes a toll on everyone. And for many, it gets worse when they come home to the pressures of everyday life -- to financial strain or family problems. That's especially true for members of the National Guard and Reserves. Unlike active duty troops -- who return from battle to a military base and a support network -- many Guard and Reserve members go home to family pressures and civilian jobs.
Mr. President, the military and the VA must update their resources and outreach efforts to match the challenges our troops face when they return. And that safety net has to be in place before they ever leave the military. That means we must have creative programs that help service members transition from the battlefield to the home front. It means providing family and financial counseling to any service member who needs it. And it means developing a way for the military or VA to follow up with service members -- especially those who already have asked for help with psychological wounds.
VA and DoD Must End the Stigma Against Seeking Care
But, Mr. President, we also must encourage our service members and veterans to seek care when they need it by breaking down the barriers that prevent them from asking for help. The VA and the Defense Department must take strong steps to change the military culture so that service members no longer fear that seeking care will be viewed as a sign of weakness -- or one that will hurt their career.
Even more important, service members and veterans must be convinced that if they ask for help, doctors and staff will take them seriously and provide the care they need. I have heard too many tragic stories about veterans who have gone to the VA in distress -- only to face a doctor who underestimated their symptoms and sent them home to a tragic ending.
Mr. President, when someone with a history of depression, PTSD, or other psychological wounds walks into the VA and says they are suicidal, it should set off alarm bells. We can't convince veterans or service members to get care if they think they will be met with lectures and closed doors. That is unacceptable. At the very least, we must ensure that staff at military and VA medical centers have the training to recognize and treat someone who is in real distress.
VA and DoD Must Back Up Efforts With Resources
Finally, Mr. President, we must provide the resources to back up all of these efforts -- starting with making sure that the suicide prevention hotline is staffed with enough trained professionals who can provide real help to someone in need. I hope that will be the case. Unfortunately, this Administration has failed for eight long years to make good on its promises and provide the resources needed to carry them out.
Time and again, it has taken leaks and scandals to get the Administration to own up to major problems at the VA -- from inadequate budgets to rising suicide rates. And its response to rising costs has been to underfund research and cut off services to some veterans. Mr. President, we must do better than that.
Service members and veterans need more than an 800 number to call. They need psychiatrists and psychologists who understand the horrors of war and the stresses our troops feel. We also need to make sure that we have the facilities and systems set up to accommodate the troops who will be entering the VA system in the next decade. We must fast-track research into the signature injuries of the war, such as Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so that we understand how to diagnose and treat these conditions. And we need to speed up efforts that will enable the DoD and VA to share records so that fewer service members slip through the cracks as they transition from active duty to veteran status. Now is the time to invest in research and infrastructure. We can't afford to wait.
This is About Saving Lives
Mr. President, many of us are familiar with the story of Joseph Dwyer, a young Army medic made famous in a photo taken during the first week of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In the photo, Joseph is running toward safety with an injured Iraqi child in his arms. It's an epic image of bravery and compassion. But when he came home, Joseph struggled to fit back into civilian life. He suffered from PTSD and, tragically, earlier this year, he died of what police are treating as an accidental drug overdose.
The photo of Joseph Dwyer captured the incredible work our troops are doing everyday. But, sadly, Joseph's story is also an example of what far too many of our veterans face when they return home. The photo of Joseph was taken during the first week of this war. More than five years later, we should have the resources in place to treat the psychological wounds of war as well as we do the physical ones. But we don't.
Mr. President, I want to ask my colleagues to put themselves in the shoes of a parent -- or a spouse -- who has lost a child, or a husband, or a wife to suicide. I want them to think of all the questions they might be asking. We might not be able to provide all of the answers -- but we should at least be able to say that we’re doing everything we can to address the problems.
We know there are many, many dedicated, hardworking VA employees, who spend countless hours providing our vets with the best treatment. But we also must recognize that the system is still unprepared for the influx of veterans coming home. According to a RAND study, 1 in 4 veterans will struggle with PTSD. It is the duty of the VA and of a grateful nation to be prepared to care for their unique wounds. And in order to do that, we need strong leadership and attention to detail in Washington, D.C. -- Spokane, Washington -- and everywhere in between.
At the end of the day, this isn't about bureaucracy or protecting turf, it's about saving lives. While I'm glad that the Administration plans to increase its outreach, a pilot program is only a small step. We must make it a national priority to address this tragedy.
The Administration must back up its efforts by reaching out to service members, veterans, and their families, breaking down the barriers that prevent service members and veterans from seeking and getting mental health care, and providing adequate resources.
No matter how you feel about this war, our troops are heroes. They have done everything we’ve asked of them -- and more. And it's time our commitment measured up to theirs.

We quoted from the above in yesterday's snapshot and a number of e-mails came in glad that Murray had made the statements she did. Reading over the e-mails today, it's obvious that there's a problem not being pin-pointed. CounterPunch, The Progressive, et al will (and does) gladly rerun the comments of various male members in Congress. Outside of Barbara Lee (whom they praise more than quote), they pretty much ignore the women. Some males, like Russ Feingold, are worthy of posting in full and praising but others are not. They don't have much to say and their voting record says even less. Murray was among the women elected to the Senate in 1992, following the justifiable outrage over the treatment of Anita Hill and underscoring how male the Senate then was. If we're really honest, Barbara Lee gets her shout-outs on the Aretha factor (if that's confusing, hold on) and all other women get ignored for the same old reasons. Barbara Lee has a better voting record than at least 96% of the members of Congress (Lee is in the House) and I'm not attempting to insult her. I am noting that, as with music 'history,' only some get included. The 'gods' are a male list. Aretha's tacked on for 'color' and to indicate that the gatekeepers (White males) have (or think they do) a little soul. There can be only one Aretha which is why Maxine Waters and others receive so little coverage. And women are reduced which is why a Patty Murray or a Cass Eliott, Dusty Springfield, et al, gets written out of their respective histories. That same erasing of the women continues to this day and you can use Murray or any other woman in the US Congress and see that. Gotta' keep the 'boys club' male -- always.

In today's New York Times, Sabrina Tavernise's "Oil Exports From Northern Iraq Rise Sharply" reports that the (US) Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction asserts "that oil exports . . . rose more than tenfold over the past year" via the pipeline exporting oil to Turkey from northern Iraq. Fourth paragraph tells that US forces patrol the pipeline. Maybe that's one of the non-combat duties Barack has in mind for keeping approximately 50,000 US service members in Iraq after his non-promised, 16-month 'withdrawal'? In her final paragraph, Tavernise reports:

Also on Friday, the American military acknowledged that it unintentionally killed the son of an editor for an American-financed newspaper in the northern city of Kirkuk on Thursday. The military said soldiers had been fired at from a taxi and shot back, hitting Arkan al-Naiemi, 14, in the taxi.

That's the shooting noted in Thursday's snapshot. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that some of Saturday's violence included 4 Baghdad roadside bombing with at least eleven people wounded, a Baghdad shooting in which one "Awakening" Council member was wounded,a Kirkuk shooting in which 1 police officer was killed and one more was wounded (also notes a Friday shooting in Kirkuk that claimed the life of 1 "14 year-old kid") and 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
the new york times
sabrina tavernise
iraq

Friday, July 25, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue,  Congressional hearings, BonusGate and more.   Starting with war resistance.  "When we arrived Al Assad, this was April or the beginning of May 2003," declared Camilo Mejia, "and this is the very beginning of the occupation and this is when we were being told that we had to keep people on sleep deprivation, to psychological torture; the orders came from way up top.  Actually the people who were in charge of running these camps were ghost agents, you know, working for the US government.  And when the Abu Ghraib scandal came out they tried to tell the American public that, you know, this was an isolated event that had only began in November or December of 2003.  And that it was the result of a few people, you know, who one day woke up and, you know, they were evil, when -- in reality, you know from -- from my experience, I can tell you that this was actually something that was coming from the very top and that happened from the very beginning and that it was not isolated to Abu Ghraib but that was happening elsewhere in Iraq from the very beginning of the occupation."  Mejia was speaking on PBS two weekends ago and he continued, "Well in the military, we have what is called spooks.  And these are people who are highly trained in counterinsurgency.  They're highly trained in linguistics and interrogation and weapons systems and things like that.  And they don't wear name tags.  They don't wear Unit ID badges or anything like that.  They . . . [use] pseudonyms and you know they don't respond to anybody in uniform.  They -- they basically take their orders from -- from the very top.  And they're -- they're untraceable and -- and obviously, you know, they can conduct themselves with absolute impunity.  These were people who were giving the commands when we were there -- not our commanders, not the people who belonged to any unit, you know, but basically people with top secret clearance and, you know, who would never be held accountable for any of the things that happened."   The PBS program was Foreign Exchange with Daljit Dhaliwal  and Ava and I wrote about that appearance two weeks ago.  (And have heard the complaints re: streaming, transcripts, DVDs, et al and we will be noting that in Sunday's TV commentary. But anyone using that link will quickly realize that they can't watch online.) When we noted it previously, we focused on Camilo's rejection of the illegal war.  Camilo tell his story in Road to Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia and he is also the chair of  Iraq Veterans Against the War.  In terms of his place in the resistance of the Iraq War, he was the first Iraq War veteran to publicy oppose the illegal war.  As noted earlier this week, "The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), an international human rights organization based in Cambridge, Mass., will be hosting a series of training sessions and workshops at the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association to be held from Wednesday, June 24 to Sunday, June 29, at the Fort Lauderdale Convention Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida."  Mejia will be a speaker on June 25th as well as on June 28th.  More information can be found here."   Though Meija never went Canada during his resisting while in the military, he has been a very vocal supporter and has joined many in calling on the Canadian government to grant safe harbor to US war resisters in 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.  Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."   There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes 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, 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).   On Wednesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing entitled "VA's Response to the Needs of Returning Guard and Reserve Members" and the most interesting exchange took place at the end of the second panel in the last thirty minutes.  The second panel was made up of Dr. Joseph Scotti (West Virginia University), Col Bradley Livinsgton (Director of the Joint Staff, Joint Force Headquarters, Montana National Guard), Lt Col John Boyd (Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Vermont Army National Guard), Sgt Roy Meredith (Team Leader Maryland Army National Guard) and Maj Cynthia Ramussen (RN, MSN, CANP Combat Stress Officer Sexual Assualt Response Coordinator 88th Regional Readiness Command).   Senator Jay Rockefeller:  My first question would appear to be hostile but it's not.  Why is it that everybody, but Dr. Scotti, had to say "I'm speaking personally not on behalf of the Reserve, the Guard or the Department of Defense?  I really want to know that.  Does that mean that they're afraid that you might tell the truth?  Does that mean that they are embarrassed by what you might say because their culture is "everything always works and it always works right"?  I'd like to know why you have to say that?   Col Bradley Livingston: Sir I might be able to address that because my testimony --   Sen Jay Rockefeller: You can't correct it because you said it --   Col Bradley Livingston: (Overlapping) Correct --   Sen Jay Rockefeller: you can explain it.   Col Bradley Livingston: Okay, I can explain it then. My testimony had not been vetted through DoD and so I --   Sen Jay Rockefeller: Well Isn't that a very good thing?   Col Bradley Livingston: Sir, . . . I was instructed that my testimony had to have that statement put on it, sir.   At "I was instucted," everyone burst into laughter including Livingston.   Sen Jay Rockefeller: You see, I can understand that I'm -- I've got so many questions, I don't even know where to begin.  I can understand that if you're from the Department of Transportation.  If you come back from the kind of experiences that you've all come back from your testimony, Major Rasmussen, probably was the best I've ever heard here and I've been on this committee for 24 years. I -- it just -- it just breeds a sense of suspicion.  Not at you but in them.  They got to be "right."  You didn't vet it with them. Therefore, you're dangerous. You're telling the truth, you're telling the truth like few people ever do before this committee.  One of the -- one of the problems in fact is that when -- when the VA and other people come before this committee we know that everything they've said has been vetted.  So there's no real reason for us to listen particularly careful to them because we know that it's not necessarily what they think.  You're telling us what you think.  And therefore, you're real.  You really help us. This is superb help to us just at the time that the whole care of veterans has become -- along with global warming -- one of the two top issues for the entire Congress because it's like we've suddenly rediscovered you.  Our own guilt, our own mistake, regardless of political party or anything else going back over many years.  And there are reasons for that but I won't go into them.   It annoys me that you have to say that because it implies that if you didn't, you'd get in trouble.  And that makes me angry.   We'll come back to the second panel but Les Blumenthal (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on the first panel when the committee learned that the VA "failed to send benefit packages to nearly 37,000 National Guard and Reserve members" who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which had Senator Patty Murray pointing out, "While the VA has targeted outreach programs in place to help service members, we still miss far too many veterans who need help and aren't aware of the services and benefits they have earned."   You may remember Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation in March.  From the March 17th snapshot:   The panel on The Crisis in Veterans' Healthcare followed.  Adrienne Kinee spoke on that panel and a correction to Friday's snapshot: Kinne did not state that, "The best preventative healthcare . . . for our soldiers in uniform is to not use them to fight illegal wars"; she stated, "The best prevantative healthcare . . . for our soldiers in uniform is to not use them to fight illegal occupations in the first place." Kinne testified about serving in the military, discharging in 1998 and then enlisting again and discharging during the Iraq War.  The differences she saw were immense.  The first time she left the US military, she found a great deal of help and resources, people helped her with her paperwork, they advised her of her benefits and assisted her in a smoother transition to civilian life.  By contrast, when she discharged during the Iraq War, she was provided no help, no assistance and something as simple as having a physical would require that she live on a base for four to six more weeks before the military would discharge her.  There was no attempt made to explain the benefits available to veterans.    For any who missed Iraq Veterans Against the War  Winter Soldier Investigation -- which was broadcast live at IVAW's site, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA -- you can find archives at IVAW, War Comes Home and -- via KPFA --  here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz anchored Pacifica's live coverage.    But the point is, Congress keeps getting the same song and dance and the first panel was indicative of that.  It's a problem Senator Murray has noted.  On Tuesday (link has text and video), she took to the Senate floor to address the issue of the suicide rates of troops and veterans:   Earlier this month, we lost a young man in my home state of Washington just hours after he sought care at the Spokane VA hospital.  He was the sixth veteran in that community to take his own life this year.  Now, the Spokane VA is investigating all six of those cases.  I have also spoken to Secretary Peake.  He has assured me that his team is also on the ground, taking a hard look to see what went wrong and what they can learn from the situation.  [. . .] More than five years later, we should have the resources to treat the psychological wounds of war as well as we do the physical ones.  But we don't.  It is the duty of the VA and of a grateful nation to be prepared to care for their unique wounds.  And in order to do that, we need strong leadership and attention to detail in Washington, D.C., Spokane, Washington, and everywhere in between.  At the end of the day, this isn't about bureaucracy or protecting turf, it's about saving lives.  We must make it a national priority to address this tragedy.   1-800-873-TALK is the VA's suicide prevention hotline, 24 hours.  That was Tuesday.  Back to Wednesday.  "The military is a culture of its own," Maj Cynthia Rasmussen explained in her opening testimony.  (Click here for prepared remarks but that's nothing like what she delivered in her stated opening remarks.)  Sen Rockefeller would single her out for praise and we'll note a portion of her opening testimony (again, it will not match up with the prepared remarks submitted prior to the hearing).     Maj Cynthia Rasmussen: Multiple competing tasks when a service member gets home cause confusion.  We don't know how to think that way.  We know how to be mission oriented.  We receive an op order it tells us who, what, when, where, why and how -- basically.  We don't get op orders when we get home five days after when we take the uniform off.  Owen Rice -- who is a Hennepin County sherrif deputy  in Hennepin County Jail has been to Iraq, Traumatic Brain Injury in Iraq -- says, "Ma'am it's like this: One person talks in the military and everyone else listens; when you get home: everyone talks, everyone listens and nobody hears."  What I hear from soldiers across the country -- service members across the country: "Ma'am, it's too chaotic here.  Please send me back where I know how to survive, I know how to function, I know how to do that." [. . .]  Emotions and anger.  In war, we control our emotions.  Obviously, you would not want your warrior having their emotions out in the open anywhere.  Plus we cannot accomplish a mission if we have different emotions going on.  We numb out. Anger is useful.  Anger is not only useful, anger is an awesome emotion.  We want anger, we like anger we encourage it.  Because it's the fight/flight response.  It makes your body, your mind and everything about you be the best that you can be and accomplish the mission you need to accomplish.  We encourage it, we live that way, we like to live that way.  But guess what?  When you take the uniform off, that anger that you've learned in practice and felt good about does not go away.  It looks like this: Not talking about your emotions and being angry in war is a strength.  It only leads to you can't talk about your emtions at home which is considered a weakness.  We look insensitive to others when we get home.  It's not that we're insensitive, it's that we have not practiced those emotions for a long time.  Emotions take practice.  We have a decreased ability to read other's emotions -- not because we don't care, not because we're cold hearted warriors, but because we haven't practiced that for a long time.    This can lead to increased irritability and defensiveness  because if you're spouse, you're mom, dad or someone accuses you of not caring anymore and not showing emotions.  We're not going to say, 'Oh, yes, you're right thank you.  Thank you.  I'm sorry I was unable to articulate that.'  We're going to say, 'What are you talking about?  That's not true.'  We're going to get defensive -- as all of us would if someone siad that to us.  It leads to increased alcohol and drug use to cover up our emotions.  You know why?  Not because we're warriors and we learned to do that. It is more socially acceptable in our society to go to the bar and have a few drinks or to sit home and slam down a case of beer with your friends or buddies then it is to raise your hand and say "I need help.  I need medication.  I need to talk to someone" -- not just in the military but across the board.  In our program we work with all branches of the service and many VA and civilian organizations across the country.  Despite this amazing comprehensive program, service members and families are still falling through the cracks.  I had the honor and opportunity to speak to 150 Purple Heart National Service Officers at their training in Phoenix a few months ago.  I received this note, handwritten, put it in my pocket and went back to my hotel room.  And it read: "Ma'am, for the last three years I've been treated for PTSD by doctors, nurses and others that have no clue over what is being a soldier and have this feeling inside," this is a quote by the way, "I can't thank you enough for coming today.  In the last two hours, you have done what nobody could have done: You make me feel normal again.  That is a feeling that I thought I would never feel again since I was discharged from the army.  Thank you and God bless."  This was an Operation Iraqi vet from Puerto Rico, approximately 24-years-old.  One final point I want to make.  Not all issues with service members are about PTSD.  We need to deal with the combat stress, the operational stress, those things I just talked to that are normal habits for all service members.  When I spoke to the Purple Heart receipiants, a WWII vet raised his hand and started sobbing and said, "Where were you when I came home?"  I had a Korean wife say to me last weekend, Battle Creek VA, if you had been around 40 years ago I would not be divorced from my husband  who is a Korean vet because now I understand why we had all the problems we had.  This isn't PTSD.  This is a warrior taking his uniform off and trying to come home.  We have operational stress, we have grief issues, we have lost a year or more in whatever life it was we thought we were going to have.  We have depression, we have anger issues, we have PTSD, we have all king of issues.  Please, please, please stop just calling it PTSD, I want to be called a combat vet coming home with some issues.  Thank you.      Wednesday's snapshot covered Tuesday's House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing. Dana Milbank (Washington Post) covered it in depth (and was noted in that day's snapshot) Talk Radio News Service provided a summary of the main points and that was it from the press.  Today the New York Times makes that hearing their lead editorial (A18), entitled "Wounded Warriors, Empty Promises" and describes it as "the latest low moment for Army brass".  From the editorial:   Under skepitcal questioning during a hearing in February, Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, told the subcomittee that "for all intents and pruposes, we are entirely staffed at the point we need to be staffed." He also said: "The Army's unwavering commitment and a key element of our warrior ethos is that we never leave a soldier behind on the battlefield -- or lost in a bureaucracy."   That was thousands of wounded, neglected soldiers ago.  There are now about 12,500 soldiers assigned to the warrior transition units -- more than twice as many as a year ago.  The number is expected to reach 20,000 by this time next year.   The nation's responsibility to care for the wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan will extend for decades.  After Tuesday's hearing, we are left pondering the simple questions asked at the outset by Representative Susan Davis, the California Democrat who is chairwoman of the military personnel subcommittee: Why did the Army fail to adequately staff its warrior transition units?  Why did it fail to predict the surge in demand?  And why did take visits from a Congressional subcommittee to prod the Army into recognizing and promising -- yet again -- to fix the problem?     Still on Congress and veterans, Edward Colimore (Philadelphia Inquirer) reported on a Congressional bill 'addressing' stop-loss. Stop-loss is the (illegal) policy by which Bully Boy has extended service members' length of service. The service contract has been completed but instead of moving towards discharge, Bully Boy is claiming a national emergency and extending service. If the Iraq War has caused a "national emergency" for the United States, you certainly can't tell it by the tiny trickle of reporting on the Iraq War. So Congress has decided to 'address' it. By writing a law making clear how unlawful the policy is? No, by tossing out a few dollars at the problem -- "an additional $1,500 a month of extnded duty . . . retroactive to October 2001". If this is step-one, it's needed. It's past due. But if this is the 'fix,' it's not repairing anything.  IVAW's Kristopher Goldsmith favors ending the illegal stop-loss and tells Colimore, "Instead of being a civilian again and starting my life, I was doing the polar opposite: putting on a unifoorm and returning to Iraq.  I had come back with pretty severe PTSD and depression and was having panic attacks."   It's Friday.  And Gidget's finishing up the World Salvation Tour so the press can't be bothered too much with Iraq.  In the limited reports from Iraq . . .   Bombings?   Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left three police officers injured.   Shootings?   Reuters notes that 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Mosul.   Corpses?   Reuters notes that 1 corpse was discovered in Baghdad.   Turning to US presidential politics and starting with Gidget the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.  But don't tell his staff that.  Apparently, selecting his shade of lip gloss tires them out.  Which is why the Telegraph of London's Toby Harnden (at RealClearPolitics) explains that Jim Steinberg got huffy with the press and started talking about how when he worked for another president (Bill Clinton), he never had to go on record with the press -- only to have the press remind Steinberg that Barack was not president.  He's not even the nominee.  But don't confuse them.  Susan Rice -- lunatic and War Hawk -- was defending Barack Does Berlin and insisting he wasn't be political, "When the President of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally."  Causing a reporter to shoot back, "But he is not President of the United States."  It's all so confusing for the Cult.  He's not even the nominee yet.  Cedric and Wally weighed in on Ms. Minelli's Cabaret last night.   Ralph Nader is a presidential candidate, not a 'presumptive' one, an actual candidate for president.  Stealing from Marcia yesterday, "Ruth (Ruth's Report) has been covering it, Kat [Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills) ] has been covering it, Elaine (Like Maria Said Paz) has been covering it, Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude ) has been covering it. C.I. (The Common Ills) has covered it over and over and Third Estate Sunday Review has covered it."  She had noted Mike in the previous paragraphs but he's covered BonusGate as well.  BonusGate, where at least 50 Democrats conspired to keep Ralph Nader off the state's ballot in the 2004 eleciton.  John L. Micek (The Morning Call) explains that Pennsylvania's AG Tom Corbett was "armed with a 74-page grand jury presentation two weeks ago, alleged that Democratic House employees worked to challenge the 51,273 signatures Nader and running mate Peter Camejo had gathered for access to the 2004 presidential ballot. A dozen former and current House Democratic lawmakers and employees face theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest charges, partly for their alleged role in derailing Nader's campaign."  Nader held a news conference on the issue yesterday.  Charles Thompson (The Patriot-News) reports "Nader wants relief from an $81,102 penalty for legal costs following court battles over his presidential nomination petition in 2004.  He said he will file a challenge with the state Supreme Court.  Nader said those damages should be dropped in light of criminal charges brought this month" and quotes Nader stating, "This was one of the most fraudulent and deceitful exercises ever perpetrated on Pennsylvania voters."  Amy Worden (Philadelphia Inquirer) quotes him stating, "According to the grand jury, millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, resources and state employees were illegally used for political campaign purposes -- including to remove the Nader-Camejo ticket from the ballot."  Alex Roarty (Politicker) reported yesterday, ""House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D-Greene County), law firms and the country's 'corrupt' two-party system -- each were warned Wednesday by Ralph Nader that the ongoing 'Bonusgate' investigations will reveal their rampant political corruption."  Surprisingly, "Democracy" "Now" can't be bothered with this story.  While addressing all of that, Nader's still running a presidential campaign and Nader and Matt Gonzalez are on the move all weekend.  From Team Nader:   We need gas money. Why? Starting today, Ralph Nader is on the road again. This time campaigning through the South and then out West. Over the next two weeks, Ralph will be in South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Utah and up and down California. His VP, Matt Gonazalez, will be joining Ralph on the campaign trail starting in Texas. Check out the schedule below. If you are in the neighborhood, come on out to hear and meet Ralph and Matt. With both Obama and McCain saber rattling over Iran, the Nader/Gonzalez message of peace through justice is now more important than ever. If your friends or relatives in the neighborhood, give them a shout and let them know. But right now, we need gas money to fuel Ralph's South and West Coast Tour. We've rented a car. Gas prices are high. And Ralph is on the move. So, please donate whatever you can now to fill up our tank. You can give up to $4,600. But $500, $100, $50 - whatever you can donate is what we need. Help us fill 'er up. So we can get 'er done. Onward. The Nader Team Ralph Nader's Tour of the South and West Friday July 25, 2008 5:30 p.m. Athens, Georgia Nader for President 2008 Rally University of Georgia, Georgia Center- "Masters Hall" 1127 South Lumpkin St. Athens, GA 30602 Contribution- $10/ $5 student (404) 446-7093 or events@votenader.org Friday July 25, 2008 8 p.m. Atlanta, Georgia Evening with Ralph Suggested Contribution $100 min RSVP (202) 471-5833 Saturday July 26, 2008, 6 p.m. Jackson, Mississippi Book Signing/ Speech Lemuria Bookstore 202 Banner Hall- I-55 North Jackson, MS 39206 (601) 842-6769 or events@votenader.org Saturday July 26, 2008 8:00 p.m. Jackson, Mississippi Evening with Ralph Nader RSVP (202) 471-5833 Suggested Contribution $50 Sunday July 27, 2008 2:00 p.m. Houston, Texas Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Hilton University of Houston 4800 Calhoun Suite 207, Houston, TX77204 Contribution- $10/$5 student (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org Sunday July 27, 2008 7:30 p.m. Austin, Texas Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Trinity United Methodist Church 600 East 50th St. Austin, TX 78751 Contribution $10/$5 student (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org Thursday July 31, 2008 7:30pm Salt Lake City, Utah Nader for President 2008 Rally w/ Rocky Anderson Libby Gardner Concert Hall 1375 E President Circle, Salt Lake UT Contribution-$10/ $5 students (801) 916-6307 or ashley@votenader.rog Saturday, August 2, 2008, 8:00 p.m. Davis, California Nader for President 2008 Speech Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Varsity Theater 616 Second Street Davis, CA 95616 Contribution: $10/ $5 students (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org Sunday August 3, 1:30 p.m. Sebastopol, California Nader for President Speech Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Sebastopol Community Center 390 Morris St., Sebastopol, California 95472 Contribution: $10/ $5 students (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org August 3, 2008, 4:30pm Healdsburg, California Nader for President Speech Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Copperfield's books 104 Matheson St., Healdsburg, California 95448 Contribution: $10/ $5 students (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org August 3, 7:30 p.m. Kentfield, California Nader for President 2008 Speech in Marin Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez College of Marin- Olney Hall 835 College Ave., Kentfield, California Contribution: $10/ $5 students More Info: (415) 897-6989 or events@votenader.org PS: We invite your comments to the blog.   NOW on PBS (begins airing tonight in most markets) sits down with John Edwards to discuss the troubles facing families across the country, some struggle to make it in single parent homes, for example. Bill Moyers Journal explores torture (among other topics) and Jane Mayer is a guest. BMJ's Michael Winship files an editorial on torture, "The Company We Keep:"   The administration remains in denial. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told the House Judiciary Committee, "I don't know of any acts of torture that have been committed by individuals in developing information," he said. "So I would not certainly make an assumption. I would attribute the absence of an attack [since 9/11] at least in part, because there have been specific attacks that have been disrupted, to the excellent work and the dedication and commitment of people whose lives are dedicated to defending the country. Interrogators have used enhanced interrogation techniques but they haven't used torture." Grim hairsplitting. This week, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act suit, the ACLU received a heavily redacted copy of an infamous August 2, 2002 memo, signed by then-head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee and written with his subordinate, the equally infamous John Yoo. "An individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," it reads. "… The absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture… We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent."  Jameel Jaffer, head of the ACLU's national security project told Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, "Imagine that in an ordinary criminal prosecution a bank robber tortures a bank manager to get the combination to a vault. He argues that the torture was not to inflict pain, but to get the combination. Every torturer has a reason other than to cause pain. If you're going to let people off the hook for an intention other than to cause pain, you're not going to be able to prosecute anyone for torture."  Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional scholar and human rights lawyer who has spent time at Guantanamo monitoring conditions there, testified to Congress that, "As of 2006, there had been more than 330 cases in which U.S. military and civilian personnel have, incredibly, alleged to have abused or killed detainees. This figure is based almost entirely on the U.S. government's own documentation. These cases involved more than 600 U.S. personnel and more than 460 detainees held at U.S. facilities throughout Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. They included some l00-plus detainees who died in U.S. custody, including 34 whose deaths the Defense Department reports as homicides. At least eight of these detainees were, by any definition of the term, tortured to death."   More is online at Bill Moyers Journal where you can watch, listen or read (transcripts) and BMJ never forgets to serve all communities and remembers public television's key word is "public."  On Washington Week, Gwen and the Gas Bags jaw over the non-news. Helene Cooper (New York Times) is the only one qualified to address the international scene so expect a lot of snorts, bromides and tidbits from the rest.      iraq camilo mejia iraq veterans against the war aaron glantz kpfa aimee allison david solnit daniel barlow les blumenthal amy worden washington week pbs bill moyer journal jane mayer now on pbs helene cooper dana milbank the washington post like maria said paz kats korner sex and politics and screeds and attitude trinas kitchen the daily jot cedrics big mix mikey likes it ruths report sickofitradlz

Kamal was just 16 when gunmen snatched him off the streets of Baghdad, stuffed him in the trunk of a car and whisked him away to a house. But the real terror was about to begin.
The men realized he was gay, Kamal said, when he took his shirt off and they saw that his chest was shaved.
"They told me to take off my clothes to rape me or they would kill me immediately. This moment was the worst moment in my life," he said, weeping as he spoke of the 2005 ordeal.
"I was watching them taking off their clothes, preparing to rape me. I did not know what to do, so I started shouting loudly, 'Please do not do that! I will ask my family to give you whatever you want.'"

The above is from Frederik Pleitgen, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Wayne Drash's "Gays in Iraq terrorized by threats, rape, murder" (CNN) and, if you look really hard, you can find a few things that are news and are about Iraq. If you look really, really hard.

In terms of the papers, you're best skipping all but the New York Times. Want a lot of fluff about 'glamor' that ignores why Miramax, et al are 'helping' Kuridstand? Rush to the Los Angeles Times and take a garbage bag.

Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "8 Die in Iraq in Suicide Bombing, Apparently by Woman" (New York Times) covers the bombing in Baquba yesterday:

If the explosion proves to have been carried out by a female suicide bomber it will be at least the 16th time that a woman has donned a bomb and exploded herself in Diyala Province since last year.
Wearing billowy, black head-to-toe garments, the female bombers have been able to conceal powerful explosives and slip into crowded areas too heavily guarded for a male suicide bomber to ease through undetected. While men often undergo physical searches, Islamic rules do not allow male security officers to pat down women.
It was not immediately clear how many of Mr. Dulaimi's guards and militia fighters were among the victims in Baquba. The dead also included two police officers, and six police officers were among the wounded. A local council member was also killed, according to an Iraqi security official.

Alissa J. Rubin covers Iraqi collaborators with the US who are having immigration problems. We are not interested in that story. We will never be interested in that topic. If you are, there's a link. (And if you're confused, the widows, the children, the elderly, these huge, vast groups, have no advocates for them. The fact that the US military will advocate for the collaborators mean they have all the help they need.)

Returning to Oppel, he also contributes "State Department Inspector to Investigate Texas Oil Company’s Deal in Kurdistan" which explores the continued attempts to get infomation about the deal Hunt Oil made with the Kurdistan region -- bypassing and undercutting the central government in Baghdad -- while the US State Dept did . . . what? Nothing? ". . . earlier this month a Congressional committee released internal e-mail messages and documents from the State Department and Hunt Oil that suggested that State Department officials did not try to dissuade Hunt Oil from signing the deal with the Kurds." State Dept Inspector General (acting), Harold W. Geisel has announced an investigation.

Turning to US politics, "Why Workers World is endorsing Cynthia McKinney for president" (Workers World):

Workers World newspaper in the past has supported the candidates of Workers World Party running for national office in the U.S. presidential elections and who have put forward a revolutionary socialist program. This time we are taking the unusual step of endorsing the candidacy of Cynthia McKinney because these are unique times and this is a unique candidate.
McKinney, a courageous Black woman and former U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia, has become one of the most militant leaders and voices for the U.S. left, progressive and Black movements.
Because of her militancy in the struggle against the war, the struggle to impeach Bush, as well as her struggle to expose the government’s role in the displacement of survivors of Hurricane Katrina, she was branded too Black and too radical to walk the halls of Congress. She was pushed out, not once but twice, by the leadership of the Democratic Party. Last year, McKinney severed her ties to that party.
On July 12, McKinney and her running mate, activist Rosa Clemente, won the Green Party’s nomination to run for president and vice-president, respectively. The Green Party’s nomination will put McKinney on the ballot in about 20 states, which is no small thing in the U.S. where the ruling class has made it very hard for any electoral formation independent of, and even slightly to the left of, the two major ruling-class parties to get ballot status. The Green Party is not the reason why we are supporting McKinney.
McKinney’s "Power to the People Campaign" gets most of its program from the draft program of the still-in-formation Reconstruction Party. Activists in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, together with supporters nationwide, have been developing a Reconstruction Party as a mass political vehicle to fight for the reconstruction of the Gulf and justice for Katrina survivors.
The draft program of the Reconstruction Party is inspired by the program of the original Black Panther Party. The Reconstruction Party draft program calls for, among other things: self-determination for Black people, the relocation of displaced survivors of Katrina back to the Gulf, jobs, healthcare and housing, reparations for Black people, an end to racist terror and political repression, an end to the prison-industrial complex and an end to the war.
McKinney's campaign is laying the foundation for a radical coalition of Black, Latino, Asian and Indigenous activists, trade unionists, progressives and revolutionaries. This is important and timely.
We have no illusions regarding the difficulty that McKinney's campaign will face, because this presidential election is like none other before it.
The economic crisis and prospects for class struggle
Barack Obama is the first Black person to be the nominee of a ruling-class party, and he could be the first Black president of the U.S. Many are understandably excited about Obama's candidacy, especially Black people.
No matter how far Obama moves to the right, most likely Black people are going to come out in unprecedented numbers in November in the hopes of achieving something that very few thought possible a year ago. Apart from Black voters, many others will vote for Obama in November for reasons that are historically progressive. And some will not vote for Obama because of his name, because they think he's Muslim and because he's Black.
Race, or what some of us call the national question, is central to this year’s election.
But then there is the negative side to this contradictory development. Should Obama win the election (a prospect that shouldn't be considered certain), the U.S. imperialist ruling class will have a gifted Black politician to help them save their troubled empire. An Obama presidency as the face of an imperialist state will not change anything fundamental, but on the surface it will mark a change, a new situation.
The U.S. capitalist class desperately needs to try something new to help them with their overlapping crises of deepening economic turmoil and imperialist war. In the board rooms of Wall Street, some are, no doubt, hoping that someone like Obama can delay or derail an uprising against widespread depression-level social conditions, or at least be the scapegoat for the unbearable misery that the ruling class has in store for workers.
The Obama phenomenon is more than anything else a sign that the period of political reaction, which has held the working class back and weakened revolutionary movements, organizations and their revolutionary ideas, is coming to an end.
No matter who wins the election, the magnitude of the spiraling crisis of world imperialism, centered here in the U.S., is going to challenge all the forces who share an anti-imperialist, working-class-centered socialist orientation to put aside narrow views, sectarian habits and small differences that have festered during a long and demoralizing period of world reaction.
The material conditions for resurgence of the working class may sooner than later reach levels not seen in this country since the 1930s. In order for the working-class movement to grow politically and organizationally, it will take time, experience in the class struggle, and the assistance of conscious political forces who are dedicated to reviving the struggle.
What is required of all of us who consider ourselves among the dedicated? At a minimum it is a higher level of clarity, seriousness, confidence, solidarity and coalition building.
McKinney's campaign is Black-led, anti-imperialist, working-class-centered and has a multinational radical base with the potential of unlimited growth.
Of course, we believe that the struggle should not be confined to the electoral arena, especially as the capitalist ruling class completely dominates the electoral process. We must be in the streets fighting the war, fighting foreclosures and evictions, fighting in solidarity with immigrant workers, etc. However, Workers World believes that supporting the McKinney campaign is a step forward towards the path that the movement needs to take.
Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

As noted in yesterday's snapshot:

Staying with women, Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente (McKinney is the Green party presidential nominee, Clemente is her running mate) are not the first women of color ticket in a US presidential race. Amy Goodman repeated that nonsense on Monday (and we called it out Monday -- and Jim did with the note he added to my morning entry) and has refused to correct it. As noted in the July 11th snapshot and many times since: " What About Our Daughters? explains that, if McKinney is the nominee, this is the third time two women of color would be on the ticket with the first being Lenora Fulani and Maria Elizabeth Munoz in 1992 (New Alliance Party) and Monica Moorehead and Gloria La Riva (Workers World Party) in 1996." Workers World Party confirmed to Martha this week that, yes, Moorehead and La Riva were women of color and also noted that the party's publication (Workers World) has endorsed a presidential candidate for this election: [. . .]

Thank you to Martha. Amy Goodman never issued a correction. She 'misses' a great deal such as efforts to attack democracy. Turning to BonusGate, where at least 50 Democrats conspired to keep Ralph Nader off the state's ballot in the 2004 eleciton. From John L. Micek's "Nader wants feds to investigate state Democrats" (The Morning Call):

Attorney General Tom Corbett, armed with a 74-page grand jury presentment two weeks ago, alleged that Democratic House employees worked to challenge the 51,273 signatures Nader and running mate Peter Camejo had gathered for access to the 2004 presidential ballot.
A dozen former and current House Democratic lawmakers and employees face theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest charges, partly for their alleged role in derailing Nader's campaign.
On Thursday, Nader's attorney, Oliver Hall of the Center for Competitive Democracy in Washington, D.C., took aim at House Majority Leader Bill
DeWeese's claims that he was unaware that his staff and his second-in-command, then-Democratic Whip Michael Veon, were engaged in allegedly illegal activity.
"Where was Bill DeWeese?" Hall asked. "He hasn't been indicted, but [former DeWeese chief of staff Michael] Manzo and Veon have. Attorney General Corbett has made clear that his investigation is ongoing, and we would urge him to focus on the role of Bill DeWeese. This needs to be clarified."

Charles Thompson's "BONUS SCANDAL: Nader hits deceit in '04 fight on petition" (The Patriot-News) continues the story:

Nader wants relief from an $81,102 penalty for legal costs following court battles over his presidential nomination petition in 2004. He said he will file a challenge with the state Supreme Court.
Nader said those damages should be dropped in light of criminal charges brought this month by Attorney General Tom Corbett against 12 people with ties to the state House Democratic caucus. Among allegations of illegal activities, Corbett said House Democratic staffers were deployed on state time in a successful effort to get Nader knocked off the ballot four years ago.
"This was one of the most fraudulent and deceitful exercises ever perpetrated on Pennsylvania voters," Nader said. He added that it was symptomatic of attempts to quash independent and small-party candidates across the nation.

And from Amy Worden's "Nader to ask Pa. court to reopen presidential nomination case" (Philadelphia Inquirer):

"According to the grand jury, millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, resources and state employees were illegally used for political campaign purposes - including to remove the Nader-Camejo ticket from the ballot," Nader said at a news conference here.
The Supreme Court in 2006 upheld a lower court order for Nader and his running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, to pay the court costs.
In announcing the indictments of Rep. Sean Ramaley (D., Beaver), former House Minority Whip Mike Veon, and 10 former and current House Democratic staffers on July 10, Attorney General Tom Corbett described a "massive" effort by Democrats to oust Nader in order to help Democratic candidate John Kerry win Pennsylvania.
As many as 50 House staff members worked on a challenge to Nader's ballot petition, and more than half received state-funded bonuses, in part for their "Nader efforts," according to the grand jury report.
The grand jury report also cited Democratic efforts to bounce former Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli, who in 2006 challenged Democrat Bob Casey for a U.S. Senate seat, from the ballot. Last week, Romanelli asked the Supreme Court to reopen his ballot-access case on similar grounds.

Bonnie notes this from the Nader Team:

15 Dollars, 15 States, 15 Days

Drop fifteen dollars now on Nader/Gonzalez.

Why?

We now enter the most difficult and challenging ballot access stretch of the campaign.

We need to get on fifteen more states in fifteen days.

Last month, we laid out an ambitious ballot access plan.

Thanks to you, we have met stages one and two on time and on schedule.

Now, on to stage three -- 15 more states, a total of 30 states, by August 10 -- on our way to 45 states by September 15.

And we need to raise $100,000 by August 10 to fuel that drive and push us over the $2 million mark for the campaign.

Why is it important to put Ralph Nader on the ballot -- and get him into the Presidential debates this fall?

For one, because Nader is the only candidate who would take the bombing of Iran "off the table."

As Obama made clear yesterday in Israel, he's keeping the military option against Iran "on the table."

As would McCain.

And if you doubt the seriousness of the situation, check out Israeli historian Benny Morris' recent Op-Ed in the New York Times in which he predicts that Israel will bomb Iran within four to seven months.

Cooler heads must prevail.

While McCain and Obama are fueling the Israeli drive to bomb Iran, even some of their own advisors are warning about the disastrous consequences of such a policy.

Yesterday, Brent Scowcroft told the Israelis to "calm down" and Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said the "all options on the table" talk was "counterproductive." Brzezinski said he would tell Israel "don't do it."

That's of course why we need the strong Nader/Gonzalez off the table voice in the debates.

And the chances improve as we continue to poll at or above five percent -- see yesterday's NBC/WSJ poll here.

This was the third major poll putting us at five percent and above. (Remember, John Anderson and Ross Perot both got into Presidential debates because they met the then threshold of five percent.)

So, please, we need 1,000 of you, our loyal supporters, to hit the button now and contribute $15 each to kick off our drive to get to 30 states.

How will your generous donations help us on the ground?

Think about the more than 50 young at heart, dedicated road trippers working 10 and 12 hours, day after day -- working through blazing hot summer afternoons, ducking under covered awnings during heavy thunderstorms, and bringing the Nader/Gonzalez message to thousands of voters state by state.

We need your $15 donation to help buy gas for their rental cars, feed them, and help pay for thousands of photo copies.

We need your $15 donation to help buy Greyhound bus tickets, Amtrak tickets and airplane tickets.

Of course, we're always looking for one or two angels willing to max out and cover the "filing fees" -- like the one in West Virginia that will cost us $2,500.

How badly and urgently do we need your help?

• Our New Hampshire crew needs to collect 4,000 signatures in 10 days -- that's 400 a day.
• In Maine, starting Saturday, our crew has 12 days to collect 5,000 signatures.
• Our people in Ralph's home state of Connecticut need to collect more than 700 signatures a day over the next 13 days.
• In South Dakota, we need 1,500 signatures 10 days.
• In Wyoming, we need 2,000 more signatures in 10 days.
• In Virginia, we need to collect 600 signatures a day over the next couple of weeks.
• In the Buckeye State, our Ohio crew needs to collect 11,000 signatures in the next couple of weeks -- 350 to 400 a day.

In short, our backs are up against the wall.

And the best way you can help get us on the ballot is to donate $15 now.

Help us lift off toward the debates in November.

Thank you for your generous support.

Together, we are shaking it up.

Onward

The Nader Team

ShareThisShareThis

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
frederik pleitgen
mohammed tawfeeq
wayne drash
richard a. oppel jr.
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
workers world
john l. micek
charles thompson

Two years earlier a soldier like those, who openly opposes the Iraq war, quietly returned to his home in Utah. Sgt. Marshall Thompson had served in the military as a journalist for six years, previously in Kosovo, from where he returned proud of the work he had done. Returning from Iraq was a very different experience. "I just had to do something," he since said about that time. "This is an unjust war. I couldn't not do something."
What he decided to do was to set out on a 500-mile walk for peace across the conservative, pro-war state of Utah and to make a documentary about the journey. Many people who now oppose the war are branded in the media and by certain members of the government as un-American, unpatriotic, or worse, some sort of enemy of the state. It would be difficult to label Sgt. Thompson in this way. He is a devout Mormon and the son of a former Mayor of Logan, Utah, not to mention a soldier who has served for a significant amount of time. In fact, he considers himself to be very patriotic.
The film that documents Thompson's story will be screened on Saturday at 7:30 p.m. at the Westhaven Center in Trinidad. It is being presented by Ted Pease, a journalism professor at Utah State University, who lives locally when he is not in Utah. Pease knows Thompson from the days when he was his teacher and they have remained friends.

The above is from Robyn Hillman-Harrigan's "A Soldiers Peace to be screened at Westhaven Center" (Times-Standard). Meanwhile, Edward Colimore's "A move to take care of 'stop-loss' service members" (Philadelphia Inquirer) reports on a Congressional bill 'addressing' stop-loss. Stop-loss is the (illegal) policy by which Bully Boy has extended service members' length of service. The service contract has been completed but instead of moving towards discharge, Bully Boy is claiming a national emergency and extending service. If the Iraq War has caused a "national emergency" for the United States, you certainly can't tell it by the tiny trickle of reporting on the Iraq War. So Congress has decided to 'address' it. By writing a law making clear how unlawful the policy is? No, by tossing out a few dollars at the problem -- "an additional $1,500 a month of extnded duty . . . retroactive to October 2001". If this is step-one, it's needed. It's past due. But if this is the 'fix,' it's not repairing anything. From the article:

Though also in favor of the additional pay, Kristopher Goldsmith said he would much rather see stop-loss ended. The policy, he said, nearly ended his life.
A former Army sergeant, the Long Island, N.Y., resident served in Iraq in 2005, returned home, and was called up again - under a stop-loss order - to be part of the troop surge last year.
"Instead of being a civilian again and starting my life, I was doing the polar opposite: putting on a uniform and returning to Iraq," said Goldsmith, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, an anti-war group with 47 chapters across the country.
"I had come back with pretty severe PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] and depression and was having panic attacks."
He said he attempted suicide on Memorial Day last year and received a general discharge.
Such stories leave former soldiers such as Steve Mortillo, 25, of West Philadelphia, unimpressed by the extra money being sought for the troops.
"I'm glad people realize the situation soldiers are in," said Mortillo, an Army specialist who served in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and is president of the Philadelphia chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War, which has 1,200 members.
The extra pay "is better than nothing, but it doesn't address the larger issue."

Now we're into the talking entry portion. Jess wrote "Dear Late To The Party" this evening. He has every right to express his opinion, he's doing me a favor by helping out with the e-mails. I'm not disagreeing with anything he wrote, but I am going to address some of what's behind it.

The Cult of St. Barack has been very illuminating and demonstrated just how many posers make up the 'left' as they repeatedly found ways to excuse the War Hawk. Jeremy Scahill 'cut him slack' for his plan to keep contractors in Iraq and savaged Hillary who was moving to the position Scahill claimed to support. Allan Nairn, pressed, had to admit that Barack took Big Money but then quickly added the ridiculous 'justification' that if Barack didn't take the money, Big Money wouldn't trust him. Poor Barack. You had Dave Lindorff nonsense that Barack should be supported as "a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs". You had Amy Goodman turning over her program -- and all journalistic standards -- to the Barack campaign. Pick any example but the BIGGEST ETHICAL problem was her bringing on Melissa Harris-Lacewell to discuss the New Hampshire primary and allowing MH-L to talk about the candidates (she ignored Hillary -- that would be the winner of the New Hampshire primary) and allowing Melissa Harris-Lacewell to deliver a testimonial on a Barack speech she 'just happened' to catch when MH-L has been campaigning for Barack since 2007 and Goodman damn well knew that. You do not let someone who is part of the campaign come on your program and praise the candidate without informing your audience that the person is part of the campaign. Had she been an employee NPR and pulled that stunt, it would have been grounds for dismissal. Obviously Pacifica has no standards. If you missed it, that's how KPFA offered a two-hour 'analysis' of the Texas debate that featured only Barack endorsers but Larry Bensky and KPFA failed to inform the listeners of that. Hillary lost that debate they cried (or "cackled" to use the term Laura Flanders seemed unable to stop repeating) and the listeners had a right to know that these 'independent' judgments were coming from people who had endorsed Barack. There are many more examples and you can include Robert Parry's latest attempt to scare up votes for Barack: The Supreme Court! You might get another John Roberts! Uh, Barack's adviser Cass is the 'left' voice that made Roberts acceptable.

Everyone's sick of the lies and the liars. "Alternative Media" is not supposed to translate as "Democratic Party Organ." So there is a factor of disillusionment at play.

In terms of whom Jess is replying to, we're talking about a Green who thought she had a right to butt into a Democratic primary, who practiced Hillary Hatred and who pimped Barack. As offensive as all of that is, it was her attempt to lecture Ty about how awful racism is. And her attempt to minimize Barack's use of homophobia. For the record, Ty doesn't need a White straight woman to tell him about either topic. As an African-American male, he knows racism personally, he doesn't need to hear lectures on how awful it is from a White woman. As a gay man, he doesn't need to hear the same Barack-Loving-Freak tell him how homophobia isn't that important. I got dragged into that because when she continued to persist with her e-mails, Ty was too upset to write her back.

So when she e-mailed today and Jess saw it and saw her attempting to order me to cover a topic (a topic we've covered for weeks now but why should she be more informed today than she's been all year?), he'd just had enough. None of us have ever e-mailed anyone saying, "Please highlight us." And Jess is just damn sick of all these people, especially that woman, showing up to take from this community when they never give anything.

It goes into the nonsense another woman pulled. A four day event produced many panels. We praised all but one. Instead of accepting the fact that, as critics, we're not just going to toss out roses, she went from person to person, e-mailing, trying to turn us against each other. While the panel was called out at Third, in the same edition, Ava and I included strong aspect from it in our TV commentary. So it's not as though it just got a pan. But that wasn't good enough, it had to be 100% love from us or nothing at all.

That's not how it works. We're not for sale and we don't take money from anyone.

We are responsible only for this community and only to tell the truth as best we can and as we see it.

Which brings us to that idiotic e-mail on July 4th.

ABC News reported something. Some idiot has to e-mail in (and, yes, he was speaking for the war resister in question) and scream and yell at me about how I hadn't done this or done that (I had covered the topics he said I hadn't) and yell his conspiracy theories about ABC and his nonsense about how I blindly accept the MSM.

I had made all the points he supposedly wanted made but reading is apparently too damn difficult. Now The Nation's 'online exclusive' repeated the ABC story and I seriously doubt he (or the war resister) e-mailed screaming at them.

That soured everyone. And we're still having to deal with the fall out everytime it's time to write another edition for Third. Yes, one bad apple can spoil everything for everyone. Especially when they're manipulative.

Now none of us expect thank yous or praise for covering war resisters (when they are ignored by every outlet in Panhandle Media). But we also don't expect little meltdowns from video artistes.

That goes straight to the lack of gratitude that Jess feels and that a number of others feel.

It's also irritating because this community is not for sale. No one helped build it, the community built itself. There's no pledge drives, there's no asking for money. As Gina has long pointed out, this is a private conversation in a public sphere. If you don't like it, move on to other sites.

There's another area that I'm not supposed to know about because it involves someone I know and like. But I do know about it. Despite Ruth not saying a word to me about it. Ruth called out a media critic for his silence on the sexism in the Democratic primary. As I'm guessing it happened, he e-mailed Ruth a private e-mail where he objected to her 'tone' (this part is really not guessing, she wrote about it without identifying him and implying that he might just be a drive-by, he wasn't, he was a media critic). He got the e-mail back from her where she explained (in a tone he approved of) where he was failing. She took her responses public noting at her site that if a dialogue was sincerely wanted, then have that dialogue in public where others could explore it as well. At which point, no more e-mails.

What appears to have happened is he didn't like being called out for sleeping on the job, he wanted a private e-mail exchange where Ruth would speak the way he wanted to speak. That is BULLS**T. I like him, I know him, but that is bulls**t. Don't try to shame people for calling you out for not doing your job. You want a dialogue, have one with Ruth publicly.

That's offended people. It's offended them because Marcia has let it rip on the person in question and he KNOWS to avoid Marcia because she's not going to put up with any of that s**t. Rebecca wouldn't either. And Elaine made it clear (with AlterPunk) that you snarl and hiss at her, she'll take your e-mail public and not even delete your e-mail address when she does.

You can yell and scream all you want if you've been written about. You can't try to manipulate and that's what's behind all of the anger, that some try to manipulate. The panel we didn't care for resulted in rushing to Rebecca, to Mike, to Elaine, to me. I don't know who else, but it was a long list. Trying to turn us against one another. It's not going to happen.

Ruth was really excited by an e-mail praising her work from a site we used to highlight. It was nothing but a fishing expedition. Ruth was trusting. That site is not linked to anymore by any of us as a result. Ruth and Jess are both trusting and you screw with them and you piss us all off.

FAIR wrote this site, with an apology. Jess replied for me and included a few comments on his own. I didn't ask him about the e-mail, I asked him to reply, but I never asked him what he wrote. So imagine my shock when I'm hearing about what he wrote not from him but from a friend at The Nation. I can't believe it. I insist FAIR wouldn't have forwarded Jess' e-mail to The Nation. My friend says, "Okay, check your inbox right now, I'm sending it to you." All this time later and Jess has still not gotten an apology. In fairness, FAIR -- in their apology -- was forwarding me e-mails from a journalist to them. I didn't know that and would have told Jess not to bother replying if I had known that. FAIR wanted to apologize to me and wanted to then score some brownie points with The Nation by forwarding Jess' e-mail. That's disgusting. Jess didn't say anything embarrassing. He did reveal that we would be posting our six month study on how few women The Nation was publishing on July 4th. That's why Ben rushed in with his e-mail trying to kill that story. On July 2nd. That's why Ben thought Third didn't have an e-mail address. It was briefly down when the templates switched -- something noted by Jess in his reply to FAIR.

We could go on and on with a long, long list. And I don't know the bulk of them. I haven't read all the e-mails to the public account since January 2005. It's too much for one person. Martha and Shirley give me a report and Eli gives me a report. That's how they prefer to handle it. Ava and Jess can handle any e-mail anyway they want. And if they handle it, there's no reason to even bring me in on it. If it's an e-mail from someone complaining about something that I wrote about them or their work, I will read that. And it doesn't have to be polite and I don't get my feelings hurt.

But what's really going on is the attempts at manipulation. That started very early with something Kat wrote where a man wanted her to retract what she wrote. One sentence where she said stupid Bernie can love Bob Dylan or not. And Bernie has a meltdown that she said he loved Bob Dylan. No, she said "can." Can implies ability. But Kat's attitude is pretty much the attitude non-stop in this community. We've had our say, have your say. She told Bernie she'd post whatever comment he wanted at her site. But that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted her to post these statements of praise about him -- but as if she was writing them.

That's not how it works. You cannot put words into someone else's mouth. That whole thing was so ridiculous and offensive. Kat's post only mentioned jerk-off Bernie in one sentence (the "can" sentence). He'd already responded by falsifying a sentence from her. (He took a sentence at her site and intentionally misquoted it -- refusing to correct it unless she posted his words as her own at her site.) Kat didn't give a damn what he wrote about her and he had no other blackmail so he (and his partner) slowly slinked away.

Nobody has to like us. We're not in the running for a popularity contest or the congeiality title. But we're tired of the attempts at manipulation. We're tired of the "I'll pretend to be high-minded and I want a dialogue and then when I get something like, 'Maybe you're not sexist,' I'll get my nut and blow." Ruth needs to go back to critiquing that person by name. Her critiques were valid. She was not wrong to make them. Because I know him, she felt she was in bind. She hasn't talked to me about this (and no one's run back to me to tell me) but I can tell from what she wrote what went down.

And while all this backstory intrigue plays out, what is Panhandle Media doing to end the illegal war? Not a damn thing. They have all the time in the world for their private e-mails, for their private whines. And I need to take accountability here because I did tolerate it myself and it put others in a position where they felt they had to. Mike gets screamed at by some lunatic who praised Barack on TV and Mike feels badly about that? He shouldn't have and Kat and I both told him to let it rip in response at his site because Mike was being nice. All he had to do was quote the man from that TV broadcast.

Save your firey e-mail speeches about how you don't really support Barack but if you call him out it's hard to get work and ___ won't have you on their show or ___ won't publish you or whine, whine, wah, wah. You sell yourself, that's your business. You sell yourself in the public sphere, get ready for criticism. That's a given. Don't do it in public if you can't take criticism of it.

If we're creamed at another site, we don't sob. We don't even sob when we're regularly ripped off. We don't e-mail the sites and say, "How dare you! Let's have a private conversation!" We don't e-mail at all. We're focused on what we need to do. But others have all the time in the world to devise these (not so) complex schemes of how they'll manipulate the community. "I know," some must be thinking to themselves, "I'll tell Rebecca that Elaine's not just trashing me, she's also getting her digs in at Rebecca!" Which, for the record, a mainstream reporter attempted to do. Foolish, foolish man. Rebecca, Elaine and I went to college together, we lived together, we have a decades long friendship. You're not the first man who thought you could come between our friendship, and you're not the first man to learn that, no, you couldn't. But you had plenty of time to scheme -- from your work e-mail -- and plot that out.

At this point, we really don't reply to private e-mails. For all the reasons above and many more. One more example? David Swanson showing up to tell Rebecca what a fan he was of her site and blah, blah, blah. Rebecca responds to him and then finds an e-mail from Lennox Yearwood in her inbox. She opens it. He's out of the country. He has his e-mail set up to automated reply. David Swanson 'shared' her e-mail with Yearwood without telling Rebecca. In fact, he shared it right after she sent it. In other words, he wrote Rebecca to get some information and then immediately started forwarding it. Who knows to how many? But when Rebecca calmly confronted him on it (I know Rebecca and I've read the e-mails, she was calm -- mainly because she was in shock -- she actually liked Swanson), he started denying he'd forwaded her e-mail. She was crazy! She was nuts! It never happened. But she was looking right at it (and I've seen the print out). He didn't realize that the automated reply meant Rebecca would be cc-ed. So little stunts like that, little manipulations means we're not interested in private conversations. (Yearwood is not linked to or mentioned here as a result of that. That really hurt Rebecca's feelings because she thought Swanson was someone trustworthy. Due to the fact that she'd written Yearwood to ask if he was involved in this or it was being forwarded without her knowledge, and due to the fact that he never saw fit to reply to her, I wrote him. He no longer exists to this community -- however, Betty, Cedric and Ty were already on record at Third as being tired of his s**t before that took place.)

So when the White woman who felt it was her place to both dismiss homophobia and to attempt to tell Ty how hard it was to be Black e-mails ordering me to cover something and Jess sees it today, he's had enough from her. Even with my explaining clearly how upset Ty was and why, she never felt the need to apologize to him. She is White Green, she knows all. So what if she came off racist to Ty (who was the one replying to her e-mails in the past) and insulted him. She didn't care. Not enough to e-mail and apologize. Though she's been happy to e-mail non-stop requesting links for this and links for that. And then today she decided she could try to order me to cover something. (Which I may now ignore because I don't take orders.) Jess saw the e-mail and it was the last straw for him. I don't blame him one bit.

All of the things mentioned above (and there are many more examples that could be provided) go to attempts to manipulate. You can't manipulate this community, you can't take over it, you can't control it. In the end, we will always stand with each other. It doesn't matter how 'big' you think your name is or how wonderful you think you are. If you're not a community member, you are an outsider and you do not dictate to this community.

When Panhandle Media decided that 'independent' translated as "lie for a War Hawk," we didn't drink the Kool-Aid. We didn't fret the bullying e-mails. As an outsider, you have no power in this community. And it's really amazing how so many had so much time to plot. Think about the time that went into e-mailing Mike, then Elaine (three times for Laine), then Rebecca, then Cedric, then me. Think how much time went into that "I will divide them!" plot. That time could have been better spent focusing on the illegal war. Especially in covering war resisters.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4122. Tonight? 4124. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,245,538 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War up from 1,236,604.

In various forms, the talking entry has been addressed at other community sites. To put an end to it (hopefully), it's being addressed here. It has become a problem and may be one of the main reasons the writing editions for Third are taking so long. I'm not in the mood for a 36 hour writing session this weekend.

The community sites are:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.

And the community stands together.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet