Although much has changed in the USA: public opinion of George and his war of choice for profit have tanked and Congress changed in November '06, everything else has gotten worse. Besides the obvious loss of our freedoms, BushCo in tandem with Congress Inc, has increased worldwide Islamic Jihadism and fueled intense hatred of US corporate imperialism. The dead and mutilated bodies keep piling up in Iraq and the flag-draped coffins are surging home under the mainstream media’s radar. The people of Baghdad have gone without water for days now and anyone of us can go to any faucet in our homes and pour ourselves a glass of safe water. The Iraqis are human, goddamnit, and their lives count, too! By our inaction, we form a union of callousness and violence with our federal employees. 535 members of Congress are about to go on undeserved vacations while our troops and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering under the most direst of circumstances and BushCo are poised to invade Iran and we all know Gonzo may have to resign and George will use the sleazy recess appointment process to foist another criminal on us.
Congress and BushCo have dismal approval ratings, but what does that say about "We the People?" It says that in our Representative Republic, "We" have no say. That's because many of us believe that our responsibilities in that Representative Republic are fulfilled in the voting booth. If we don't stand up to the people whom we employ and pay and make sure our votes count literally and for what we stand for, then we are doomed to being ruled by the ruthless elite who get their legislative orders from the special interests.
As Congressman John Conyers wrote over a year ago in his fabulous treatise on the crimes of BushCo called, Constitution in Crisis, "We have seen so many transgressions by this Administration that it is easy to forget last week's scandal amid this week's new outrage. I am hopeful that compiling all of these events of the last few years will help wake all of us up to the gravity of these matters and the cumulative damage to our country."
Wake up America…the situation is indeed grave and we have three branches of government (and a complicit "fourth estate") that are committed to politics and profits before people.
Nothing is going to change until we put people before the politics of profit or the profit of politics.

The above, noted by Mia, is from Cindy Sheehan's "I'm Perturbed As Heck" (Common Dreams).

It is amazing to hear the talking point from some gas bags that we have to be 'non-partisan'. That was the winning strategy for 2002, right? Oh, it was the losing strategy. But, as Sheehan rightly points out, how do you strategize over dying? Over the destruction of your own country? Coming to agreement with a movement that has destroyed this country and claimed countless lives is nothing to strive for. Giving a little to a crowd of totalitarians is shameful.

Acting as if an illegal war is something we can agree to disagree on, is cowardice. Forget the votes they think they have in Congress currently (or, knowing them, the ones they know they'll line up in 2008), if Congress got serious about the illegal war, the public support would be there and it would drive other members of Congress to join them. Even members of Bully Boy's party. "We don't have the votes" was never a solid excuse for caving in the past. Now that they have control of both houses, "we don't have the votes" is not only idiotic it ignores the very real fact that the people are the bosses of Congress. With approximately 70% of Americans wanting US forces out of the Iraq war, those 'vote counters' betray their understanding of democracy and of the country.

And as they do that, the dying continues.


They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3648. Tonight? They've announced 3669. The dying's not stopping. Join Iraq Veterans Against the War, Tina Richards and Military Families Speak Out in speaking the truth: Fuding the war is killing the troops. That is reality. It's reality because without funding the illegal war would stop. It's reality because whether it's a week with one announced death or 30 (or more), the dying continues.

Today the US military announced: "Two MNC-I Soldiers died of wounds suffered during combat operations in Baghdad August 5." And they announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed and two others were wounded during combat operations in a western section of the Iraqi capital Aug. 4." And they announced: " One MNC-I Soldier died of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated next to the Soldier’s vehicle during combat operations near Baghdad August 4, 2007."

Funding the illegal war is killing Iraqis. No one seems to notice much but the daily count is back to the 100s. Not for one day or for two. It's back to that number it was when the UN decried the 100 daily dead. It happened again on Sunday. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 mortar attacks in Baghdad with at least 11 dead and sixteen wounded today, 1 dead from a Baghdad car bombing, 1 body guard for Hazim al-Araji is dead (four more wounded) from a Baghdad attack, the Imam of Khadhraa was shot dead at his home and two of sons wounded "as they screamed for help seeing their father being killed in front of them," 18 corpses were discovered in Baghdad, outside Kirkuk two were wounded from a roadside bombing, and 6 corpses were discovered in Mosul. For today's violence, McClatchy is reporting 38 dead or discovered dead. Reuters reports three police officers wounded in an attack in Baghdad (gunfire), 2 dead from a car bombing in Mahmudiya, a "tribal leader" dead today in Suwayra after being attacked Saturday and not recovering from the attack, and a prisoner in Badoush prison (outside Mosul) was killed. We're not done with Reuters, they also report 60 corpses discovered in Baquba. That's 64 for Sunday. That's 102 dead on Sunday.

It's already Monday in Baghdad now and Reuters reports a Tal Afar truck bombing that claimed 25 lives. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports that puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, has refused to accept the resignations last week of the six cabinet ministers. Not surprising, al-Maliki refuses to accept reality.

In the US, Laura Bruno (Daily Record) reports the arrest of Michael B. Silva at his apartment. Bruno's not much of a reporter because she either didn't ask or didn't tell why police were sent to the apartment. (The military sent them.) To read her account, it's not only natural for the police to show up at someone's door asking about a self-checkout, it's also reasonable for them to demand a search (which is how Silva was discovered). Did they even have a warrant for a search? Another thing Bruno doesn't ask or doesn't tell. Silva served in Iraq prior to his self-checkout. How the police ended up at his apartment or why they thought they had reason to search are topics we're all, like Bruno, supposed to ignore. Don't shake the construction too roughly, it will fall apart.

Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshanksy wrote a book on impeachment. Kayla asked that we note this: "Here's an offer you can't refuse! Read Chapter 1 of The Case for Impeachment for free at no obligation. Just go to the Barnes&Noble catalog page or the Powell's Books catalog page and click on the 'read a sample chapter' button (then buy the book!)". Using those links, you can read chapter one (I don't know if it's in PDF format or not, I do know it's a brilliant book). Kayla also notes this from Lindorff's "Tomasky on Impeachment: The Dumbest Advice the Democrats Ever Got" (This Can't Be Happening):


First, impeaching Bush and Cheney is not a matter of Democratic strategy and partisanship. It is a matter of defending the Constitution and the republic against an unprecedented threat. It is a matter of the members of Congress acting in accordance with their oaths of office, which call on them to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Impeaching this administration is what the American public wants Congress to do. In the face of a media black-out, or of mainstream media ridicule of the idea of impeachment, a majority of Americans--Democrats, independents and even many Republican--nonetheless knows better and wants these men impeached. Without even having good access to information about the grim details of the president’s and vice president’s crimes, and with the pundits like Tomasky and O’Reilly in full negative mode, the American people know a threat to their country when they see it.
And second, impeachment is a process, not an action. It was the hearings on impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, televised and presented to the American people live, unmediated by glib corporate reporters, that convinced the American people and the politicians in Congress that Nixon deserved to be impeached. While there was great public skepticism about impeachment at the start of those hearings, when only 25 members of the House signed on, by the end of the hearings, the public was in favor, and three articles of impeachment were voted out of the committee, all of them with Republican support, and one of them by unanimous vote. It was the hearings, and the resulting wave of public revulsion against Nixon, that led Republican leaders to go to the president and tell him that he had to resign or he would lose the impeachment vote in the House, and that he would lose a trial in the Senate, and probably even end up in jail.
Tomasky has to know that the same thing is even more likely to occurf in the case of an impeachment hearing into the crimes of Bush and Cheney--crimes which are far more serious and more far-reaching than those of Richard Nixon.
It doesn't matter that Democrats have only a narrow margin in the House and a razor-thin majority in the Senate (no one, before impeachment hearings began, thought there was a chance that the Senate, with some 40 Republican members at the time, would ever oust Nixon in an impeachment trial either). What matters is standing up to the wholesale destruction of Constitutional government that is taking place under Bush and Cheney.
The real question is not the one posed by Tomasky about whether impeachment is "good for the Democrats"; it is what will be left of America and our Constitution if Bush and Cheney are not impeached before they leave office in January 2009.

Pru gets the last highlight. From Great Britain's Socialist Worker, "Gordon Brown shows his backing for George Bush's 'war on terror':"

Gordon Brown sent a clear message this week to all those who have despaired of the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and hoped that he would stand up to George Bush and bring the troops home.
On his trip to meet George Bush in the US, Brown made clear his devotion to the "strong relationship" with the US, and that Britain would continue to play a central role in the "war on terror".
Much of the media responded by looking for any difference between Brown's relationship with Bush and Blair's.
Brown said, "Afghanistan is the frontline against terrorism." Bush says it is Iraq.
Blair and Bush used to wear open necked shirts when they met. Brown and Bush wore suits this week.
Brown will stand together with Bush in pushing through an imperialist project in the Middle East.
Bush said, "There is no doubt in my mind that Gordon Brown understands that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for both our countries."
In the Washington Post newspaper, Brown wrote, "It is our shared task to expose terrorism."
Determination
He added, "All of us must be vigilant in our determination to prevent attacks and defeat the forces of terrorism. And it is the values we share that make us best placed to succeed."
The reality of what that means is continuing carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The rhetoric over terrorism is translating into Brown's plan to increase detention without trial in Britain.
He has said that in the next session of parliament he wants to reopen the debate on raising the 28-day limit on the amount time that police can hold a suspect without charge.
The limit was extended to 28 days only 18 months ago. It is already the longest maximum period of detention without charge in western Europe.
The proposal for a 90 day period was narrowly defeated when put forward by Tony Blair in 2005.
But Brown has called for a "consultation" on increasing the time to up to 56 days, supporting police claims that they need yet more time to detain people to collect "evidence" in terrorist cases.
Brown also announced he is intending to bring in a "unified border force" to boost the "fight against terrorism".
This would create a "highly visible" force that would bring together immigration and customs officers.
He is also calling for a speed up to the introduction of identity cards.
Draconian
Other measures include support for using email and telephone intercepts as evidence.
Yet more draconian laws won’t mean an end to terrorism. It is Britain’s support for the US’s war that leads to terrorism.
In his Washington Post article, Brown said, “We must expose the contrast between great objectives to tackle global poverty and honour human dignity and the evils of terrorists who would bomb and maim people irrespective of faith, indifferent to the very existence of human life."
In a sense he is right. But it is an apt description of his "special relationship" with Bush and the carnage they preside over.
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. Repeating, that address is for things that appear at this site. Visitors wishing to trash other community sites are not protected. This has always happened and it has become a steady pattern in the last few months. People want to share their vileness at some other member of the community and write here instead of having the guts to say it to them because they think they are protected here. They are not protected. If you're writing the public e-mail address here, you are doing it for some reason related to this site. Your slams on others in the community will not be 'off the record' nor is it my job (or desire) to pass on your trash to them.

iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
cindy sheehan
dave lindorff
iraq veterans against the war
tina richards
the los angeles times
alexandra zavis
the socialist worker

A piece of flith named Dumb Ass, a friend of Bob Somerby's, has written an e-mail. That piece of filth is not protected by anything here. He knows (or should) full well why. That he wants to show back up after all this time is a suprise. That his trashy mouth is back is far less surprising. He wants everyone who does a community site to know something.

So why the hell is he writing me?

Bob Somerby was delinked (for good reason) some time ago. I've not written about it here. But Dumb Ass has a real problem (he also has a sick crush on Rebecca who thinks he's a creep and I think Rebecca's judgement is mild to the extreme). For some reason Dumb Ass thought we were buddies and bored me with e-mails back in the summer of 2005. Never about this site. Never about anything I've written.

Now he's back with his trashy little crap, whining again about things that went up at other sites.
The public e-mail address is not for that. Anyone thinking they can use it to gripe about things at other sites needs to check themselves real damn quick.

I'm not your secretary, Dumb Ass, I don't pass on your messages.

Among other things, Dumb Ass scribbles, "Thankfully, it seems you folks live in that special and inept bubble of the faux brilliant in NYC and luckily, when it comes to accomplishing the serious change needed for this country and globe, we won't need your help electing Hill anyhow. (BTW, she will be the nominee. Book it.)"

Dumb Ass, you stupid, tiny ___ed man, get it through your thick (and probably hairy) skull that I have not endorsed anyone. Yes, we're all fully aware that you and your buddy Bobby were on board the Hillary train in 2005. That sort of thing really needs a disclosure. In fact, writing that you haven't made up your mind in 2006, when you made up your mind in 2005, really qualifies as a "lie."

You and Bobby aren't setting the political world on fire anymore than you set the comic world on fire. You're both floundering comics who play at life like characters in a Christopher Guest mockumentary. "You folks" appears to include me. I don't live in NYC. I live on the West Coast. I'm not sure where you're getting your nonsense. But I'll assume failed stand up comics must especially hate NYC.

I don't know when you think you've ever been "overwhelmingly generous" to me. We've never met and I don't hang with the never-was crowd. You bored me with some e-mails in 2005 and I checked around on you to figure out who the hell you were (as I told you in the only e-mail I ever sent you) and then avoided you. (Rebecca avoided your creepy self completely.)

As your knuckles drag the floor you get off your usual hatred of women (no surprise) and we'll note this bit by you, "Yeah, code pink is the answer and the Daily Howler (or as your kind bloggers like to refer to him...that bitter, sexist, depressed old man) is the problem."

I can't follow "Your kind bloggers". Is that supposed to be "your kind of bloggers"? Is it supposed to "you kind bloggers"? I have no idea. Your e-mail reads like it was written by someone repeating third grade for the fourth year. (Perhaps that explains all the hate on display?)

I don't claim to be a "blogger" and this isn't a "blog."

"Depressed"? I don't think anyone has used that term to describe your buddy. I certainly haven't. Elaine would object to it being used without a qualifier of some kind to make sure it was noted that she wasn't participating in a diagnosis. He is sexist. He tears apart women. He will bend over backwards for any Wash Post columnist. It will be a new day and a fresh start. But a woman he disagrees even once (even when the woman is right), he tears into and there is no "new day" or "fresh start" for them. Jane Mayer was exactly right, the criticism was sexist.

I'm not surprised by how much you hate CODEPINK. You are his little buddy. CODEPINK is women.

It's amazing that in your e-mail you fail to mention that Bob Somerby and Matt Cooper are friends. That was the little slip you made in 2005. Do you remember 2005? Bob Somerby was calling Joe Wilson names. Shocking because Wilson is a man. But he was repeatedly stating Wilson was wrong and using harsher terms than that.

Well, I guess if I was friends with Matty Cooper and Matty Cooper was involved in the entire PlameGate, I'd go on the attack against Wilson as well.

See, that's one of the things that should have been disclosed when Somerby decided to trash Joe Wilson day after day, that he was friends with Matty Cooper who wasn't a disinterested party in the proceedings. Valerie Plame had been outed to Matty by Scooter Libby and by Karl Rove.
The people who kept wondering why Bob Somerby was repeatedly attacking Joe Wilson had a right to know that detail. It's amazing that Somerby has so frequently discussed Karl Rove but when Matty finally rolled over on Karl, there was nothing, not even faux outrage, about Karl Rove's actions at The Daily Howler.

For the record, CODEPINK didn't attack Joe Wilson. For the record, CODEPINK didn't repeat Republican talking points about Joe Wilson. For the record, CODEPINK didn't bill themselves as "media critics" and yet, somehow, miss the boat on Judith Miller. How did that happen anyway? How do you present yourself as a media critic and day after day avoid Judith Miller.
Somerby never had time to call out Miller.

His work? It's a joke. He's a joke.

He's the moron who said that the press had changed citing the 2004 coverage. This was the same coverage that found him exploding in the summer of 2004 at readers that he wasn't baking cookies, he was being serious! This is the same coverage that included the Not So Swift Floaties. But post-election, he sits down with CJR and sees growth and improvement in the media coverage?

He made himself useless. I'd be embarrassed, were I him, to have archives where people could see I failed to call out Judith Miller -- that wasn't a minor two-day story, we're talking about the coverage that helped sell an illegal war -- or that I advanced the right wing attacks on Joe Wilson (while failing to note how close I was to someone refusing to name Karl Rove in Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation). I'd be embarrassed that if anyone scrolled around in my archives, they'd see my claims to chuck it all and start covering eductation. I'd be even more embarrassed if they came across some of my (bad) posts on education. That didn't drive the traffic, so Bob went back to doing what he'd always done, the only thing that brought him any level of fame (comedy never did).

Maybe you and Bob can work with Matty Cooper on another stand up routine, only this time it can be about the idiot who quickly named Scooter Libby but refused to name Karl Rove. Refused to name him before the 2004 election. The election was close (some would say stolen) and possibly some of those "Bully Boy will bring us security!" voters would have had second thoughts had they known that the man running his campaign, his alleged "brain," was revealing that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent?

So let's just boil this down to two things. Bob Somerby is completely useless as a media critic with regards to the Iraq War. He was useless when it was being sold, he's been useless since.
When Valerie Plame was outed and her career was destroyed, Somerby's route of choice was to attack Joe Wilson and repeatedly give coverage to Republicans. (He loved citing the Republicans on that, didn't he?)

So you can spout off your hatred at CODEPINK all you want, but Bob Somerby's useless.

And he is a sexist.

He's also a coward because TO THIS DAY if anyone puts out the falsehood that Naomi Wolf was a "fashion consultant" for Al Gore's 2000 campaign, you're 'brave' Bobby rushes to call them out. But Eric AlterPunk included that in his really bad book and Bobby not only didn't question it, he praised the book online.

He has compromised himself repeatedly.

You spill your hate while posing as if you're some friend.

Let me clear it up for you, we aren't friends. I don't hang with failed comics. You're a little nothing who never made his mark and that is why you fled NYC. Not because, as you maintain, you saw the crazies. You fled because you're a little nothing who couldn't make it. Again, I don't live in NYC but your comments about were insulting even to me.

You are a useless comic. Bob Somerby is a useless media critic. His contributions, such as they are, revolve mainly around the 'skill' in hollering "knee pads" at Elisabeth Bumiller while allowing every male a second chance, a fresh start.

Do not write me again. I feel debased just reading your rants. I don't know if you're on medication and from time to time go off your meds or if you're drunk when you write, but you really aren't fit to operate a keyboard.

Bob Somerby's been named in this. "Online Latter Day Dylan" is how I've referred to him for the most part here in any negative criticism. But you're not really interested in what's up here, you're interested in what's gone up at other sites.

Don't bore me with your crap again.

And, for the record, noted before but let's do it again, the public e-mail address does not exist so you can come whining about what someone else wrote. I don't want to hear about it, I don't need to know about it. If you're using the public e-mail address, you are supposed to be a visitor attempting to contact, Isaiah, Kat, Ruth or myself. And it should be about what we've done, not about what other sites have done.

Because you got drunk and spent "hours and hours" of time reading other community sites online is no reason to share your sexist, trashy opinions with me. Nor do I need, pay attention Dumb Ass, to note what you really think of progressives (I believe he uses "progs," I'm not re-reading that crappy e-mail). I have never called myself a "progressive" and I seriously doubt that anyone with a site in this community has used the term. If you're using the public address, you're writing about something to do with this website. If you're abusing the public address to trash friends of mine, you have no right to protection because that public address was never offered to allow you to spew your hate, vulgarities and filth. Rebecca and I have been friends since college. Insult her and you really tick me off.

I don't vet the copy at the other sites. (Wally and Betty read their stuff to me over the phone only to see if I laugh.) Each adult running a site is responsible for their own site. Writing me about what you read elsewhere makes about as much sense as me screaming at Ms. magazine about something that ran in another magazine.

I've never liked snitches and didn't let my own children tattle on one another. So I'm offended by Dumb Ass (and others) for that reason alone.

But it is also very insulting to adults working very hard on their own sites that this sort of crowd keeps running to me to complain about what they've written.

Dumb Ass clearly thinks he's the "big man". I don't claim to be an expert on masculinity but I do find it strange that a middle-aged man thinks the height of masculinity is playing tattle tale.

I haven't mentioned Bob Somerby (even as "Online Latter Day Dylan") at this site since we delinked from him. I had no interest in pointing out that he was attacking Joe Wilson while friends with Matt Cooper (he's not the only one who hid that fact while attacking Wilson). But I'm not going to put up with bullying e-mails (about what others have written) from his little friend -- and fellow failed comic -- Tim Howe.

Yes, Dumb Ass, we know. You both got on board the Hillary Clinton train in 2005. We know that. We know that Bob Somerby posed as if he hadn't gotten behind a candidate in 2006. (He may have posed this year as well, I don't read him.) I have called out Hillary and I've said she was right when she has been. I have not endorsed anyone and will not endorse anyone. So in your sections that appear to be directed at me (but who knows?), you don't know what you're talking about. If you were tanked when you wrote, lay off the booze when you're e-mailing.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. That's for things that Kat, Ruth or myself write or to comment on Isaiah's comics. It is not for you to pass on vile aimed at adults who all have their own e-mails posted at their own sites where they work very hard on their writing. The rules on privacy refer only to when you're commenting on this site. You cannot hide behind that rule to launch your attacks on other community sites and the people who run them.

Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "A Flunky Scorned." Standing in front of slumped characters, Bully Boy explains, "The Democrats just signed on to my illegal spying. Now some people say they were born spineless. That's just not true. In fact, I keep all their spines in a closet in the Lincoln bedroom. Next to the skull of Ger


the world today just nuts
bully boy
spineless
comic
the common ills

Today's New York Times contains only one Iraq article. It runs on A11. "Rape of Iraqi Girls and Killing of Family gets G.I. 110 Years" Paul von Zielbauer. Last week an AP article the Times ran did the apparently unthinkable, it named Abeer Qassim al-Janabi. PvZ becomes the first reporter for the paper to use Abeer's name in an article the paper has run. PvZ notes Steven D. Green will be the next tried (the article's on the conviction of Jesse Spielman) in a civilian court.

Isaiah will go up shortly (and if you went to Flickr this morning you saw it despite all the other computer problems -- Isaiah says thanks to Kendrick who caught Geronimo being mispelled when he saw it on Flickr).

The Third Estate Sunday Review's features:

Truest statement of the week
A Note to Our Readers
Editorial: Are you angry yet?
TV: Plotz, Plots, Fizz, Fizz . . .
The Woody Allen Canon
Aidan Delgado's The Sutras Of Abu Ghraib
No End In Sight when the peace movement gets behind crap
The New Plantation
John Conyers Is No MLK (Betty, Cedric & Ty)
Ah, that's why The Nation sucks so
Green Party facts
Highlights

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

the new york times
the third estate sunday review

Ruth: I followed the weeks in California with a family vacation and this was noted in places at different community sites as well as this one but for those visitors who missed it, I am "still around."

In terms of radio, two programs stand out the most from last week.

Friday on Uprising, which airs on KPFK at 8:00 am PST, a conversation took place that I give credit to both the host, Sonali Kolhatkar, and the guest, Stephen Zunes, for having. I might need to say, "Especially in light of the previous Friday's broadcast"?

The previous Friday, Ms. Kolhatkar was speaking with a scholar when it was time for Glen Ford's Black Agenda Report radio commentary. After that, Ms. Kolhtkar asked the scholar to speak of Mr. Ford's points. The scholar was off in Hillary Clinton Is The Devil Land. Which was rather strange because Mr. Ford's commentary was "Barack Obama's Game: Erase the 'Black Problem'." The issues Mr. Ford raised related to Senator Obama were shoved aside as the scholar rushed to list all of Senator's Clinton's negatives.

Yesterday, Ms. Kolhatkar specifically raised the issue of Senators Clinton and Obama to Professor Zunes who was able to address the issues she raised. He did not feel either was that different from the other though Senator Obama's imperialism came with a happy stamp. While it was amazing that a real conversation of the two Senators could take place, it should be noted that I have never heard Professor Zunes stammer or hesitate so much in any interview. By his answers, he had obviously given considerable thought to the issue so I will chalk his nervousness down to the fact that there is a strong push to deny reality when it comes to Senator Obama.

Reality about Senator Obama is that he was against the illegal war before it began, and before he was a member of the U.S. Senate. Reality is also that, by the time he began campaigning for the U.S. Senate, he was publicly against withdrawal from the war he was against. Reality is also that, as former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel pointed out in the Democratic Presidential Candidates YouTube discussion, Senator Obama is funded by corporations. Reality even includes the New York Times explaining a few weeks back that Senator Obama's alleged "small donors" are not donating monies to his campaign. Those small amounts are actually no more than concession sales from his rallies. As the Times explained, and small media ignored, every t-shirt, every bumper sticker, every $4.95 for a key chain is chalked up as a "donation." No, that is not the Howard Dean phenomenon. As the paper pointed out, no other campaign is known to do that or to have ever done that.

Hopefully Friday's discussion is a sign that if we must have non-stop 2008 election coverage, we can at least have reality in the discussion. For that to take place, it will probably be helpful to remove the likes of Patricia J. Williams whose Obama campaigning, passed off as a KPFA interview, included her not only snarling at at a caller with a Mid-Eastern accent and correcting the caller who was, in fact correct, but it also included Professor Patti flying her elitist flag as she gushed repeatedly over the thought that someone who was president of the Harvard Law Review could run for president.

The second program that stood out most strongly was WBAI's Law and Disorder which aired last Monday. C.I. has written about it here and here and Mike has written about it here. The hosts Michael Ratner, Michael Smith and Dalia Hashad used the hour to examine resistance and spoke with Iraq Veterans Against the War's Adam Kokesh, his attorney, and CO and war resister Camilo Mejia who has recently published his account in Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia.

Sgt. Kokesh,