Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "Change You Can Believe In." Senator Joe Biden holds a diaper and says, "It's not all glamor." Barack waits on the changing table and insists, "Get the baby wipes, Biden! Tushy needs cleaning!"
Swiping from Third, Friday US war resister Robin Long was court-martialed in Colorado. Karen Linne, Fort Carson Public Affairs Office, explained Friday afternoon that he was sentenced to 15 months behind bars, reduced in rank (to E1) and given a dishonorable discharge. Robin was held at the Criminal Justice Center in El Paso Country while awaiting the court-martial and he will receive credit for the time he has served ("about 40 days"). Jupiter Kalambakal (AHN) reports, "During the trial, Long, 25, of Boise, Idaho, said he fled when his unit was deployed to Iraq because he felt it was an illegal war, according to CBC. Prosecutors, on the other hand, said he abandoned his duty and his country." Tom Roeder (Colorado Springs Gazette via Albany Times Union) notes that Col. Debra Boudreau presided as the judge, that the prosecution called no witnesses and that the prosecution "showed a six-minute video of Long, sporting dreadlocks and a beard, telling a Canadian news reporter 'I think I was lied to by my president'." That's the October 2007 CBC interview Robin gave. The use of the video indicates Robin's civilian attorney James Branum was correct when he told Nick Kyonka (Toronto Star) immediately before the court-martial, "I think they want to prosecute him for free-speech issues without actually charging him." The New Haven Register runs a McClatchy Newspapers-Tribune Services article entitled "Deserter sentenced to prison" which notes that Boudreau wanted to give Long an even longer sentence but was prevented from doing that as a result of the plea bargain Branum negotiated and reports this on the defense:
Among the defense witnesses was celebrated anti-war activist Ann Wright, a retired Army officer and former State Department official who has racked up more than 10 arrests with her outspoken protests, including some outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. She said the war was against the law, arguing that justified Long’s fleeing to Canada. In most court-martial sentencing hearings, defendants try to show that they’re good soldiers and lean heavily on character to mitigate their actions. Typical witnesses include family members and fellow troops. The lone character witness called to speak for Long was Peter Haney with the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission. He had met the soldier three times while Long was awaiting trial in the El Paso County, Colo., lockup. "I've observed Mr. Long in situations that would be trying to just about anyone," Haney said. "He seemed to me to be extremely poised and lucid." [. . .] In his testimony, Long talked about his life in Canada and attacked the war in Iraq. "I feel the war on terror is a war on peace," Long testified, saying he planned to eventually move back to Canada where he has a girlfriend and a son born while he was on the run form the Army. In Nelson, British Columbia, Long said he perfected his organic gardening skills and converted his Volkswagen to run on recycled cooking oil. Long told the judge he wanted to serve little or no jail time, but would take a bad conduct discharge as punishment. He wrapped up his time on the stand by telling the judge, "Peace, love and light." Long's civilian attorney, James Branam, closed his part of the sentencing hearing by comparing Long to Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. "The morality of what he did should lessen the punishment," Branam told the judge.
Yesterday morning's entry included a story that mispelled James Branum's name. I provided a link in Branum's name but didn't note it because I wasn't sure it was mispelled. To be clear, Jim Branum's last name is spelled "Branum." AP reports on Robin here. Over 48 people were reported killed over the weekend.
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 hit the 4,143 was the number. And tonight? 4146. Just Foreign Policy's counter estimates the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war to be 1,252,595 . . . the same number they were using last Sunday and the Sunday before. Apparently, despite reported violence, JFP doesn't belive any Iraqi's have died in over two weeks.
Turning to some of the reported violence and starting with Saturday.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 4 lives (fifteen wounded), a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 3 lives (and wounded five) while another Baghdad roadside bombing left two more people wounded, a Baghdad bomber blew his/herself up and claimed 21 other lives (thirty-two wounded), a Diyala Province roadsidbe boming that claimed 3 lives (five more wounded), another Diyala Province bombing that claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers (either more wounded), a Nineveh car bombing claimed the life of the person in the exploding car and the lives of 3 police officers and 1 civilian and a Mosul bombing that claimed 2 lives. Dropping back to Saturday's violence Erica Goode (New York Times) notes a Kirkuk "suicide bombing" that claimed the lives of 5 people (plus the bomber) and left seven injured in an apparent attack on "Awakening" Council member Abdul Kareem Ahmed al-Obaydi (who was among the dead). Staying with Saturday, McClatchy's Hussein Kadhim reported a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded three soldiers, a Baquba roadside bombing wounded two people and a Mansouriya roadside bombing claimed 1 life.
In the Sunday New York Times, Sabrina Tavernise tackles The Myth of the Great Return in "Fear Keeps Iraqis Out of Their Baghdad Homes" which reveals: "Out of the more than 151,000 families who had fled their houses in Baghdad, just 7,112 had returned to them by mid-July according to the Iraqi Ministry of Migration." Tavernise points out:
The reasons for the hesitation are complex, based on dangers both real and imagined. In most cases, Iraqis say they feel safe with their neighbors but are not sure about other residents. Some are afraid of the new guards on their blocks. In rarer cases, they cannot face neighbors who they suspect helped in killings.
Also in today's paper, Erica Goode's "Gunmen Kill A Top Official In Baghdad" runs on A10 (where Tavernise continues from the front page). Goode is covering the Saturday assassination of Deputy Minister Kamal Shyaa Abdullah ("high-ranking official in the Ministry of Culture") while he was headed home (his driver was also killed in the attack).
Turning to the US presidential race, Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, his running mate is Matt Gonzalez. Sonya notes this from Team Nader:
Nader Team Arrives in Denver Posted by The Nader Team on Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 05:55:00 PM ShareThis Dear Senator Obama: The Nader Team just arrived in Denver for the DNC. We wanted to see what all the fuss was about, so we paid a visit to Invesco Field, the site of your upcoming speech. Ironically, it was easier for us to get in there than it was to get in one of your debates. Here we are protesting that fact. As you can see from this photo, we managed to inflate a huge liberty bell at Invesco Field. You know, liberty: the freedom to speak and debate. A liberty that third party candidates are routinely denied by the mainstream press and mainstream candidates. We want to change that. So we are issuing a challenge to the Commission on Presidential Debates -- liberate debates from corporate control and end the anti-democratic exclusion of third party candidates. And we are issuing a challenge to you. You are the candidate of hope and change. Consequently, we hope you will change your mind and make good on your offer to debate anytime, anywhere. Participate in the Google debates in New Orleans on September 18th and urge them to include third parties. John McCain said he'd do it. How about you? Do it for hope. Do it for change. Give people a real choice this election. Onward to November! Ashley Sanders The Nader Team ShareThis
Mr. Long's civilian lawyer, James M. Branum, said after the hearing that he would appeal the sentence. "I felt he doesn't deserve a day in prison," Mr. Branum said. "Any jail time is unjust." Mr. Branum added that "he may have committed an illegal action, but morally he was right, and it meant a lot for him to say that to the Army." Karen Linne, a Fort Carson spokeswoman, said the Army had no comment.
The above is from Dan Frosch's "Soldier Who Deserted to Canada Draws 15-Month Term" in today's New York Times (A16) and it's a good size brief but Karen had no comment? Really? She was a regular chatterbox. Maybe she just didn't want to talk to the New York Times? (Karen Linne is the Karen mentioned in yesterday's snapshot.) As Karen informed yesterday, Robin was sentenced to 15 months with credit for time served since being extradited to the US ("about 40 days"), busted in rank down to E1 and given a dishonorable discharge.
Robin is a US war resister who went to Canada instead of serving in the illegal war. In Canada, he made a life for himself, attempted to find work and became a father. If he made a mistake, it was in ending up in the region where the US dictates the shot. (The same region that took orders from the US to arrest US war resister Kyle Snyder on his wedding day. Snyder was released, he'd broken no Canadian laws and never should have been arrested.) Harassed by the police there, the hostile Stephen Harper government was able to put forward the argument that his being a day laborer meant he was somehow 'out of touch' with immigration authorities. This allowed the 'risk' analysis to take place and they tried to hide behind it when they decided to jail him prior to Judge Anne Mactavish's finding last month.
Robin was attempting to win safe harbor status in Canada. Mactavish lied and declared him a "flight risk" which allowed her to imprison him. If you think an immigrant to your country is a flight risk, if you think they may leave the country, you don't imprison them. You hope they'll leave before government monies are used to determine whether they should be allowed to stay or not. But it was always about extraditing Robin and Mactavish was working with the US government -- something Canadian citizens outraged by.
She knew extradition was a different process, she knew that if she ordered extradition (and not deportation), her actions would be reviewed by higher bodies before anything took place. Extradition is a legal process which requires many steps.
Mactavish skipped those steps by lying and saying she was deporting. Robin was not deported. Robin was imprisoned and when Mactavish entered her ruling, he was not freed. If Robin was being deported, he would be taken to the border or an airport (or bus depot for that matter) to ensure that he left the country. That is deportation.
What happened was extradition. He was imprisoned. After the ruling was made public, he was still imprisoned. He was kept from his peers and the press and he was physically taken to the border by Canadian authorities who did not expell him, they released him into the custody of American authorities under the arrangement that had already (and illegally) taken place. Robin wasn't deported, he was extradited. It's not a minor point.
Had Mactavish called it what it was, Robin would still be in Canada right now. Extradition requires review (and is beyond the power Mactavish held). Extradition, if presented openly to the Canadian people, would have led to a huge outrage. Even if a decision had been reached to extradite Robin it would not have been reached for some time.
She lied and called her deporation. Mactavish's 'ruling' doesn't just need to be reviewed by the people, it needs to be legally reviewed as does whether or not she's fit to sit on the bench. This isn't a minor point and it's especially important because Mactavish will be ruling on other war resisters in Canada.
In terms of deportation, by Canada's own laws and guidelines, Robin was iffy to be deported. He is the father of a young Canadian citizen (less than two years old). Mactavish's decision splits up a family which goes against every policy for determining status in Canada.
In terms of what she actually did, a judge who extradites and tries to conceal it under a phoney claim of "deportation" does not deserve to sit on the bench. If she truly believed in extradition, she should have pursued it through the appropriate channels. She knew it was "iffy" and wouldn't take place quickly, so she decided to set extradition in motion while LYING and calling it "deportation."
As a judge, she knows the difference between extradition and deportation. As a judge, she abused her powers and she was fraudulent with the Canadian people. She needs to step down. Charges need to be filed against her because she will be the sitting judge in other hearings regardless. She has demonstrated that Canadian law does not matter to her, serving the United States matters to Anne Mactavish. Charges need to be filed and any war resister case she's assigned needs to result in defandant's attorneys requesting that the case be reassigned.
When Mactavish elected to ignore Canadian law on immigration (Robin being the father of a young Canadian child) that was bad enough. But she had perpetrated fraud on the Canadian people by extraditing someone and insisting it was deportation. Canadians have a right to believe that their justices work for Canada. Mactavish has made it clear that she will bend, break and ignore Canadian law to be of service to the United States.
The Globe and Mail demonstrates how little they care about their country (which is one reason Canada moves more and more to a totalitarian state) by refusing to file their own story and instead running with an AP article. From that article:
He joined the U.S. Army in July, 2003, believing at the time that his country was justified in going to war in Iraq. His perspective changed after hearing that weapons of mass destruction had not been found in Iraq and that Iraqi detainees had been abused. Concluding that the abuse was systemic, Pte. Long decided that he would not participate or be complicit in what he believed were war crimes. In September, 2006, he applied to be accepted in Canada as a refugee, claiming that the U.S. was involved in an illegal war.
The sentence was the longest any convicted army deserter had received since the beginning of the 2003 Iraq war, said retired U.S. Army Col. Ann Wright, a former diplomat who resigned from her post out of protest at the war's outset. Wright testified against the legality of the Iraq war on Long's behalf. Of the thousands of soldiers sentenced for desertion or going AWOL – and the estimated two dozen tried for protesting the war – only former army sergeant Kevin Benderman received an equal sentence in 2005. About two-dozen anti-war supporters gathered around the courthouse at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, Colo., yesterday afternoon as a military judge handed down Long's sentence. Though initially sentenced to 30 months in prison, that time was reduced to the 15-month maximum military prosecutors had agreed on when arranging a plea deal last week. Long, 25, came to Canada in 2005 to flee a scheduled deployment to Iraq. While here, he was briefly engaged to an Ontario woman -- with whom he had a child last year -- before he moved to British Columbia, supporters have said.
"He's doing okay," said James Branam, the civilian defense attorney hired by peace activists supporting Long. "He felt good that he got to speak his mind about why he did what he did. He knows that he did the legally wrong thing, but the morally right thing." Long's lawyer says he reached an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to desertion with intent to remain away permanently, a lesser charge than desertion with intent to shirk hazardous duty. The judge initially sentenced Long to 30 months, but an earlier plea agreement gave him the lesser sentence. Long's suporters felt the sentence is too harsh. "He's a young man who is a very good man," said retired Col. Mary Ann Wright, a former Army diplomat. "He's got principles, honor and courage. Four or five months is pretty common among all the ones who have gone AWOL and been public about it." Sgt. Matthis Chiroux of New York can relate to Long. Chiroux also refused a deployment, but says the Army decided against court-martialing him--partly because he testified about war objections before Congress and had support from some lawmakers. "Robin Long, to me, is a hero. I'm going to be writing him lots of letters."
Next Wednesday, Denver is going to be rockin. Thousands will be gathered at the University of Denver Magness arena to protest the corporate lockdown on the Presidential debates. Sean Penn, Val Kilmer, Cindy Sheehan, Tom Morello, Jello Biafra and others will join Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez. Demanding an end to the corporate control over the Presidential debates. So, if there is any chance you can get to Denver Wednesday, you can make a donation to reserve your ticket here. If you can't get to Denver, no problem. Free Speech TV will be streaming the event live on the Internet. (Wednesday, August 27, 7 p.m. Mountain time, 9 p.m. Eastern.) Just click here to watch. Also, the Free Speech TV will be broadcasting the event live on Dish Network Channel 9415. And many local public access channels will be carrying the Free Speech TV feed. (If your public access channel doesn't carry it, call them and ask them to do so. Click here for a list of public access channels.) Anyway, it's going to be an historic event -- protesting the corporate control over our politics -- in the midst of the corporate Democratic spectacle. So, join us in Denver if you can. If not, invite your friends over, and dial up the live Internet feed -- or watch on television via satellite or on your public access channel. Onward to November.
Since yesterday morning, the following community websites have updated:
The Iraqi paramilitary unit that stormed a government complex in Iraq's Diyala province earlier this week usually is directed by the prime minister's office, but was acting without its orders in this case, the Iraqi government said Friday. Abdul Karim Khalaf, an Interior Ministry spokesman who's serving as the interim commander of police in Diyala, described the emergency response unit as a counterterrorism force that's nominally under Interior oversight but with its own chain of command. The name of its leader and the size of its force are classified, he said. A spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party challenged the assertion that the unit was acting without orders, days after a prominent member was arrested in one of the raids. "We believe that such a raid could not have taken place unless Mr. Maliki had at least prior knowledge of it," said Dr. Salim Abdullah al Juboori, referring to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.
The above is from Nicholas Spangler's "Diyala raid was rogue operation, Iraqi government says" (McClatchy Newspapers) and it's cute the way he avoids certain issues. For instance the fact that two US helicopters were part of the operation with eye witnesses reporting they were fired on by those helicopters. If it was a rogue operation, how did the US military come to be involved?
Amid fears that the Sunnis' treatment could rekindle Iraq's insurgency, the Americans are caught between their wish to support the fighters and their stronger ties to Maliki's government, which has challenged the Sunni paramilitaries in recent months as it grows increasingly confident about its fledgling army. "We want to have our cake and eat it too, support Maliki and the Sons of Iraq. . . . Maliki wants to make that as hard for us as possible. He wants us to choose him," said Stephen Biddle, a Council on Foreign Relations defense expert who has served as an advisor on strategy to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq. "What it looks like we are getting is a Maliki government that won't behave itself and wants to crush the Sons of Iraq." The chief U.S. military spokesman here denied Maliki was targeting the Sons of Iraq, or that the Americans were tilting toward the government at the expense of the Sunni fighters. "Just last week, the prime minister gave his personal commitment to the program," Brig. Gen. David Perkins said. "They are well aware of the sacrifices the Sons of Iraq have made, that they were a critical element in bringing the security situation under control and that it is in their strategic advantage to assimilate them peacefully and orderly into Iraqi society." Maliki has grown powerful after successful military operations in spring against Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's militia in southern Iraq and Baghdad. His transformation has provided the Americans a partner they can work with as they look for a way to hand over the reins in Iraq, the long-term U.S. goal here. A Western advisor to the Iraqi government said the U.S. military couldn't stop the Iraqi security forces now even if it wanted to -- they are larger in size and have their own chain of command.
At the weekly prayer service in Sadr's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City, chants of "No to the agreement!" rang out through loudspeakers positioned along the street. Worshipers responded with applause and repeated the chant as the service ended and people drifted away. Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia have kept a low profile since fighting in the spring led the Iraqi military to move into militia strongholds. But though Sadr claims to have revamped his group into an exclusively cultural organization, his fiery anti-U.S. message can rev up supporters and could hurt Maliki's standing if Iraqis see the prime minister as kowtowing to American wishes. At prayer services across the country, Sadrist preachers said any deal struck with the Americans was a blow to Iraq's sovereignty. In Sadr City, listeners agreed. "Everyone is talking about how it will really serve the interests of the Americans, not the Iraqis," said Mohammed Fadim, whose well-stocked grocery store overlooks the wide avenue where worshipers knelt side by side in prayer. "Everyone knows the U.S. administration. Once they occupy a country, if they want to make an agreement to stay, 80% of the terms will fulfill their interests."
Something about Barack Obama's manner bothers Margaret Cowan. "There's something egotistical about him," the Sheridan, Colo., retiree said. "It's the way he struts around." Many swing voters here and throughout the country consider the presumptive Democratic nominee distant, pompous, arrogant, even elitist. "It's a big issue that he needs to address," said Eric Davis, a professor emeritus of political science at Middlebury College in Vermont. Obama has Ivy League degrees from Columbia and Harvard universities. He's extraordinarily articulate and exudes self-confidence. Those credentials and qualities combine to strike some people as arrogant. He counters by reminding voters that he was raised by a single mother of modest means and worked as a Chicago community organizer. Those aren't elitist roots.
Aarogance exists in all class strata. More importantly, the term used for Barack would be "social climber" -- a term that denotes someone from a lower strata. And the lies that attempt to pull the heart strings only undercut him all the more. Why does Barack never speak of his step-father? What's with this "single mother" claptrap he always offers? He had a step-father for years. Then he chose to live with his grandparents. It's someone expanding reality to make his 'struggle' seem more difficult -- the hallmark of a social climber. Equally true is that he was ineffective in his brief 'career' as a community organizer (by his own admission) and its at the point that he chucked it all and decided to go to Harvard.
I keep waiting for someone to make the obvious comparison: Iraq Levin's A Kiss Before Dying. If you don't have time for the book, its been filmed twice and the Matt Dillon vehicle should be easily found. Dillon's mother (Diane Ladd) is alive. But that's not good enough for Dillon who claims both parents are dead. Claims they died on a famous plane crash. Using his "orphan" status to argue for the woman he's tricking to be nicer to her father (so that he can get a job working for the man). In the article Jen Psaki, of the Obam campaign, makes the sort of statement that should have her pulled from making statements to the press. Explaining that they are going for smaller venues for Barack, she acknoweldges "we spent a little too much time doing the big rallies" and goes on to mention "Obama's fame." That's not really refuting the He's A Celebrity! charge. It only reinforces it. The reporters mention Greensboro, North Carolina and Barack's stop a market there "where he sample a biscuit, a peach and a zucchini muffin". Zucchini muffin? More importantly, arrogance reeked of that stop. You can turn to page A16 of Thursday's New York Times for the photo by Richard Perry of Barack looking arrogant as he holds half a slice of peach and chews the other half. It's not a wine tasting, Barack. You shove that tiny piece in your mouth (all of it) and you chew. No one's waiting for your ruling. He actually looked like Richard Nixon in the photo. Consider that a telling portent. LBJ is perceived as starting the war on Vietnam (it was JFK) and Nixon kept America there.
This week's photos didn't help Barack at all. Who but a celebrity sports nipple? Someone put the candidate in a t-shirt before he puts on one of his thin dress shirts because America really doesn't need to see a presidential candidate's nipples poking through day after day.
One day's round of photos? You allow that the campaign didn't realize how the thin material would photograph under glaring lights. Day after day? You realize the campaign's either ignorant or using Barack's nipples as a selling point. Nipples for President? Well maybe they can do a mock up poster of Barack starring in The Deep next? But remember Psaki says Barack's "fame" is not his "totality" -- and they wonder why the campaign can't connect with the bulk of working class voters?
We'll close with this from Bruce Dixon's "Hope Is For The Weak" (Black Agenda Report):
No less an historical authority than Oprah Winfrey herself has declared Obama's career to be "the fulfillment of Dr. King's Dream", as if the 20th century Freedom Movement was exclusively about overcoming prejudice without challenging America's empire overseas or her inequalities at home. As usual, Oprah has the establishment message dead-on. For more than forty years, the media have taught and sold an eviscerated history of the Freedom Movement which they have branded as "Dr. King's Dream." According to the authorities, "Dr. King's Dream" was about individual worth, about judging people by "the content of their character" and affording an equal opportunity for all to rise. Even though Dr. King died supporting a black union in the midst of a militant citywide strike, the media-endorsed versions of his life, of the Freedom Movement, and of "the Dream" (probably trademarked) which the election of Barack Obama will supposedly "fulfill" are never about collective action, or democracy in workplaces. They never mention the right -- won and held by people in most other nations around the world -- to organize and strike without being fired or penalized. Despite Dr. King's prescient warnings that if we did not swiftly end the war in Vietnam and turn our energies to peace abroad and justice at home we would be marching against US wars here, there and everywhere, we will be told in Denver, on the 45th anniversary of "I Have A Dream" that his legacy is being satisfied by the elevation of a black candidate who celebrates empire, who endorses the so-called worldwide "war on terror", who has assured us he will not end the war in Iraq while he, co-signs the Bush threats to Iran and escalates the conflict in Afghanistan, perhaps extending it to nuclear-armed Pakistan. Despite his African heritage, Obama shows no signs of ending, or even publicly acknowledging the fact that the US has furnished arms and military aid to more than 50 of 54 African nations, making it the most war-torn continent on earth. Thanks in large part to US policies, AK-47s are manufactured nowhere in Africa, but are cheaper there than anywhere else on earth. From Team Nader:
Next Wednesday, Denver is going to be rockin. Thousands will be gathered at the University of Denver Magness arena to protest the corporate lockdown on the Presidential debates. Sean Penn, Val Kilmer, Cindy Sheehan, Tom Morello, Jello Biafra and others will join Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez. Demanding an end to the corporate control over the Presidential debates. So, if there is any chance you can get to Denver Wednesday, you can make a donation to reserve your ticket here. If you can't get to Denver, no problem. Free Speech TV will be streaming the event live on the Internet. (Wednesday, August 27, 7 p.m. Mountain time, 9 p.m. Eastern.) Just click here to watch. Also, the Free Speech TV will be broadcasting the event live on Dish Network Channel 9415. And many local public access channels will be carrying the Free Speech TV feed. (If your public access channel doesn't carry it, call them and ask them to do so. Click here for a list of public access channels.) Anyway, it's going to be an historic event -- protesting the corporate control over our politics -- in the midst of the corporate Democratic spectacle. So, join us in Denver if you can. If not, invite your friends over, and dial up the live Internet feed -- or watch on television via satellite or on your public access channel. Onward to November.
Friday,
August 22, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the Shi'ite thugs want
the Sunni ones gone, US war resister Robin Long is court-martialed and
sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, there is no treaty ('agreement')
between the US and Iraq yet, and more.
Starting with war resistance. US war resister Robin Long was extradited from Canada in July.
He was turned over to US authorities at the border by Canadian
authorities (that is not deportation) and has spent the last weeks at
Fort Carson in Colorado. Utah's Daily Herald noted last night that Robin "plans to plead guilty Friday to a reduced charge of desertion, his lawyer said." TheDetroit Free Press added: "He faces a dishonorable discharge as well as prison time." The Whig Standard explains that Robin's attorney James "Branum
said Long has reached an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to
desertion with intent to remain away permanently, a lesser charge than
desertion with intent to shirk hazardous duty." Nick Kyonka (Toronto Star) quotes
Branam explaining, "In exchange for him pleading guilty, they've agreed
to (lower) the three-year maximum sentence that usually comes with
those charges." Branum added, "I think they want to prosecute him for
free-speech issues without actually charging him for them." Free Speech Radio News will have an audio report today (for those needing or requiring audio).
Karen,
with Fort Carson Public Affairs Office, states Robin was sentenced to
15 months, reduced in Rank E1 and given a dishonorable discharge. Long
has been held at the Criminal Justice Center in El Paso County while
awaiting the court-martial. He will received credit for the time he has
served ("about 40 days").
The Canadian government has announced that US war resister Jeremy Hinzman
will be deported if he does not leave their country by September 23rd.
Whether he would be deported or "deported" is an unanswered question.
Actions are taking place to make the Stephen Harper government respect
the will of the people and let Jeremy remain in Canada. Jeremy is being
highly pro-active and has already taped a video, which you can find at
the War Resisters Support Campaign, where he speaks directly to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada:
Jeremy
Hinzman: Hello, Mr. Harper. This is my family Nga, Liam and Meghan.
We've been in Canada for the last four and a 1/2 years. I was a
specialist in the 82nd Air borne division of the United States Army and
served honorably in Afghanistan. In 2004, my family and I came to
Canada because we would not participate in the Iraqi War, a war which
Canada also refused to participate in because it was condemned by the
international community. One of your predecessors, Pierre Trudeau, once
said that Canada should be have from militarism and we took him at this
word. On June 3, 2008, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion saying
that United States war resisters should be able to remain in Canada.
We're asking you to abide by this motion and allow us to stay in
Canada. Thank you.
Title Card: On September 23rd, the Harper government plans to deport the Hinzman family back to the United States.
Title Card: Hinzman faces a court martial and up to 5 years in military prison for opposing the Iraq war and coming to Canada.
Title Card: War Resisters Support Campaign (Canada): www.resisters.ca
In addition, Independent Catholic News reports
that demonstrations will take place in support of war resisters
(10-hour vigil outside Canada House in Trafalgar Square) and "members
of Pax Christi, the Oxford Catholic Worker and Fellowship of
Reconciliation will join Voices in the Wilderness". The War Resisters Support Campaign announces:
September
13th is a pan-Canadian Day of Action to support U.S. Iraq war resisters
and to demand that the Harper government immediately stop the
deportations. Actions, demonstrations, and pickets will take place in
cities and towns all across Canada. Click here to see a list of actions and to download materials.
If
your city is not listed, consider organizing a local action for
September 13th. Whether it is petitioning in your local farmer's
market, picketing a Conservative MP's office or rallying at a federal
building, we need to go all out to stop the deportation of resisters
like Jeremy Hinzman and Corey Glass!
In addition they are coordinating screenings of Michelle Mason's documentary on war resisters Breaking Ranks for September 14th. Spencer Spratley (Center for Research on Globalization) publishes
an open letter to Stephen Harper where he notes, "I feel that some of
your polices are beginning to depart from deeply held traditional
Canadian values. And you are transforming the face of Canada with the
mandate of a minority Government. You also have a majority in the House
of Commons who voted, on behalf of Canadians, to support the request
made by American War resisters to remain in Canada. I believe you are
turning your back on a majority of Canadians on an issue that is very
important to us. That is not the sign of a democratic Prime Minister.
Somehow Canada has always been a little bit different and we have
always been proud of that. We don't want to be more like anyone else. .
. . . Sir, in the name of decency, compassion, and a higher justice, I
request you to allow American War resisters to remain in Canada as
conscientious objectors. Please don't send them off to have their lives
and families desroyed by an unjust war. Your decision to begin
deporting American war resisters lacks decency and compassion. I
strongly urge you to reconsider your position."
Courage to Resist alerts,
"Supporters are calling on Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration, to intervene. Phone 613.996.4974 or email finley.d@parl.gc.ca,"Iraq Veterans Against the War
also encourages people to take action, "To support Jeremy, call or
email Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and
ask her to intervene in this case. Phone: 613.996.4974 email: finley.d@parl.gc.ca."
There
is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which
includes Yovany Rivero, William Shearer, Michael Thurman, Andrei
Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste,
Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano
Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal,
Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn,
Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross
Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique,
Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez,
Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada,
Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen,
Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman,
Kevin Lee, Daniel Baker, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing,
Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk,
Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey,
Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua
Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell,
Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake,
Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres,
Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and
Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada
have applied for asylum.
In
England, police are announcing that three suspects have been taken into
custody for threats against Gordon Brown, the country's Prime Minister.
Reuters explains
that did not just happen and at least two of the three have been in
custody since last week. The threat against Brown was in written form (Telegraph of London has posted it),
from "the Leader of al-Qaeda in Britain, Shaykh Umar Rabie al-Khalaila"
and demanded both "A complete withdrawal of the British troops from
Afghanistan and Iraq" and "To free all Muslim captives from Belmarsh
prison, and the foremost of them Shaykh Abu Qatada al-Filistini and
Shaykh Abu Hamza al-Misri." The threat gave the deadline of "the last
day of March 2008" and, yes, that has passed. "Threats" may be too
strong of a word. If the demands weren't met (and they clearly weren't)
the note promised to "target all the political leaders especially Tony
Blair" former Prime Minister "and Gordon Brown, and we will also target
all Embassies, Crusaders Centers and their Interest through out the
country, with the help of Allah." 'Target'? Via protests? Via violence?
The letter is not clear. Which may be why the BBC -- which is hyping the story to high-alarm-level -- tucks
this at the end of their report, "Police have until Thursday to charge
the men, release them or seek an extension to their custody." We'll go
ahead and bring in presumed Republican candidate in the US, John McCain who, as Kat explained last night,
had campaign headquarters in New Hampshire and Colorado evacauted
yesterday as a result of 'strange' envelopes with at least one
containing substance. CNN reports that the substance remains unknown ("tested positive for protein") but is "not dangerous." Mary Hudetza (AP) notes
that there's a suspect "Sheriff's officials said the inmate suspected
of sending the letter is Marc Harold Ramsey, 39, who has been
incarcerated since September 2007 on investigation of felony menacing,
harassment and second-degree assault on a peace officer. Ramsey may
face federal felony charges for Thursday's incident, sheriff's
officials said." Back to Iraq.
Today on NPR's News & Notes, Farai Chideya hosted a roundtable with Eric Deggan (St. Petersburg Times) and John Yearwood (Miami Herald)
where they dealt with such non-news topics as the Olympics, political
conventions (where the question was at least asked as to whether or not
they were "legitimate news events") and "Just this morning US and Iraqi
negotiators announced they've reached a deal to withdraw US troops from
Iraq." No. There is no deal. At best there is draft. In the US, the
treaty (which is what the SOFA actually is) needs Senate ratification
-- and Republicans and Democrats in Congress made noises in April of
bucking the White House if it attempted to bypass the Senate's
Constitutional duties and powers. In Iraq, it will a draft would go
through a number of processes including approval by the Parliament.
Yearwood made a real ass of himself when Chideya stated that US combat
troops would be out by 2011 and that the rest would be out by 2013.
Yearwood: "I'm sure that this will be approved by the Parliament as
soon as they come back from vacation and they get their act together."
When will Yearwood get his act together? Deggan was equally foolish
noting that there was talk that timetables were impossible (and "ill
advised") "And here we've done it." No, idiot, nothing's been done. And
if the two 'reporters' were less concerned with cheerleading Barack and
more concerned with reality, they could have avoided making asses out
of themselves. David Alexander and Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) explained:
"A draft agreement between the United States and Iraq contains no fixed
dates for U.S. forces to withdraw, but Iraq would like combat troops
out by the end of 2011, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on
Thursday." No deadlines. NPR needs to stop wasting the tax payer's dime
with bad gas bagging that's so bad, it's downright embarrassing. No
one, not the host, not either of the guests, grasped that it was a
draft (and approval isn't a mere formality) nor did they grasp that
there was not enough information on the draft for them to know what was
in it. The New York Times front paged the nonsense today -- no facts, just a lot of tease conducted by Stephen Farrell. Also missing the boat are Paul Richter and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) who make a point to note
that US Secretary of State Condi Rice "downplayed expectations that
approval of an agreement was imminent" -- Condi was correct on that but
the reporters had trouble grasping it. She's quoted stating, "We'll
have agreement when we have agreement." Leila Fadel and Jonathan S. Landay (McClatchy Newspapers) explain
what happens on the Iraq side, first stop the Executive Council and "If
the council agrees to the draft, it will move to the Political Council
for National Security before going to the Iraqi parliament, which must
approve the agreement before the U.N. mandate expires."
Here
is Gordon Johndroe, White House spokesperson, speaking today (in
Crawford) about the draft, "Towards the end of July, after a secure
video conference between President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, we
announced that, as part of any agreement with the Iraqis establishing
our future bilateral releationship, would include aspirational time
horizons -- goals for women Iraqi troops begin to take over more of the
combat mission in various parts of Iraq, which allow for more US troops
to come home. So any discussions that are ongoing, that we are having
with the Iraqis right now, include these aspirational timelines, these
goals for more troops to come home." Afterwards, asked if the talks
were still "ongoing," Johndroe replied, "And ongoing and ongoing."
Real news was reported by a small number of reporters. One was Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) who explores
the latest on the "Awakening" Council -- Sunni thugs lured by coin. The
White House repeatedly credited the "Awakening" Council members with
the small reduction in violence in Iraq. Appearing before Congress in
April, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker repeatedly hailed the
"Awakening" as a reason for the reduction. Oppel reports that, "The
Shiite-domination government in Iraq is driving out many leaders of
Sunni citizen patrols, the groups of former insurgents who joined the
American payroll and have been a major pillar in the decline in
violence around the nation." Throughout the article, US voices will pop
up objecting. Comments made by a Shi'ite general should alarm Americans
who mistakenly believe the puppet is anything but a thug himself.
Of
the "Awakening" members, Brig Nassir al-Hiti declares, "These people
are like cancer and we must remove them"; while Gen Nassir declares the
"Awakening" are "like a drug addict who quits only to take drugs
again." There's no question that the "Awakening" members are thugs;
there's also no question that Nouri has put thugs in place in the
Interior Ministry, the police force and more. The only difference is
one group of thugs is Sunni ("Awakening") and one group is Shi'ite. The
US installed the Shi'ite thugs. Elections will take place (provincial
elections) at some point. A great deal of what is taking place (the
targeting and arrests of "Awakening" members) has to do with Nouri
& company shoring up their own power base before going into those
elections.
Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes
US Gen David Petraeus declaring of the "Awakeing" Councils (also known
as Sawa and Sons of Iraq), "We're not going to walk away from them, and
as I said, Prime Minister Maliki committed to taking care of them. I do
think it is somewhat understandable that the government struggles to
hire former insurgents for its security forces or for its ministerial
positions... But this is how you end these kinds of conflicts. That's
why they call it reconciliation. It's not done with one's friends, it's
done with former enemies." Fadel also notes
that a "senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad" who states of SOI, "We
cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently." The illegal
war has not improved but you can be sure Bully Boy's worried about the
little bump (provided by the "Awakening" Councils) that he had hoped to
ease out (sneak out?) of office on and how it's fading. Reuters
reporter Ali al-Mashhadani (see was noted in the July 31st snapshot) made news yesterday. Karin Laub (AP) reports
that Ali al-Mashhadani has been released (finally) and that US Maj John
C. Hall told the press the release came about "because he was deemed
not to be a security threat."
It's Friday. Violence is rarely reported on. Reuters notes
an aide of Moqtada al-Sadr was shot dead in Baghdad as was 1 other
person, while "guards" were wounded in Samarra when an "Awakening"
Council member opened fire on those he worked with, and there was a
mortar attack on the Green Zone with at least one mortar making it
inside "the heavily fortified Green Zone."
Turning
to the US presidential race. The Democratic and Republican Parties have
not declared nominees. John McCain is the presumed GOP nominee, Barack
Obama is the presumed Democratic Party nominee. Beginning tonight (in
most markets) both Bill Moyers Journal and Washington Week
travel to Denver but not to cover Robin Long's court-martial. No to
cover the same old and tease it out and tease it out. The DNC
convention (barring a surprise shocker) is nothing but a pageant and
shouldn't even be broadcast, let alone covered. It's garbage, it's
trash and IT'S OLD AND OUT OF DATE. But let's all pretend there's
something to be learned in Denver at a political convention. (And let's
pretend like either show gave a damn when the Green Party had their
convention last month.) (They didn't and they didn't provide coverage.
So much for the 'diversity' of public television.) Bill Schneider (CNN) breaks down the basics:
"Conventions are relics. They don't decide the nominees anymore . . .
No one pays much attention to the party platforms except a few
ideological activists. So why do we still have them? Two reasons: money
and publicity." NOW on PBS
uses its time more effectively by traveling to Africa to again examine
health care. Book note: Independent journalist and artist David Bacon has his latest book published next month. September 1st, Beacon Press released Bacon's Illegal People: How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants
which the publisher notes "explores the human side of globalization,
exposing the many ways it uproots people in Latin American and Asia,
driving them to migrate. At the same time, U.S. immigration policy
makes the labor of those displaced people a crime in the United States.
Illegal People explains why our national policy produces even
more displacement, more migration, more immigration raids, and a more
divided, polarized society."
Back to the US presidential race. Ralph's Daily Audio
-- is independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's audio
commentary. Monday through Friday, the campaign provides audio
commentary at that page. This is "Bob Herbert's World" from earlier in
the week:
This is Ralph Nader. The New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has a problem. He's
written numerous columns complaining about presidential candidates and
their campaigns ignoring serious policy issues. It's as if no one else
is running for president in Bob Herbert's world other than Barack Obama
and John McCain. In a recent article that he wrote in the New York Times,
he complains about how the two major candidates and their campaigns are
ignoring the problems of the cities: the poverty, the transportaion
problems, the lack of repair and expansion of public works and
facilities, the crime. He complains that the mayors have been
complaining that they have been abandoned by Washington, citing a
recent gathering of city mayors that he attended. In
one of these gatherings he cites the mayor of Meridian, Mississippi,
John Robert Smith saying that he believes the nation should devote the
same level of commitment to developing a first-rate passenger rail
system as was marshalled for the interstate highway system in the
Eisenhower era. Well, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign has taken a strong
stand for the expansion and modernization of passenger rail as a way to
save energy, to reduce casualties on the highway and to provide more
immediate evacuation of the cities in case of a calamity or a natural
disaster. But to Bob
Herbert, the Nader Gonzalez campaign which supports almost one-for-one
so many of the issues that he advances and champions doesn't exist. To
him, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign or any progressive third party
campaign doesn't exist in his column so I say to Bob Herbert, "At least
level with your readers, Mr. Herbert, tell them that you think the two
major parties, Republican and Democrat, own all the voters and there's
no one else on the ballot. At least level with them." This is Ralph Nader.
And (again from Ralph's Daily Audio) this is "Forestalling More of the Same:"
This
is Ralph Nader. This year two and a half to three million Americans
will lose their homes to foreclosures. Next year another two and a half
to three million Americans will probably lose their homes. Instead of
helping these Americans keep their homes, both the Democrats and the
Republicans are bailing out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Wall St. banks
and their high paid executives -- the same executives who got us into
this mess by betting the house on sub-prime mortgages. I call this
"Socialism for Spectators." Senator
McCain takes a hands-off approach to the mortgage meltdown. Senator
Obama talks about helping the home owners but is surrounding himself
with the culprits: Wall St. bankers. Obama's economic director? Robert
Rubin protege Jason Furman. Rubin
was the Clintons' Treasury Secretary. He engineered the disastrous
deregulation of Wall St. including the repeal of the Glass Steagall
Act. This Depression-era law separated investment banks from commercial
banking. Had it been in effect, the current mortgage crisis would have
been limited. Rubin went on to be an overpaid executive at Citigroup which he helped tank. Rubin is now advising Senator Obama. Nader-Gonzalez would bring back Glass Steagall. Nader-Gonzalez
would re-instate the usury laws that cap interest rates and we would
regulate Wall St. instead of bailing it out on the backs of American
tax payers. This would
include forcing mortgage companies to re-negotiate the mortgages of
millions of home owners who are currently faced with being thrown out
onto the street as a result of foreclosure. Instead
of punishing the home owners, Nader-Gonzalez would bring justice to the
predatory lenders on Wall St. who deceived them and who got us into
this mess in the first place.
The Green Party of Michigan (GPMI; www.MIGreens.org) will be hosting a press conference for Congresswoman McKinney at 7pm Saturday, August 30 at the International Institute (111 E. Kirby, Detroit). The press conference will be followed by a rally with other GPMI Federal, state, and local candidates at 7:30pm at the same location. The rally is open to the public, and free.
The following evening -- Sunday, August 31 -- Congresswoman McKinney will deliver a key policy speech on the elimination of poverty at the National Welfare Rights Union (www.MWRO.org) Awards Dinner. The dinner, starting at 6:30pm, will be held at St. Paul of the Cross Retreat House, 23333 Schoolcraft, Detroit.
On Monday, Labor Day, Congresswoman McKinney will be joining thousands of union members in Detroit celebrating Labor Day by marching down Woodward Avenue.
August 27th, while the DNC holds their corporate dog and pony show, Ralph Nader is staging a Super Rally in Denver. From Team Nader:
Next Wednesday, Denver is going to be rockin.
Thousands
will be gathered at the University of Denver Magness arena to protest
the corporate lockdown on the Presidential debates.
Sean Penn, Val Kilmer, Cindy Sheehan, Tom Morello, Jello Biafra and others will join Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez.
Demanding an end to the corporate control over the Presidential debates.
So, if there is any chance you can get to Denver Wednesday, you can make a donation to reserve your ticket here.
If you can't get to Denver, no problem.
Free Speech TV will be streaming the event live on the Internet. (Wednesday, August 27, 7 p.m. Mountain time, 9 p.m. Eastern.)
Also, the Free Speech TV will be broadcasting the event live on Dish Network Channel 9415.
And many local public access channels will be carrying the Free Speech TV feed.
(If your public access channel doesn't carry it, call them and ask them to do so. Click here for a list of public access channels.)
Anyway,
it's going to be an historic event -- protesting the corporate control
over our politics -- in the midst of the corporate Democratic
spectacle.
So, join us in Denver if you can.
If
not, invite your friends over, and dial up the live Internet feed -- or
watch on television via satellite or on your public access channel.
Thank or blame Marcia
for a video on Friday. (Yes, we have one this morning on war resisters.
I'll take the blame on that. Vic had e-mailed about it all week and
time kept running out.)
Marcia's watching this at her office where it's very popular. From the Ralph Nader YouTube page, a campaign music video.
In
his trial today at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, Colo., Long will
plead guilty to charges of deserting the U.S. Army with the intent to
stay away permanently. The plea is part of a pre-trial agreement with
military prosecutors last week. "In
exchange for him pleading guilty, they've agreed to (lower) the
three-year maximum sentence that usually comes with those charges,"
Long's Oklahoma-based lawyer, James M. Branum, said in an interview. He wouldn't specify the length of the new maximum. The
army also gave up its right to prosecute Long on other potential
charges related to the outspoken stance he took against the Iraq war
while living in Canada, Branum said. But, he said, prosecutors would
likely use evidence from interviews Long did with Canadian media to try
to convince the court his actions harmed army morale. "I think they want to prosecute him for free-speech issues without actually charging him for them."
As Long prepares for his court-martial, US war resister Jeremy Hinzman waits to see what happens in Canada. August 13th, Hinzman was informed he would be expelled from Canada if he did not leave by September 23rd. The War Resisters Support Campaign is really working overtime to address this very recent development and stop the expulsion:
ALL OUT SEPTEMBER 13...
September
13th is a pan-Canadian Day of Action to support U.S. Iraq war resisters
and to demand that the Harper government immediately stop the
deportations. Actions, demonstrations, and pickets will take place in
cities and towns all across Canada. Click here to see a list of actions and to download materials.
If
your city is not listed, consider organizing a local action for
September 13th. Whether it is petitioning in your local farmer's
market, picketing a Conservative MP's office or rallying at a federal
building, we need to go all out to stop the deportation of resisters
like Jeremy Hinzman and Corey Glass!
… and on September 14th, organize local screenings of Breaking Ranks Canada's
Prime Minister is about to deport Jeremy Hinzman, American
Conscientious Objector to the Iraq War, as well as his wife Nga and two
children by September 23rd. Jeremy is featured in Michelle Mason's
documentary BREAKING RANKS.
• USE THE FILM:
Check your local library or borrow a copy of BREAKING RANKS featuring
Jeremy Hinzman, from the National Film Board Of Canada (contact Jane
Gutteridge at j.gutteridge@nfb.ca) and host a day of action and/or living room screening. Check www.nfb.ca for upcoming screenings of Breaking Ranks in Toronto this September, and in your community.
Coordinated
screenings of Breaking Ranks on the eve of Parliament reconvening gives
supporters the opportunity to organize letter writing parties
afterwards, so that federal ministers' mailboxes are stuffed in the
first days after MPs return to Ottawa.
And
here's Diane Finley making an ass out of herself in public. (What's
with the sun glasses? Is she hung over or has she mistaken herself for
Simone Signoret?)
Independent Catholic News reports
that demonstrations will take place in support of war resisters
(10-hour vigil outside Canada House in Trafalgar Square) and "members
of Pax Christi, the Oxford Catholic Worker and Fellowship of
Reconciliation will join Voices in the Wilderness".
I
believe, in general, that Canadians are very proud of some of their
unique traditions. I believe that Canadians feel good about way we
assisted Americans who did not wish to serve in the Vietnam War. There
is a strong sense that it was the right thing to do and it has become a
proud part of our national identity. For a moment in history, we stood
up for a justice that transcends borders and nationalities. We stood up
for humanity and decency.
Unfortunately,
I am concerned that this Government is moving us farther away from some
of the positions that made Canada the envy of the world. You are
beginning to change the face of Canada in ways that many of us are
uncomfortable with. I am beginning to feel like the Government of
Canada is attempting to adopt an ideology as our national identity and
I am very disturbed by that. I feel that some of your polices are
beginning to depart from deeply held traditional Canadian values. And
you are transforming the face of Canada with the mandate of a minority
Government. You also have a majority in the House of Commons who voted,
on behalf of Canadians, to support the request made by American War
resisters to remain in Canada. I believe you are turning your back on a
majority of Canadians on an issue that is very important to us. That is
not the sign of a democratic Prime Minister. Somehow Canada has always
been a little bit different and we have always been proud of that. We
don't want to be more like anyone else.
Sir,
I believe that the Iraq war lacked any justification whatsoever. The
evidence now makes this painfully clear. America has lost its
credibility at this time in our history. This war in Iraq is only a
notch above the Vietnam War in terms of sheer brutality and the lack of
any meaningful justification. The main difference is that the lies and
the spin this time around have convinced some people otherwise. Others
have just concluded, "Well, there is no justification for it that I can
see. However, there must have been a good reason for it." Most people
are now wising up and recognizing the truth about this war and we are
all seeing and reading about the unbelievable toll it is taking on
young American soldiers and their families. Many returning veterans,
especially those had to undergo the psychological torture of the "stop
loss program", are coming back completely destroyed. Many of them are
beyond the reach of others who would like to help them. The number of
suicides amongst returning vets of the Iraq War is so very high. This
tragedy has to cause your heart to sink, as it does mine. Would you
really want your own son to serve 2 or 3 tours of duty in Iraq sir?
Wouldn't you worry terribly about his physical and mental health?
Sir,
in the name of decency, compassion, and a higher justice, I request you
to allow American War resisters to remain in Canada as conscientious
objectors. Please don't send them off to have their lives and families
desroyed by an unjust war. Your decision to begin deporting American
war resisters lacks decency and compassion. I strongly urge you to
reconsider your position.
Sincerely,
Spencer Spratley
Mississauga, Ontario
Shows airing in most PBS markets (and most start airing tonight, but check your local listings), NOW on PBS:
Can a fast-food business model save lives in Africa? Next on NOWSNEAK PREVIEW FOR BLOGGERS: See the entire show RIGHT NOW at: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/433/index.html Show
Description:Can the quality of healthcare in developing nations be
transformed by the same principle that makes fast food such a success
here? NOW travels to Kenya to continue ongoing coverage of an
enterprising idea: franchising not burger and donut shops, but health
services and drugs in rural Africa. American
businessmen have been teaming with African entrepreneurs to spread
for-profit clinics around the country in the hopes of providing
quality, affordable medical care to even Kenya's poorest people. In
this show, NOW chronicles how the Kenyan facilities weathered recent
violent unrest, as well as the program's expansion into Rwanda. Also
on the show, a massive program to dispense medicine for people with
HIV/AIDS in poor countries is changing lives and restoring hope. A
small team of photographers is capturing those amazing transformations
on film, hoping their compelling images will bring attention to the
importance of drug access in the developing world. The NOW on PBS website (www.pbs.org/now)
will feature personal stories and more photos from the front lines of
the fight for global health, including amazing photographs of those
suffering from HIV/AIDS and discovering hope.
Meanwhile both Bill Moyers Journal and Washington Week
travel to Denver but not to cover Robin Long's court-martial. No to
cover the same old and tease it out and tease it out. The DNC
convention (barring a surprise shocker) is nothing but a pageant and
shouldn't even be broadcast, let alone covered. It's garbage, it's
trash and IT'S OLD AND OUT OF DATE. But let's all pretend there's
something to be learned in Denver at a political convention. (And let's
pretend like either show gave a damn when the Green Party had their
convention last month.) (They didn't and they didn't provide coverage.
So much for the 'diversity' of public television.)
Independent journalist and artist David Bacon continues to cover labor immigration when few others can. His latest book is released at the start of next month:
Available September 1
Illegal People
How Globalization Creates Migration
and Criminalizes Immigrants
For a schedule of coming book discussions and photography exhibitions, go to:
In Illegal People Bacon explores the human side of globalization, exposing the many ways it uproots people in Latin America
and Asia, driving them to migrate. At the same time, U.S. immigration
policy makes the labor of those displaced people a crime in the United
States. Illegal People explains why our national policy produces even
more displacement, more migration, more immigration raids, and a more divided, polarized society.
Through
interviews and on-the-spot reporting from both impoverished communities
abroad and American immigrant workplaces and neighborhoods, Bacon shows
how the United States' trade
and economic policy abroad, in seeking to create a favorable investment
climate for large corporations, creates conditions to displace
communities and set migration into motion. Trade policy and immigration
are intimately linked, Bacon argues, and are, in fact, elements of a
single economic system.
In particular, he analyzes NAFTA's corporate tilt as a cause of displacement and migration from Mexico and shows how criminalizing immigrant labor benefits employers.
Bacon
powerfully traces the development of illegal status back to slavery and
shows the human cost of treating the indispensable labor of millions of
migrants-and the migrants themselves-as illegal. Illegal People argues for a sea change
in the way we think, debate, and legislate around issues of migration
and globalization, making a compelling case for why we need to consider
immigration and migration from a globalized human rights perspective.
"[I]ncisive
investigation . . . Bacon's timely analysis is as cool and competent as
his labor advocacy is unapologetic. In mapping the political economy
of migration, with an unwavering eye on the rights and dignity of
working people, Bacon offers an invaluable corrective to America's
hobbled discourse on immigration and a spur to genuine, creative
action." - review, Publisher's Weekly,
"Bacon, an award-winning
photojournalist, labor organizer, and immigrant-rights activist,
follows the lives of undocumented workers at the Westin Suite Hotel in California and a Smithfield meatpacking plant in North Carolina,
who travel back and forth from Mexico to the U.S. . . . He ties
together interviews, personal histories, and political analysis to
provide a vivid image of what life is like for workers with little
rights or protections in an increasingly globalized economy." review,
Vanessa Bush, Booklist
"David Bacon is the conscience of American journalism: an extraordinary social documentarist in the rugged humanist tradition of Dorothea Lange, Carey McWilliams, and Ernesto Galarza.." - Mike Davis
That's September 1st. Let's turn to the US presidential race. First up, from independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader (Ralph's Daily Audio) this is "Forestalling More of the Same:"
This
is Ralph Nader. This year two and a half to three million Americans
will lose their homes to foreclosures. Next year another two and a half
to three million Americans will probably lose their homes. Instead of
helping these Americans keep their homes, both the Democrats and the
Republicans are bailing out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Wall St. banks
and their high paid executives -- the same executives who got us into
this mess by betting the house on sub-prime mortgages. I call this
"Socialism for Spectators." Senator
McCain takes a hands-off approach to the mortgage meltdown. Senator
Obama talks about helping the home owners but is surrounding himself
with the culprits: Wall St. bankers. Obama's economic director? Robert
Rubin protege Jason Furman. Rubin
was the Clintons' Treasury Secretary. He engineered the disastrous
deregulation of Wall St. including the repeal of the Glass Steagall
Act. This Depression-era law separated investment banks from commercial
banking. Had it been in effect, the current mortgage crisis would have
been limited. Rubin went on to be an overpaid executive at Citigroup which he helped tank. Rubin is now advising Senator Obama. Nader-Gonzalez would bring back Glass Steagall. Nader-Gonzalez
would re-instate the usury laws that cap interest rates and we would
regulate Wall St. instead of bailing it out on the backs of American
tax payers. This would
include forcing mortgage companies to re-negotiate the mortgages of
millions of home owners who are currently faced with being thrown out
onto the street as a result of foreclosure. Instead
of punishing the home owners, Nader-Gonzalez would bring justice to the
predatory lenders on Wall St. who deceived them and who got us into
this mess in the first place.
Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential nominee. We'll note the following press release on her campaign:
Green Party of Michigan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.migreens.org
For More Information, Contact: ----------------------------- Fred Vitale, State Coordinator McKinney/Clemente Campaign 313-580-4905 FredDetroit@sbcglobal.net OR chair@migreens.org
Cynthia McKinney, Green Party Candidate for President, Will Spend Labor Day Weekend Visiting Michigan ==============================================
(Detroit) --- Cynthia McKinney (www.votetruth08.com), Presidential candidate of the Green Party of the United States (GPUS; www.GP.org) and head of the first nationwide ticket putting two women of color on ballots across the US, will visit Michigan for Labor Day weekend August 30 - September 1.
The Green Party of Michigan (GPMI; www.MIGreens.org) will be hosting a press conference for Congresswoman McKinney at 7pm Saturday, August 30 at the International Institute (111 E. Kirby, Detroit). The press conference will be followed by a rally with other GPMI Federal, state, and local candidates at 7:30pm at the same location. The rally is open to the public, and free.
The following evening -- Sunday, August 31 -- Congresswoman McKinney will deliver a key policy speech on the elimination of poverty at the National Welfare Rights Union (www.MWRO.org) Awards Dinner. The dinner, starting at 6:30pm, will be held at St. Paul of the Cross Retreat House, 23333 Schoolcraft, Detroit.
On Monday, Labor Day, Congresswoman McKinney will be joining thousands of union members in Detroit celebrating Labor Day by marching down Woodward Avenue.
Other campaign events during the visit will be announced as the details are finalized.
The Green Party of Michigan welcomes Cynthia McKinney to Michigan. She will lead GPMI's 2008 slate -- which includes
* Harley Mikkelson of Caro, retired after service with the Army in Vietnam and for 26 years in Michigan state government, for US Senate (www.harleymikkelson.com);
* Rev. Edward Pinkney, a Benton Harbor community activist currently unjustly imprisoned at Hiawatha Correctional Facility, running to represent his home 6th Congressional District in the US House (see also BHBANCO.blogspot.com); and
* 30 other Michigan Greens running for Federal, state, and local offices.
Cynthia McKinney is a six-term former Congresswoman from Georgia who quit the Democratic Party on her birthday in 2007 because the Democratic Party no longer represented her values. She joined the Green Party, campaigned for its Presidential nomination, and was nominated in Chicago at the Green Party National Convention on July 12 (www.votetruth08.com).
During her time in Congress, Cynthia McKinney
* consistently opposed funding for bloated military and secret intelligence budgets;
* introduced Articles of Impeachment for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice;
* introduced, championed, and passed in the U.S. House the Arms Trade Code of Conduct, prohibiting the sale of arms to known human-rights abusers; and
* passed legislation to extend health benefits for Vietnam War veterans still suffering the health effects of exposure to the defoliant Agent Orange.
She currently serves on an International tribunal on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and on the Brussels Tribunal on Iraq. She is also participating in War Crimes prosecutions in Spain, and working with the Malaysian Peace organization to criminalize war.
Cynthia McKinney’s long-time advocacy for poor people and her recent participation as a Commissioner in the Truth Commission for Water Rights held in Detroit May 3 prompted anti-poverty leaders to invite her as the guest speaker for the Awards Dinner at the National Welfare Rights Union Retreat.
Currently on the ballot in 25 states that hold a majority of electoral votes -- and with a good chance to make it on in several more states -- the Green Party presidential ticket is breaking new ground, and breaking down barriers, in American politics with the Cynthia McKinney-Rosa Clemente campaign.
The campaign has also crossed the fundraising threshold in 14 states (including Michigan) out of the 20 required to qualify for matching Federal funds for the primary season. The deadline to qualify in at least six more states, and earn matching funds, is September 4.
The McKinney/Clemente campaign offers a profoundly pro- people, anti-corporate program for this election. Congress- woman McKinney will bring the troops home -- all the troops -- not only from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from every country where US troops are stationed. She will reduce significantly the bloated Pentagon budget, and spend the money here at home. She supports an immediate moratorium on foreclosures. She wants to convert the prisons for profit into money spent on education. She supports universal, single-payer healthcare.
As her running mate, Congresswoman McKinney chose Rosa Clemente (www.RosaClemente.com). Ms. Clemente brings strong credentials to this race. She is a founder of the Hip-Hop Convention, a community activist, and a scholar.
For complete information on the Green Party's historic Presidential ticket, please visit the candidates' Websites:
Green Party of Michigan 548 South Main Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://www.migreens.org 734-663-3555
GPMI was formed in 1987 to address environmental issues in Michigan politics. Greens are organized in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each state Green Party sets its own goals and creates its own structure, but US Greens agree on Ten Key Values:
Ecological Wisdom Grassroots Democracy Social Justice Non-Violence Community Economics Decentralization Feminism Respect for Diversity Personal/Global Responsibility Future Focus/Sustainability
The New York Times has real news on the front page but Stephen Farrell can't see it, despite all the space given to his "Draft Accord Said to Set Goals for Iraq Pullout."
The news comes via Khalid Mohammed's front page photo of US Secretary
of State Condi Rice. She's raided Elvis' closet! How else to explain
the shiny, sparkly suit she wears. Couldn't someone have told her that
it was career suicide for Phil Ochs when he began wear the Elvis gold
suit.
Refusing to break the news that really matters, Farrell
goes on for paragraph after paragraph, saying very little but you
really can't tease out a story on a treaty proposal when you haven't
seen it and you have no strong confirmation of what it really says, now
can you?
But he's on the front page and continued on A10 and
trying so hard to turn it into a story. Less time teasing it out and
more time getting honest with readers (such as what is withdrawal and
what isn't) would have made for a better use of time.
Also on the front page is Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "Iraq Takes Aim at Leaders Of U.S.-Tied Sunni Groups"
which is not a waste of time to read. The White House repeatedly
credited the "Awakening" Council members with the small reduction in
violence in Iraq. Appearing before Congress in April, US Ambassador to
Iraq Ryan Crocker repeatedly hailed the "Awakening" as a reason for the
reduction. Oppel reports that, "The Shiite-domination government in
Iraq is driving out many leaders of Sunni citizen patrols, the groups
of former insurgents who joined the American payroll and have been a
major pillar in the decline in violence around the nation." Throughout
the article, US voices will pop up objecting. Comments made by a
Shi'ite general should alarm Americans who mistakenly believe the
puppet is anything but a thug himself.
Of the "Awakening"
members, Brig Nassir al-Hiti declares, "These people are like cancer
and we must remove them"; while Gen Nassir declares the "Awakening" are
"like a drug addict who quits only to take drugs again." There's no
question that the "Awakening" members are thugs; there's also no
question that Nouri has put thugs in place in the Interior Ministry,
the police force and more. The only difference is one group of thugs is
Sunni ("Awakening") and one group is Shi'ite. The US installed the
Shi'ite thugs. Elections will take place (provincial elections) at some
point. A great deal of what is taking place (the targeting and arrests
of "Awakening" members) has to do with Nouri & company shoring up
their own power base before going into those elections.
But
the Iraqi government, which is led by Shiite Muslims, has brought only
a relative handful of the more than 100,000 militia members into the
security forces. Now officials are making it clear that they don't
intend to include most of the rest. "We
cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently," said one
senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad, who spoke only on the condition of
anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue. "Many of
them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are
helping us to fight al Qaida." He
said the army was considering setting a Nov. 1 deadline for those
militia members who hadn't been absorbed into the security forces or
given civilian jobs to give up their weapons. After that, they'd be
arrested, he said.
Does it sound a great deal like what
Nouri's thugs have attempted (and are attempting) with Moqtada
al-Sadr's supporters? It should. Fadel speaks with US General David
Petraeus for "Petraeus: Iraq slows hiring of former insurgents:"
"We're
not going to walk away from them, and as I said, Prime Minister Maliki
committed to taking care of them," he said. "I do think it is somewhat
understandable that the government struggles to hire former insurgents
for its security forces or for its ministerial positions...But this is
how you end these kinds of conflicts. That's why they call it
reconciliation. It's not done with one's friends, it's done with former
enemies."
The illegal war has not improved but you can be
sure Bully Boy's worried about the little bump (provided by the
"Awakening" Councils) that he had hoped to ease out (sneak out?) of
office on and how it's fading.
Meanwhile, AP reports that journalist Ali al-Mashhadani is being held by the US military at Camp Cropper. al-Mashhadani works for Reuters, BBC and NPR. Dean Yates (Reuters) reports
that (as usual) no charges have been brought against Ali and quotes
David Schlesinger (Reuters Editor-in-Chief) explaining, "Any
accusations against a journalist should be aired publicly and dealt
with fairly and swiftly, with the journalist having the right to
counsel and present a defense." From Monday's snapshot, "Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) reported
. . . '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'." Saturday, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) wrote about Arkan at Baghdad Observer
noting that he "often stayed late at his father's newsroom in Kirkuk.
The editor-in-chief of the weekly Voice of Villages, Ali Taha, treated
his son as a journalist in training. . . . The teen listened to pop
music and was obsessed with computer games. He loved the weekly trips
he took with his father to sites in the area. The most recent trip was
to the Dokan Dam, the primary water source in Kirkuk. He loved to stay
late into the night at the Voice of Villages newsroom, a U.S. supported
weekly, and help in any way he could. Who knows what he would've been
when he grew up. Who knows what life he would've lived. God had other
plans, his father said."
U.S.
military authorities should present charges against a Reuters cameraman
detained since last Tuesday, or they should release him immediately,
the Committee to Protect Journalists said today. [. . .] A
spokeswoman for the Multi-National Forces-Iraq told CPJ that
al-Mashhadani was detained because he posed a security risk and that
his case would be reviewed within a seven-day period that began on July
29. "This is the third
time U.S. forces have detained Ali al-Mashhadani without charge," said
CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney. "The military has never
substantiated any wrongdoing by him. The authorities must make evidence
against him public or release him immediately."
Karin Laub (AP) reports
that Ali al-Mashhadani has been released (finally) and that US Maj John
C. Hall told the press the release came about "because he was deemed
not to be a security threat."
But
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who met with Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri Maliki in Baghdad's fortress-like Green Zone, downplayed
expectations that approval of an agreement was imminent. "We'll have agreement when we have agreement," Rice told reporters, addressing speculation that a deal was near.
I'm
not sure Condi's downplaying so much as she's pointing out the basic
facts. Fadel and Jonathan S. Landay stick to the basics in her
reporting of this story here.
Kyle asks that we again note "Bob Herbert's World" from Ralph's Daily Audio -- independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's audio commentary:
This is Ralph Nader. The New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has a problem. He's
written numerous columns complaining about presidential candidates and
their campaigns ignoring serious policy issues. It's as if no one else
is running for president in Bob Herbert's world other than Barack Obama
and John McCain. In a recent article that he wrote in the New York Times,
he complains about how the two major candidates and their campaigns are
ignoring the problems of the cities: the poverty, the transportaion
problems, the lack of repair and expansion of public works and
facilities, the crime. He complains that the mayors have been
complaining that they have been abandoned by Washington, citing a
recent gathering of city mayors that he attended. In
one of these gatherings he cites the mayor of Meridian, Mississippi,
John Robert Smith saying that he believes the nation should devote the
same level of commitment to developing a first-rate passenger rail
system as was marshalled for the interstate highway system in the
Eisenhower era. Well, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign has taken a strong
stand for the expansion and modernization of passenger rail as a way to
save energy, to reduce casualties on the highway and to provide more
immediate evacuation of the cities in case of a calamity or a natural
disaster. But to Bob
Herbert, the Nader Gonzalez campaign which supports almost one-for-one
so many of the issues that he advances and champions doesn't exist. To
him, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign or any progressive third party
campaign doesn't exist in his column so I say to Bob Herbert, "At least
level with your readers, Mr. Herbert, tell them that you think the two
major parties, Republican and Democrat, own all the voters and there's
no one else on the ballot. At least level with them." This is Ralph Nader.
This
week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) officials are pushing various agencies charged with
regulating banks, such as the Treasury’s Office of Thrift Supervision
to more aggressively give problem banks lower ratings than they may now
be receiving from regulators. Regulators give banks a rank between 1
and 5. Well-managed banks get a 1, problem banks receive a 4 or 5. The
FDIC wants to see more banks getting 4s or 5s.
In
late July, I wrote to U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial
Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass. to suggest that they
jointly hold hearings on the FDIC’s ability to deal with potential bank
failures in the next several years. In the letter, I noted that in a
March 10, 2008 memorandum on insurance assessment rates, Arthur J.
Murton, Director of the Division of Insurance and Research for the FDIC
stated:
While 99 percent of insured
institutions meet the "well capitalized" criteria, the possibility
remains that the fund could suffer insurance losses that are
significantly higher than anticipated. The U.S. economy and the banking
sector currently face a significant amount of uncertainty from ongoing
housing sector problems, financial market turbulence and potentially
weak prospects for consumer spending. These problems could lead to
significantly higher loan losses and weaker earnings for insured
institutions.
FDIC Chairman Sheila
C. Bair, however, has been singing a more upbeat tune. She recently
said, "The banking system in this country remains on a solid footing
through the guarantees provided by FDIC insurance. The overwhelming
majority of banks in this country are safe and sound and the chances
that your own bank could fail are remote. However, if that does happen,
the FDIC will be there - as always - to protect your insured deposits."
Despite these reassuring words, the
recent failure of IndyMac highlights the need for tough Congressional
oversight. Banking experts have indicated that the cost of the collapse
of IndyMac alone will be between $4 billion and $8 billion. The FDIC
has approximately $53 billion on hand to deal with bank failures. This
amount may not be adequate, given the cost of IndyMac and given the
approximately $4 trillion in deposits the FDIC insures.
Congressional
oversight of the financial services industry and its regulators should
be a topic priority for Congress. I even suggested several questions
that should be put to FDIC officials such as:
1. Was IndyMac on the list of "Problem Institutions" before it failed?
2. Were the other banks that failed this year on the FDIC list of "Problem Institutions"?
3. What is the anticipated cost of dealing with the failures of the other four banks that failed this year?
4.
As of March 31, 2008 the FDIC reported 90 "Problem Institutions" with
assets of $26 billion. What is the current number of "Problem
Institutions" and what are the assets of these "Problem Institutions"?
5. How many banks are likely to fail in 2008 and 2009 respectively?
6. What is the estimated range of costs of dealing with the projected failures?
7. What will the effect of higher losses than those projected be on the FDIC’s estimate of the proper reserve ratio?
8. What are the FDIC's projections for reserves needed and potential bank failures beyond 2009?
9.
Is the FDIC resisting raising the current rates of assessments on FDIC
insured banks so that the cost of any significant bailouts will have to
be shifted to the taxpayers?
10.
Does the Government Accountability Office (GAO) believe that the
existing rate schedule for banks to pay into the Deposit Insurance Fund
(DIF) is set at the proper level?
It would also make sense for Congress to revisit the FDIC's current approach to setting reserve ratios for banks.
The
FDIC is not likely to address its own inability to clearly assess the
current risks posed to depositors and taxpayers by the high-rolling,
bailout-prone banking industry.
When
Congress reconvenes after Labor Day it would be prudent for Senator
Dodd and Congressman Frank to focus on the FDIC and our nation’s
troubled banks through some tough no-holds-barred hearings. These two
lawmakers are going to have to hear from the people back home soon.
Neither Senator Dodd nor Congressman Frank have responded to my letter of July 23, 2008.
* One of the dumbest things I've seen was a panel with that chick from the Nation,
Kristen van Whatever, at Emily’s List. It was the day that Dean finally
-- FINALLY -- said something about the sexist media coverage, after
Hillary had conceded of course and when she referenced it as if this
was some great thing, Dean's name got booed. She seemed surprised by it
and asked if it was about Florida and Michigan. It clearly was not.
Finally, someone explained to her that it was because Dean had sat
silent until the primary was over and then acted like he suddenly
discovered the sexism. To her credit, Salon's Rebecca Traister knew
exactly why women were angry with Dean and the party and said that one
of the things that needed to be discussed was how not all of the
misogyny came from the media and the right and why it was only after
Hillary conceded that the sexism could be discussed at all.
The above is from BDBlue's "A New Agenda" (Corrente Wire)
and Katrinket vanden Heuvel continues to receive 'raves.' So Katrinket
couldn't grasp how offensive the sexism was? That's only surprising if
you haven't read the waste of time journal she is editor and publisher
of.
As Ava and C.I. noted in real time, and as Ruth noted this spring,
that is where you would find a book 'review' by centrist Peter Bergen
entitled "Waltzing With Warlords" which allegedly would address three
books: Sarah Chayes' The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After
the Taliban; Ann Jones' Kabul In Winter: Life Without Peace in
Afghanistan; and Rory Stewart's The Places in Between. Page wise, the
smallest of three was the one written by Rory Stewart in . . . 2004.
Reviewed for the January 2007 issue, a 2004 book. [An expanded version
was published in May of 2006. Still far too old to qualify for a review
in a January 2007 issue.] Why include a book that was three years old
at this point? One of the many puzzling questions pertaining males the
magazine has consistently raised in the last six months.
Our
guess is when you want to cook the book 'review' against women, you'll
go to any lengths. Centrist and pig Bergen opens his alleged book
review reflecting on the obvious image for a war-torn Afghanistan:
I
open it and step into a world far removed from the dust-blown avenues
of Kabul, where most women wear burqas and the vast majority of the
population live in grinding poverty.At one end of a long room is a
well-stocked bar tended by a Chinese madam who assesses us with a
practiced calculus. In front of her are more than a dozen scantily clad
smiling young Chinese women sprawled over a series of bar stools and
couches.
What does that
have to do with the three books? Not a damn thing. But Bergen wants his
jollies and apparently feels everyone needs to know that he visits
bordellos. How proud his parents must be! His former classmates,
probably not at all surprised.
Having
set the (low-brow) tone, Bergen quickly rushes to explain not all
women, apparently, know their place. No, apparently, some women reach
beyond their 'natural' abilities such as Chayes and Jones, both of whom
are too 'emotional' to write about Afghanistan.
Bergen
finds Chayes "angry," "disillusioned," prone to "a smidge of
self-congratulations" and not at all trust worthy (". . . we have to
take Chayes's word for it"). Bergen finds Jones even more of the text
book example of the female 'hysteria' noting that she fell for "trope,"
that she, too, is "angry" (we're guessing most women Bergen encounters
are angry and that Bergen can find the reason for that just by looking
in the mirror), that she suffers from a "tendency to see sinister
conspiracies where they don't exist" (so irrational, those women), and
much more! The funnin' never stops for Bergen.
Then
it's time to turn to the male writer and all the troubles with (women)
writers go out the window as Bergen informs us of "Stewart's
beautifully written book," offering "picaresque stories, of adventures
on the road is a critical point that is often overlooked by Westerners
with dreams of transforming Afghanistan into a place where women enjoy
equal rights" (killjoys!), "skeptical" (as opposed to the
"disillusioned" Chayes), "erudite" and so, so much more.
The
book 'review' is nothing but a pig going Oink-Oink-Oink! For those who
know no better, Sarah Chayes is a Harvard graduate and a professional
reporter who left NPR to live in Afghanistan and work to improve
conditions in that country. While she was doing that, Bill Moyers
didn't find her 'emotional' and, in fact, had her on as a guest for a lengthy segment of what was then Now with Bill Moyers where she spoke with David Branccacio. Journalists, including Amy Goodman, have interviewed Chayes since she has written her book and we're aware of no on air meltdowns.
In
fact, most feel Chayes, a professionally trained and respected
journalist, is a reliable source for what she observed with her own
eyes while in Afghanistan. To assist gas bag Bergen, what Chayes does
is considered reporting. That may be confusing in a new world disorder
where 'reporters' are encouraged to run with official statements and
give them complete weight -- even when they contradict with the
journalist's own observations. Who, what, where, when -- the journalism
basics -- are what Chayes covers and Bergen can't handle that kind of
reality (from a woman) so he has to point out that, in a first-hand
recounting, we [gasp!] are dependent upon the author's observations.
Ann
Jones has contributed to The Nation before and, we're sure, is quite
aware that there is no more damning phrase from that magazine than
being said to possess "a tendency to see conspiracy theories." That is
The Nation's equivalent of "Your mother!"
Not
only is Jones an author, she's also a journalist and photographer --
with a doctorate as opposed to Bergen's B.A. and, we're sure, the B.S.
he's more than earned from years of gas baggery. As for her alleged
conspiracy theories, Nation Books only bestsellers, both by Gore Vidal,
also argue the (true) narrative that, in the 90s, a proposed pipeline
in Afghanistan trumped all other concerns for the US government. That's
not a controversial theory to anyone but pigs who 'reported' for
commercial TV 'journalism' (which is where Bergen hails from -- the
lowest of all forms of journalism). Those not late to the party (that
would be feminists) were calling out Afghanistan in the 90s while paid
lobbyists were presenting PG-friendly versions of the country to
Americans. Jones knows what she's writing about. Gore Vidal knows what
he's writing about. The only one lost, intentionally or not, is Peter
Bergen. [The February 25, 2007 "The Nation Stats" notes that Jones weighed in with a letter and that Bergen elected to ignore the bulk of it.]
That
a three page plus book 'review' trafficking in the worst forms of
sexism raised no flags to those in charge of the magazine goes a long,
long way towards explaining how readers ended up with the first six
months of The Nation this year.
Katrinket vanden
Heuvel's magazine (that she edits and publishes) managed to make it
through the first six months of 2007 and it published 255 male bylines and 74 female ones during that time. The Nation
tried to pre-empt the article by rushing out an e-mail saying they were
aware of the problem and that they were fixing it. Oh really? Before
that article went up at all community sites, The Nation knew
of the problem and was fixing it? Well then the second half of 2007
should have found a marked improvement; however, that's not what
happened, now is it?
"The Nation featured 491 male bylines in 2007 -- how many female ones?" asked The Third Estate Sunday Review.
The answer: 149. This happened while Katrinket was trying to get credit
for being a female editor and publisher. And it was just as bad in 2006
which is why we ended up covering the issue to begin with.
It's not a minor issue. When Katrinket thinks she can get away with that crap, even after The Nation's
e-mailing mid-way through 2007 saying they know about the problem (and
trying to kill the article) and her magazine makes no effort to improve
the number of female bylines published, you're dealing with a Queen
Bee. A woman who defines "female success" as "I got mine."
So the hostility she and others at The Nation aimed at Hillary non-stop in 2008 shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone paying attention.
Katrinket
likes to pretend she gives a damn about other women in her writing
(when not using her writing to define testicles as the source of the
strength). So it's no surprise that uber trash Katrinket not only
encouraged the trashing of Hillary (never forget, she farmed out her
coffee-fetcher to Barack's campaign where he is the official campaign
blogger). She, Betsy Reed, Laura Flanders and other 'strong' women felt
the best way to attack Hillary was always to question her womanhood.
Let's break it down for Katrina who may be confused (she does think
testicles are the measure for strength -- any Crying Game secret you need to share, vanden Heuvel?): Hillary is a woman. She is not transgendered. She is 100% woman. Barack, whom The Nation
insisted repeatedly was "Black" is, in fact, bi-racial. And the divide
there is 50% Black and 50% White. They never questioned the role they
assigned him but they repeatedly questioned the gender of Hillary.
As
late as June 4th, Katrinket was wanting to insist, "The women of The
Nation are the first to deplore the sexism in media commentary this
primary season". In what world? Katrinket started out 2007 printing a
'book review' that slammed two women in the most stereotypical terms
and the 'book review' opened with a trip by the male pig to a bordello.
That should have said a lot. But as for "the women of the Nation"
(yeah, Katrina makes it sound like they've just shot their Playboy spread -- her idea of 'classy') . . .
Self-loathing
lesbian Laura Flanders never called out Barack's use of homophobia in
South Carolina. What's a few gay bashing incidents that could arise
from that when she's found a man to love? It wasn't enough for her to
lust over Barack, she also had to rip apart Hillary. She did that by
lying and distorting Hillary's record. She did that by pretending
Hillary spoke out in the 90s for women and never said another word
when, in fact, Hillary was calling attention to what was being done to
Iraqi women in the first year of the illegal war. There's much more to
list but the point is Flanders whored for her man. As a lesbian, it may
have been a first for her. It was not a 'last.' She showed up on KPFA,
where she refused to inform listeners that she (like all other guests
on that two-hour 'analysis' of the Texas debate) had publicly endorsed
Barack Obama. But that 'woman of the Nation' did find time to twice
refer to Hillary's laugh as, yes, a "cackle." How very 'feminist' of
Laura Flanders. At what point does she plan to apologize? Vast Left is
calling Rachel Maddow out at Corrente and Maddow needs to be
called out. But Laura Flanders shamed herself. And thinks she can walk
unscathed. And thinks she can get away without taking accountablity for
her actions. And get away with being this century's Rose Marie. Good
news, America, Sally Rogers finally landed herself a man!
There's Betsy Reed,
Katrinket's jug-eared Queen Bee running mate. Bitsy showed up in May
with what will no doubt be the title of her own life story, "Race to
the Bottom." In it, Bits pulled Katrinket's trick of pretending to
acknowledge sexism briefly. Both women refused to call out Nation cover boy Keith Olbermann. Strange, wasn't it?
Like
the tired, musty relic that she is, Bits couldn't really acknowledge
sexism. She had to trash women who did (Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinem --
Flanders also trashed Robin) and put forward the idea that an
"oppression sweepstake" was being played out. That would be by the
"Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves" at The Nation and many other outlets. But it was the "GTT" of The Nation
who started it with their non-stop claims of racism and, in fact, their
defining a bi-racial man as "Black" in order to forever play the race
card. Remember it was early 2007 when Professor Patti Williams tried to
lie on KPFA that Barack voted against the Iraq War and remember how
nasty and rude she got when she was pulled away from her non-stop
recitation of "First Black Man To Be President Of The Harvard Law
Review!" because a caller with a MidEastern accent dared to point out
that Barack wasn't in the US Senate in 2002. Remember how Professor
Patti snarled? They decided long before the election where they were
going. It was Katrinket that paired Barack's campaign with Facebook and
did so via the 'institute' she runs on.
Bits is nothing but a
liar. An unwanted liar, to be sure. (Ha, ha, Betsy, heard about it!
Laughed at you! Now passing it on to everyone I know!) But she is a
little liar, a little lying sack of s**t and that's all she ever be. So
of course, in her lie filled column, she felt the need to 'source'
herself via ULTIMATE LIE FACE Melissa Harris-Lacewell.
For those not in the know (click here), Amy Goodman invited her roll dog Melissa Harris-Lacewell on Democracy Now!
and some of you are saying, "Yes, she ripped into Gloria Steinem." Yes,
there was that set-up, where Amy and Melissa plotted ahead of time and
Amy flat-out lied to Gloria about what she was walking into (Gloria
does not participate in anything that can be viewed as a cat-fight --
sad news for Goody because when Gloria caught on to what was actually
going down, she remained calm and allowed Melissa to disgrace herself
even more than usual). But before Melissa showed up for that grudge
f**k, she had been the week prior. That's right, Melissa
Harris-Lacewell who would brag about being part of Obama's campaign
during her attempted attack on Gloria, was on Democracy Now!
the week prior. And, wouldn't you know it, she found time to praise
Barack. Understand, she just happened to catch his speech in New
Hampshire. Or that's the LIE Amy Goodman and Melissa wanted the
audience to believe. It is unethical for someone with a campaign to go
on a broadcast and talk up their candidate without revealing to the
audience that the person speaking is part of the campaign. But LIE FACE
LACEWELL thought she could get away with it and so did Amy Goodman.
That was a HUGE ethical breach. And it's what's harmed Goody's show
with NPR because that little stunt is against NPR guidelines -- NPR's
written, ethical guidelines. Goody tried to play like she didn't know
anything about it. But prior to having LIE FACE on the show the first
time, she'd joined LIE FACE on Jesse Jackson's show and she knew
Melissa.
So it's hilarious that Bits wants to cite Melissa Harris-Lacewell as reputable.
[For those late to the party, in March,
LIAR LACEWELL would top that moment. She'd go on PBS' Charlie Rose. All
other panelists would be reporters. Melissa was billed as a professor.
Not only did she never disclose -- nor did Charlie -- that she was with
Barack's campaign, not only did she float the treat of a 'brown-out' if
Barack didn't get the nomination, she also took it upon herself to talk
about how 'some people' were upset with Tavis Smiley. She left out the
part where she launched those attacks with her blog post "Who Died And
Made Tavis King?"]
But that's the lying crowd a jug-eared, sad
woman has to run with. She lies because she is so very pathetic. Which
is how she includes this:
A mere three days after
Obama spoke those words, Bill Clinton made this statement in North
Carolina about a potential Clinton-McCain general election matchup: "I
think it'd be a great thing if we had an election year where you had
two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of
this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on
these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to
intrude itself on our politics." Whether or not this statement
constituted McCarthyism, as one Obama surrogate alleged [. . .]
Obama surrogate? I seem to remember Bill Ayers' brother screaming "McCarthyism!" from Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box. Do you really want to go there, Betsy? Do YOU really want to go there? Media Matters called out what Bitsy's floating nonsense when Chris Matthews floated it previously.
She also lies (and tries to play a race card) by doing what The Nation
did repeatedly -- claiming the only ones who supported Hillary were
White. Gary Younge couldn't tell the truth in The Nation (or at the
mag's website) but writing for the UK's Socialist Review in July, he could let a little slip out. From the July 29th snapshot:
"[Obama]
is being consumed as the embodiment of colour blindness," Angela Davis,
professor of history of consciousness at the University of California,
Santa Cruz, told me last year. "It's the notion that we have moved
beyond racism by not taking race into account. That's what makes him
conceivable as a presidential candidate. He's become the model of
diversity in this period... a model of diversity as the difference that
makes no difference. The change that brings no change." Finally, he did
not build a multi-racial coalition but a bi-racial one. Clinton's base
has been erroneously portrayed as simply the white working class and
older white women. But in California Latinos and Asian-Americans went
much more heavily for Clinton than whites did and made her victory
possible. The same was true with Latinos in Texas. Indeed the only
state where Obama won the Latino vote was his home state of Illinois.
And even then by just 1 percent.
Gary Younge, has it been erroneously reported? Yeah and you certainly did your part to PUSH THE LIE in your other two outlets.
The two outlets were The Nation and the Guardian of London -- both party organs. They couldn't tell the truth in The Nation.
Maybe that's a good thing? If you remember, Amy Goodman devoted a
lengthy segment to smearing Puerto Ricans as racists after Hillary won
the primary there. So maybe it's a good thing that The Nation just stuck with, "Hillary's support is all White!"?
Women of the Nation,
Katrinket? There's Katha Pollitt who found time to twice call out
sexism in the Democratic primaries. Twice. Katha must have worked up a
sweat on that. Poor thing. Twice she had to do her damn job. The job
that wrongly has her credited as a 'leading feminist' when all she is a
sad, sad woman, the Charlotte Rae den mother to the push-up bra
'feminist' set.
Which brings up back to Katrinket and her 'women
of the Nation' column which CBS re-posted and which, as Ava and I
pointed out, no surprise, got a lot of sexist pigs in the comments
cheering Katrinket on with lines like, "Maybe if she" Hillary "did a
Playboy spread she could get some votes." That is the audience for
Katrina's crap. It's the audience for the crap that all the women and
men produced at The Nation. Are we supposed to forget John
Nichols attempting to spread a fasle rumor and claiming he was
researching it and would have more soon? (Barack's campaign told Canada
not to worry about Barack's NAFTA talk. When caught, his groupies went
into overtime. John Nichols went to Canada and showed up on Democracy Now!
to smear Hillary with a false rumor that she was the one doing the
talking. Johnny Five-Cents never had a follow up because there was
none. He's never retracted nor apologized for his lie.)
Katrina
dispatched her minions to go after Hillary. The same way she used an
intern to scrub her Wikipedia entry of the references to her father's
past spying career. (Katrina, tell your interns not to use the same
handle they use on their MySpace page. It was very easy to track down
after friends at the magazine gave a heads up to how you were using the
interns.) She's a liar, she's a public liar. Her resume (that she
oversaw) includes the lie that she won an award from Planned
Parenthood. No, she did not. The award went to The Nation
magazine. She was not singled out on the ballot nor when the award was
handed out. She did not win an award from Planned Parenthood, the
magazine did. But she insists upon claiming she otherwise to this day.
To make it as clear as possible, here is the lie still posted in her Nation bio: "She is a recipient of Planned Parenthood's Maggie Award for her article, 'Right-to-Lifers Hit Russia'." Here are the 1994 Maggie winners (from Planned Parenthood's site):
1994 The Nation magazine for "Eastward, Christian Soldiers! Right-to-Lifers Hit Russia" Concord Monitor (NH) for series "Sex Education -- Teen Realities" Chicago Tribune for series "Saving Our Children: When Kids Have Kids" Concentric Media and KTEH-TV for When Abortion Was Illegal: Untold Stories Home Box Office for Talking Sex: Making Love in the '90s KSBW-TV for Not Me: Innocence in the Time of AIDS WBBR 1130 AM for "Condom-Phobics"
Katrina did not win that award, The Nation magazine was given that award. When the Maggies want to note an individual, they do so. Such as:
1999-2000 Teen People magazine for coverage of our issues Mike Peters for cartoons supporting reproductive health and rights issues Natalie Marie Angier for Woman: An Intimate Geography Judy Mann for columns covering our issues NBC-TV for 3rd Rock from the Sun -- "Sex and the Sally" episode MTV/Kaiser Family Foundation for True Life: I Need Sex RX The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation for their website, http://www.kff.org/ NBC-TV for The West Wing -- pilot episode Ani DiFranco for "Hello Birmingham" Eve Ensler for The Vagina Monologues John Irving/Miramax Films for The Cider House Rules
Or,
in 1997: "The Washington Post for a series of cartoons on family
planning, legislation, and abortion rights by Herb Block." Or 1996,
"The Nation magazine for Katha Pollitt's columns on the abortion
issue." Or 1992: "The Washington Post for series of cartoons on family
planning and legislation by Herb Block." Or 1990, "San Francisco
Examiner for series of columns on reproductive rights issues by Suzanne
Salter." The 1995 award went to the magazine, not to Katrina vanden
Heuvel. By Katrina's logic, Sandra Bullock should begin billing herself
as an Oscar winning actress because Crash won the Oscar for Best Picture.
One of the biggest laughs on Bette Davis was her lie that she was nominated for Of Human Bondage.
She was not. But she managed to repeat that lie over and over and no
one bothered to check. After Bette repeated that lie for decades (as a
two time Best Actress winner, there was no need for her to repeat a lie
about a nomination), Joan Crawford finally got sick of it and began
correcting the record with reporters in the seventies. It was very
embarrassing to Bette but, like Katrina, she had no one to blame but
herself because there was never a reason to lie and, sooner of later,
someone was bound to check it out.
The award went to The Nation
magazine. It did not go to Katrina. It's a sad and telling lie about
someone who's ego runs wild and is so insecure that she must repeatedly
claim to have won an award that was awarded to the magazine.
Katrinket
vanden Heuvel is a Queen Bee. She's not going to make space for women
(when you run 491 male bylines in one year and only 149, it's very
obvious that you're not interested -- even remotely -- in equality).
That topic was dumped us and only after female writers had taken the
problem to a number of outlets in 2006 and all took a pass on covering
the issue. Katrina's got a vagina, it doesn't make her a feminist. She
took part in the pile on, she took part in demonizing Hillary. That's
only surprising if you're unaware of that infamous book review she
elected to run where two women were trashed in stereotypical, sexist
language by a reviewer who wanted to open his 'book review' by sharing
his 'fun' in bordellos. No one was done a favor by people refusing to
call out Katrinket. The Iraq War wasn't done a favor because it is
Katrinket who banned the term "war resister" from the print version of
the magazine, it is Katrinket who regularly turns down articles on "war
resisters" (which is why writers -- even male ones -- know to shop them
elsewhere -- if she's called out enough, she'll offer it as "an online
exclusive"). She's an immature school girl, even all these years later.
And the illegal war isn't a concern for her anymore than sexism is. Of
course she couldn't grasp that women were outraged, she only hangs with
Queen Bees and men.
Before she took the reigns as publisher
(she was already editor), The Nation could and did cover war resisters,
did have a few fine pieces on the illegal war. Since then? She even
destroyed the one article that should have won the writers awards in
2007. (Maybe she did so out of jealousy?) She demanded that it be
watered down and watered down until it was really nothing worth reading
(and angered everyone who participated in that article by speaking to
the reporters).
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 4141. Tonight? 4145.
That's seven more and, yes, M-NF only released four death announcements
(they let DoD 'make the announcements' for the others). Just Foreign Policy lists 1,252,595 as the number of Iraqis killed -- the same as last Thursday.
Can a fast-food business model save lives in Africa? Next on NOWSNEAK PREVIEW FOR BLOGGERS: See the entire show RIGHT NOW at: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/433/index.html Show
Description:Can the quality of healthcare in developing nations be
transformed by the same principle that makes fast food such a success
here? NOW travels to Kenya to continue ongoing coverage of an
enterprising idea: franchising not burger and donut shops, but health
services and drugs in rural Africa. American
businessmen have been teaming with African entrepreneurs to spread
for-profit clinics around the country in the hopes of providing
quality, affordable medical care to even Kenya's poorest people. In
this show, NOW chronicles how the Kenyan facilities weathered recent
violent unrest, as well as the program's expansion into Rwanda. Also
on the show, a massive program to dispense medicine for people with
HIV/AIDS in poor countries is changing lives and restoring hope. A
small team of photographers is capturing those amazing transformations
on film, hoping their compelling images will bring attention to the
importance of drug access in the developing world. The NOW on PBS website (www.pbs.org/now)
will feature personal stories and more photos from the front lines of
the fight for global health, including amazing photographs of those
suffering from HIV/AIDS and discovering hope.
Q: Isn’t . . . did you try to get the Green Party nomination . . .?
NADER: No, no. Right from the beginning, I didn’t. They have a convention in Chicago in July.
Q:
If you’re trying to build a movement that’s going to pick up steam over
time, why not do it within one party and if you win the nomination,
great . . . I mean, why not stay with the party that took you last time?
NADER:
The Green Party is not a functioning party. It doesn’t have any
discipline. And it doesn’t have any maturity. It drives out the best
Greens who come in, stay around, look around at all the bickering and
internal rivalry and say, “Let me out of here.” Even the green
candidate who was elected to the City Council in San Francisco is not
an active Green anymore. He’s supporting Obama. He’s one of the highest
elected officials . . . So it’s not a functional party. I left them
with almost 3 million votes in 2000. I went to dozens of states
afterwards to try to strengthen them. I went to 40 fundraisers at my
expense, and they frittered it away. So I really think you have to
start a citizen movement or independent movement first before you have
to start a party.
I wish we had politics without parties. I
really wish we had elections without parties. If you look at the
statements of Jefferson and Madison, George Washington and others, they
didn’t like parties. They were sucked into it finally, but they thought
parties were factions, bickering, inward-looking, selfish, driven by
pure ambition to grasp more control of power. But the system is such
that it almost requires parties after a while in order to gain any
order of magnitude. But you don’t want to go into a party that
basically collapses on the candidates, can’t even raise money.
Q:
Doesn’t that undermine your argument, though, from the start if you say
you’re going to start a movement and get this set of ideas. And it’s
not . . . you don’t want something that devolves into being just being
a fight over ambition, one person’s ambition. But then you move to
another party, and each time, the ideas that come in your breast pocket
with your list of issues that come just with you, doesn’t it kind of
undermine that argument about building a long-term movement and
sustaining a long-term movement if you do that?
NADER: It could
if you built the right kind of party, but to build the right kind of
party, one or two people can’t do it. I have my hands full being a
candidate and I haven’t seen people who can build a party, who’d do the
administrative work, the organizational work, the fundraising work, to
build the party that has its goal on the best interests of the American
people instead of perpetuating itself. So it’s really, those people are
few and far between, and my urgency is to put these issues on the table
in 2008 and hope that after 2008 we can have some momentum to start
Congress watchdog lobbies in congressional districts, which would turn
Congress around because there’s nothing really organized out there
other than economic interests and single-issue groups. There’s no
citizen organization out there, say, with a couple thousand people
willing to spend five hours a week on the average, put in 200 bucks,
have a full-time staff in each congressional district. You’d have a
remarkable impact on members of Congress with these kinds of issues.
But there’s nothing out there, it really is unbelievably non-organized.
The people are non-organized out there, except on things like some of
the civil rights issues and the economic interests: the auto dealers,
insurance agents . . . That’s why people on the Hill think they can
away with turning their backs on the people, because their people are
not focusing on them. They’re not getting the kind of energy that
bird-watchers in the district give, bowling league fans give. We’ve got
to watch Congress. I mean, members of Congress take 22 percent of your
income and can do a lot of things bad and good. And we’re not watching
them.
Q: So when you go to Denver this summer, whether you’re on
the street or at a symposium, what is your message going to be? And in
this election . . . what’s your highest point you think you could get
in this election . . .?
NADER: If you read this article two
weeks ago in Politico by Jeremy Lott, he thinks we’ve already had an
impact over the last eight years on the Democratic Party. It was quite
an eye-opener to me that he writes that way. I don’t even know him. He
didn’t even interview me. But he said “the Democratic Party is now
Ralph Nader’s party.” Of course, that’s a little ambitious. But he’s
reflecting a pull. They are talking more populist. For heaven’s sake,
they criticized WTO and NAFTA. Regardless of whether they’re going to
follow through, the first step of reform is lip service. (Laughing.)
And they’re giving a lot of lip service in a variety of areas — nowhere
near what I would hope them to do. So it’s a tugboat candidacy at a
minimum.
That’s what we’re hoping for. What the parties did in
the early 20th and the 19th century. I mean, Norman Thomas actually had
quite an impact on Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was, like, looking
over his shoulder even though Norman Thomas didn’t get that many votes.
Huey Long had an impact on Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Thought he was
going to challenge him in ’36. And certainly . . . there were other
parties that have gotten quite a few votes, really did have an impact.
Now, it’s tougher these days because parties are more cast in stone
than they ever have been, for all the reasons we’ve talked about and
more. But you have to keep trying.
See, I have a sense of
history about this. Every social justice movement was started by people
who didn’t win, didn’t win, didn’t win, didn’t win, didn’t win. Then
someday, they or others won. So they were willing to endure defeat.
It’s not easy to endure defeat, because we’re living in a country that
loves winners. But all I say to the people of this country is just be
as smart a voter as you are a sports fan. You do your homework, you
know the history, you know the statistics, you know the strengths and
weaknesses of the players, the coaches, the managers. You can, in a
sophisticated way, second-guess them. You can show how they made
serious mistakes, even though they get paid a lot more to run that game
than you do. But above all, you don’t just root for the winners, you
root for the team that’s closest to your heart and your mind, even if
that team loses again and again like the Chicago Cubs.
Be as
smart as a voter as you are a sports fan and we’d have a much more
throbbing and functional democracy solving a lot more problems.
Q:
Is your point really that if Democrats, if Barack Obama loses an
election or Al Gore loses an election, that they need to look at their
own house if they want to assign any blame?
NADER: Exactly.
They’ve got to look in the mirror and stop looking for scapegoats or
blaming it on Swift Boats. The Swift Boats did harm Kerry. Why didn’t
he turn it around and show the American people the vile way that Bush
was low-balling U.S. soldier injuries in Iraq in order not to arouse
the public against the war? So he was undercounting U.S. soldier
injuries, because the Pentagon had a criteria that the only injuries
that count are the ones that were experienced in actual combat. Well,
it’s not that kind of war, so the injuries are three times . . . I told
Kerry that. I even put it in a letter to him. And yet, no. Here’s a guy
who was in Vietnam and he’s the one who’s on the defensive, not the
sophisticated draft dodger who supported the Vietnam War, George W.
Bush.
So mistakes, when you don’t know who you are, when you
don’t have a sense of your identity or your tradition, when you engage
in protective imitation of your adversaries, when you define yourself
by how much worse your adversary is than you when you’re challenged by
liberals as a party, you’re going to make mistake after mistake after
mistake, and you’re going to lose.
I mean, it’s pretty hard, you
know, to lose this election for the Democrats. You know, George W. Bush
is an easy act to follow. But they may end up doing that. Look what
Obama has done in the last few weeks: pandered to AIPAC and the Israeli
lobby to a point where he offended even conventional politicians. Good
heavens, why did he have to do all that? There is an
Israeli-Palestinian peace movement, after all. The world is condemning
the blockade of Gaza from medicine, electricity, fuel, food, drinking
water. It’s against international law. Then he avoids public funding,
calling it a broken system, but by dropping out of it, he breaks it
even more. He’s following the same path of flip-flopping cowardliness
that his predecessors have followed and have lost. And the Democrats
have to work overtime to lose, but they could pull it off. They could
pull it off and lose.
Thursday,
August 21, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, there's no treaty (would
the press please calm down?), Robin Long due to be court-martialed
tomorrow, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Tim Richard is a US war resister. Courage to Resist interviewed him this month,
noting that he enlisted in the National Guard in 1999 and that his
service was supposed to end in 2005 but he was instead stop-lossed and
informed he would be deploying to Iraq.
Tim
Richard: After 9-11, I just like about any other American kind of
wanted a piece of somebody especially me being in the military. You
know, I had thought that, you know, I want to do the right thing. I
want to go get, you know, who ever did this to America. And then I
started doing some research and stuff. And I was behind the Iraq War
when it started because I had thought it was -- had to do with 9-11.
So, you know, but after the Iraq War dragged on for a bit, I realized
that there's no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there's nothing
but poor people and a lot of dead bodies. So I started doing some
research on the war and I realized that, well, it's basically a bunch
of bull that has been fed to us. So I thought maybe, I mean I'd been
thinking about becoming an officer, I'd been thinking about making a
career out of the military but I decided at the end of my six years I
would just get out of the military. I had to say, you know, six years
is enough. I'm not going to re-enlist, I don't want anything to do with
the Iraq War.
Courage to Resist: Tell me about the research that you did. Did you go to websites? Did you read books?
Tim
Richard: Yeah, I mean, Wikipedia is an excellent source --
non-academic, of course. But I started asking questions, I started
talking to people with different perspectives on things and I just
learned about the whole, you know, President Reagan - Donald Rumsfeld
connection to Iraq, the how Saddam Hussein was installed to counter the
Iranian revolution which came about because the US installed a puppet
shah in Iran. And once I started realizing what the root cause of all
these things were -- basically the US -- that really got me thinking
about what's the point of even being there? I also started thinking in
my mind: Is really military intervention and killing people in this
manner right?" I mean, it's one thing if you're defending yourself. But
morally, I just had problems with the idea of going into a foreign,
sovereign country, invading it, toppling the leadership, taking their
resources and killing people. To me that was a huge moral dilemma.
Courage to Resist: So you began to develop serious misgivings -- both politically and morally -- about what the US was doing in Iraq?
Tim
Richard: Yes, well I would say the moral misgivings were much stronger
than the political misgivings. Cause, like I said, I joined the
military with the idea of defending the United States and, you know, if
that had been the case, I might feel differently about the Iraq War.
But now I just felt like what they were asking me to do was just flat
wrong. Shooting somebody who is virtually defenseless is wrong and
that's something that I didn't think I could be any part of.
Courage to Resist:
Alright so you joined the National Guard, as you said, in 1999. And
your time was up in about November 2005. What happened then?
Tim
Richard: Well in about August of 2005, our unit got a warning saying
that some members would be going to Iraq. They had told us when we
joined that they don't break up units, they don't send individual
soldiers. If you go, you go with your unit. But it turned out, once the
Bush administration had got done with us, that was simply not true
because they kept basically using us to populate other units that were
going over to Iraq. And you know, I was a few months out of the
military when I got a warning order saying I would be deployed to Iraq.
I asked what about my contract and they said I was stop-lossed. I found
out later, after I had come to Canada and after I had gotten a hold of
my personnel file, they did not let me see this, but it turned out my
contract had been extended from November 23, 2005 to December 24, 2031.
Tim
Richard: I've got the paper work. You know, everyone says, "You signed
the contract, you'll just have to deal with it." That's not in the
contract. No one tells you about it when you sign up. So as far as I am
concerned, what they did is illegal but the Supreme Court of the the
United States held up that they are allowed to stop-loss. So I mean
there's really nothing you can do in that situation.
Tim
Richard: Well I decided that they weren't going to keep me -- I knew
they weren't going to keep me for that long, that's silly, they're not
going to keep me for 25 years, I don't think. Even -- well that was my
thinking at the time. So I decided that I will deploy to Iraq. I
decided that -- they pulled me out of my unit, which was a calvary
unit, in which I was fixing radios, and they started training me with
an infantry unit -- along with communications duties, they also started
training me in regular infantry duties such as house-to-house, like
house raids, and defending convoys and that sort of thing. And I
decided in around November of 2005, that, you know, this is just --
this is just ridiculous. I -- I -- I cannot morally, I cannot do what
they are asking me to do. If I were to deploy to Iraq I would basically
-- I felt like I would be a liability because there's no way I could
shoot somebody who was simply trying to defend their own home from a
foreign invader. They did all this mock training exercises in which we
were in full battle gear and we were raiding mock houses -- mock houses
with, you know, actors yelling out Arabic and that sort of thing. I had
like my rifles and everything. And during the exercise, I shot two
unarmed civilians with the blanks of my rifle and I -- and no one said
anything to me about it. I don't know if anyone even saw me. But I
realized at that time, you know, that if this was Iraq, those people
would be dead. All they were doing was trying to defend their home. So
I almost just threw away my rifle and just ran right there but, you
know, I sort of needed a plan so I decided that I'd wait a few days.
And on November 23, 2005, the date my original contract was set to
expire, that's when I went AWOL.
Tim
Richard: Well, uh, they were training us in Mississippi and this is
kind of -- this is kind of strange because we were under lock-down.
Lock-down means that, you know, you can't go anywhere without someone
knowing, not even to the bathroom. You had your rifle with you, you had
your uniform on at all times. But because November 23rd was
Thanksgiving, they decided to cancel training for the day, they let us
wear civilian clothes and lock up our rifles. And they decided that
they were going to bus us into town to go to Wal-Mart so we could pick
stuff up. And they said, "Oh, by the way, we'll just drop you off in
town. Have fun. Come back in 9 hours and we'll pick you up." So I
figured, you know what, if this isn't a sign, I didn't know what was.
So I got onto the first bus I could, snuck away from the main group. I
called a cab. Meanwhile my mom's on the other end. I didn't tell her
exactly what all was going on but she bought me a plane ticket from New
Orleans to Seattle. So the plan was to get to New Orleans, take the
plane to Seattle, cross the border in Seattle to Vancouver then meet my
mom where she was living in Nanaimo, BC at the time. And, well that's
the short version, that's what I did.
Tim
Richard: Oh I was. My heart was pounding the whole time. I was
sweating. You know, I was so paranoid, you know, because it really only
takes one phone call, one person to realize what you're up to, and your
name goes on like every computer, like every single military, FBI,
local police, everything. You know, it doesn't take that much these
days for them to put a looking out for you. So, I mean, I tried to
alter the way I walked. As soon as I got to New Orleans, I threw away
my dog tags. I threw away my military ID. I tried to, you know, act
normal. You know, I tried to the best I can to just sort of blend in.
Of course, you know, the haircut and walk just sort of gave it away.
So, you know, I just tried my best to blend in and, you know, when I
got to the Canadian border, I basically had a one-way car rental, I had
out-of-country driver's license, you know, from the US, $400 cash. So
I'm thinking, "Okay, I'm busted." My plan was to get out of the car and
start screaming, "I'm a Canadian citizen!" and let them not kick me out
until they figure out that I'm not. Which I was a Canadian citizen so
they wouldn't kick me out. But, you know, the border guard was just
really nice and said, "Alright, have fun. Welcome to Canada." And that
was pretty much it.
Courage to Resist: You said you were a Canadian citizen. It's possible to have dual citizenship? Canada and the US?
Tim
Richard: According to the United States, no. But according to Canada,
yes. I, because my father's Canadian, when I came to Canada -- and I'm
glad I did not claim my Canadian citizenship earlier because if I had
claimed my Canadian citizenship as a child, I wouldn't have been able,
the US military would have made me forfeit it upon joining the
military. Because when I came to Canada, I was able to go ahead, fill
out all the paperwork, everything, basically sit on my hands for eight
months and wait for the citizenship card to come in. And now I'm a
full-fledged Canadian citizen and I've got the rights and privileges of
every other Canadian citizen.
Courage to Resist: We know a few hundred other GIs up there who would like to have those same rights and privileges.
Tim Richard: And that's why I'm up here with the War Resisters Support Campaign. Here in London, Ontario, we've got a London chapter
and we care for, I know, four war resisters here and we've had ten
others pass through. We do several fundraisers, a lot of political
lobbying, a lot of talking to the public. That sort of thing. And I try
and be as active as I can with the group in order to -- because I feel
these guys are up here, in some ways I feel really guilty because, you
know, just because I'm a Canadian citizen, just because my dad was born
in New Brunswick, I somehow have a privilege they don't and I don't
think that's right that I have a privilege that they don't simply
because of where my father was born. I've done the same thing they did.
In fact, I think what they've done is a little bit more courageous
because I came up here knowing that I had Canadian citizenship. These
guys that come up now, they've got no claim to Canadian citizenship.
They don't know what's going to happen to them. So that's why I try and
work and try and be as outspoken as I can about the war resisters
support group.
Regarding the stop-loss, as Chris Hedges explains in the afterword to Camilo Mejia's Road to Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia,
Camilo was also stop-lossed and given the 2031 year. Last month, Robin
Long was extradited from Canada. As expected, his court-martial is this
month. Scheduled for tomorrow. From Courage to Resist:
Ft. Carson court martial Friday, August 22.
7:30am - Supporters are encouraged to attend the trial Arrive
at the Ft. Carson Main Gate at 7:30 am to ensure you can get to Bldg.
6221 in time. You will need to provide a drivers license, registration,
and proof of insurance if driving. Do not wear any political buttons,
t-shirts, etc.
5:00 pm - Main Gate vigil and press conference Join Robin's lawyer James Branum and supporters for a vigil and press conference at the Main Gate
The
Canadian government has announced that US war resister will be deported
if he does not leave their country by September 23rd. Whether he would
be deported or "deported" is an unanswered question. Actions are taking
place to make the Stephen Harper government respect the will of the
people and let Jeremy remain in Canada. Jeremy is being highly
pro-active and has already taped a video, which you can find at the War Resisters Support Campaign, where he speaks directly to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada:
Jeremy
Hinzman: Hello, Mr. Harper. This is my family Nga, Liam and Meghan.
We've been in Canada for the last four and a 1/2 years. I was a
specialist in the 82nd Air borne division of the United States Army and
served honorably in Afghanistan. In 2004, my family and I came to
Canada because we would not participate in the Iraqi War, a war which
Canada also refused to participate in because it was condemned by the
international community. One of your predecessors, Pierre Trudeau, once
said that Canada should be have from militarism and we took him at this
word. On June 3, 2008, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion saying
that United States war resisters should be able to remain in Canada.
We're asking you to abide by this motion and allow us to stay in
Canada. Thank you.
Title Card: On September 23rd, the Harper government plans to deport the Hinzman family back to the United States.
Title Card: Hinzman faces a court martial and up to 5 years in military prison for opposing the Iraq war and coming to Canada.
Title Card: War Resisters Support Campaign (Canada): www.resisters.ca
Courage to Resist alerts,
"Supporters are calling on Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration, to intervene. Phone 613.996.4974 or email finley.d@parl.gc.ca,"Iraq Veterans Against the War
also encourages people to take action, "To support Jeremy, call or
email Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and
ask her to intervene in this case. Phone: 613.996.4974 email: finley.d@parl.gc.ca."
There
is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which
includes Yovany Rivero, William Shearer, Michael Thurman, Andrei
Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste,
Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano
Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal,
Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn,
Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross
Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique,
Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez,
Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada,
Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen,
Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman,
Kevin Lee, Daniel Baker, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing,
Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk,
Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey,
Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua
Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell,
Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake,
Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres,
Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and
Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada
have applied for asylum.
US
Secretary of State Condi Rice snuck into Baghdad. She held a press
conference there with Hoshyar Zebari (Green Zone spokesmodel for Jenny
Craig as well as the country's foreign minister) to discuss the treaty
they're attempting to pass off as a SOFA. Jonathan S. Landy (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes
Rice relaxing at Nouri al-Maliki's palatial digs declaring, "Nothing
will be signed today." Of course not. Even Gordon Johndroe was
attempting to slowly explain that to the press via the traveling White
House (in Crawford, TX) on Tuesday. ("Drafts aren't final until they're
final," Johndroe declared. "So there are drafts and there have been
drafts for the last few weeks.") For those who still can't grasp it,
Condi and Hoshy held a joint-press conference in the Green Zone. It was
cute the way Hoshy thanked her (repeatedly) for dropping by as he
pointed out that "you have so many other preoccupations, but thank you
for making the time to visit us." Yes, Condi, "thank you for making the
time" despite your "many other preoccupations." She's just the
Secretary of State. How nice of her to make time for a war that the US
launched. As the White House announced Tuesday: "Secretary Rice was
scheduled to lead a delegation to the closing ceremonies of the
Olympics in Beijing this coming weekend. Because of ongoing events
around the world she is no longer going to be leading that delegation."
Landay was at the press confernece and asked
Hoshy, "You have to put it" SOFA "through your political and national
security committee, your Parliament, and Ramadan falls early this year.
What will you do if you can't get this done by December 31st." Hoshy's
optimistic but also noted that the draft of the agreement has to go to
the Executive Council as well ("an important body").
Stephen Farrell and Thom Shanker (New York Times) reported this morning:
"The main sticking points, in fact, are also the most delicate: setting
a timeline for American troops to leave and declaring whether American
forces would be granted immunity from Iraqi prosecution." Today at the
White House, Gordon Johndroe again tried to stress the obvious:
"Discussions are ongoing. We have made some progress in the recent days
on an agreement with the Iraqis, but there is no final agreement yet.
We will continue to have these discussions with the Iraqis." Johdnroe
danced around Senate ratification at first when asked about the US
Congress' role by saying certain members had been consulted but then,
pressed, stated, "So it's not a treaty, so it would not require Senate
ratification or anything like that." At the Pentagon, Bryan Whitman
explained that "it's very premature at this point to say that we have
an agreement." And it's premature to assume the US Congress is going to
go along with being shut out of any process. Among the House members on
record publicly raising objection to ignoring the Constituation are US
House Rep Susan Davis, US Senators Russ Feingold and Hillary Clinton
and US Senator and chair of the Committee of Foreign Relations Joe
Biden. And for those confused about the basics, US House Reps Bill Delahunt and Rosa DeLauro explained it in a column for the Washington Post last month explained how "congressional approval of the agreement" is required and urged an alternative to the treaty:
We
should extend the U.N. mandate for a short period to maintain the
status quo and ultimately turn this issue over to the next president
and Congress, who must implement any agreement. Rather than dictating
the terms of our long-term relationship with Iraq, such a policy would
allow us to work with Iraqis to craft an agreement that includes the
carefully coordinated withdrawal of U.S. combat forces that majorities
in both countries support. Doing so would also solidify the type of
sustainable partnership that the people of the United States and Iraq
need and deserve.
As so many in the press corps rush to gush and pretend a treaty has been finalized, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) appears
to be the only one who looked beyond the arranged press briefings who
notes that "a flying visit to Baghdad by Dr Rice, which drew a scathing
reaction from the anti-US cleric Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr. He
accused Washington of trying to pressure the Iraqi authorities to bend
to its will."
Meanwhile, Campbell Robertson and James Glanz (New York Times) explore
the Iraqi Finance Ministry claims (in figures they handed over to the
Times as well as in statements to the paper) that they are spending 57%
"of their annual reconstruction budget" and the paper's examination of
the figures finds that 18% is the better number and if monies for the
Kudistan region (which have not been spent, only allocated) is removed,
the figure "drops to 8.7 percent." Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reports
that Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora followed "in the footsteps
of King AbdullahII of Jordan" by visiting Baghdad yesterday where he
held a joint-press conference with Nouri al-Maliki "about an agreement
to export oil to Lebanon." China's Xinhua quotes
Sinora stating that "we advise the Arab leaders that Iraq should return
to the Arab group. The return of Iraq is an essential goal." CNN adds:
" Saad Hariri, the leader of Lebanon's parliamentary majority, visited
Iraq last month. Lebanon named an ambassador to Iraq two years ago, but
he died, and a replacement has not yet been chosen. There is an Iraqi
Embassy in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon." And Dexy's back in Iraq. And apparently hasn't learned a damn thing while gone as he rushes to write a 'peace in the valley' piece for the New York Times today. In some sort of a Karmic Smackdown, his fluff runs the same day the paper editorializes "Afghanistan On Fire"
(A22) which should serve to remind everyone that Kandahar is where the
puppet of Afghanistan can semi-freely roam and the Green Zone in
Baghdad is where the puppet of Iraq can semi-freely roam. There is no
peace in either country. Turning to some of today's reported violence .
. .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 1 life and left four more people
wounded and a Baghdad "sound bomb" resulted in three people being
injured.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
Maj Gen Ahmed Rasheed ("director of the government office that issues
identification cards") was shot in Baghdad today and is "injured
seriously," in another Baghdad shooting 1 person was killed and another
wounded and, in seperate incidents, 2 police officers were shot dead in
Mosul.
In
the US, Congressional opponent of the Iraq War Stephanie Tubbs Jones is
dead. Tubbs Jones was a courageous member of the House who stood up for
the voters and for the vote in January 2005 (along with US Senator
Barbara Boxer). The New York Times
had long ridiculed questions of voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004
elections. Tubbs Jones and Boxer's stand meant the press had to take it
a little more seriously. Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a judge, a
prosecutor and, following the November 1998 elections, a member of the
House of Representatives. The Clintons -- Bill, Hillary and Chelsea -- issued the following joint-statement:
There
are few words to express the shock we feel at this time our deepest
condolences are with Stephanie's son, Mervyn, her family, and her many
loved ones, friends, and supporters. Stephanie's friendship meant the
world to us, a friendship that deepened through every trial and
challenge. We could always count on her to be a shoulder on which to
lean, an ear to bend, a voice to reassure. Over the course of many
years, with many ups and many downs, Stephanie was right by our side --
unwavering, indefatigable. It was that fighting spirit -- safely stowed
behind her disarming smile, backed by so much integrity and fiery
intelligence -- that allowed Stephanie to rise from modest beginings,
to succeed in public service, to become a one-woman force for progress
in our country. All of us who were lucky to know her and love her can
only hope now to live like her -- to be as passionate, loyal, hard
charging, and joyful in life's pursuits. Stephanie was one of a kind.
We will miss our friend always.
Stephanie
Tubbs Jones was a strong foe against the Iraq War so her passing is
included for that reason. There are many other reasons. As 2005
community members will recall, there's the White Man who refused to
highlight Tubbs Jones' continued work on the Ohio vote and dismissed it
(and her) in what we will just call here 'far from left' comments. No,
we don't link to that trash. Among the many other reasons to note
Stephanie Tubbs Jones' passing is Ruth Conniff. Apparenly Ruth's
unaware that Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a friend of and super delegate
for Hillary. When she does find out, she will, no doubt embarrass
herself again -- as she did earlier this month by using the murder of
Bill Gwatney -- a friend of Bill and Hillary's -- as an excuse to trash
the Clintons. A man was shot dead in Arkansas and, for Ruth Conniff,
his friendship with the Clintons provided her the perfect opportunity
to scribble some more garbage attacking them. How proud she must be so
have sunk so far into the gutter. Kat called Conniff out here.
Turning to the US presidential race, independent candidate Ralph Nader is providing audio commentaries at Ralph's Daily Audio and the one below is "Debates Declaration:"
This
is Ralph Nader. The two major parties -- Republican and Democratic
Parties -- and their candidates seem to want to ration debates in this
country. Why do we allow presidential debates to be rationed? We
don't allow weather reports to be rationed, entertainment to be
rationed, sporting events to be rationed. But when it comes to the
future of our country and it's place in the world, when it comes to the
livelihoods and the necessities of the American people, we're left with
three debates, so-called, in the fall with only Barack Obama and John
McCain on the stage. Their own debate commission/corporation ensures
that no one else on the stage and they're really not debates, they're
like parallel interviews. So we want people to open up the debates and to support the following declaration: "We
call for opening up the debates. The scope of discussion must be as
broad and deep as the serious challenges we face as a nation. We agree
that vibrant debate is the heart beat of our democracy and our First
Amendment especially during an election year. We recognize that smaller
third parties and independents have traditionally played a vital role
in our democracy including leading the charge for the abolition of
slavery, the women's right to vote and economic justice for workers and
farmers. We support opening up the debates beyond the two parties and
the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates -- which is a private
corporation, co-chaired by former chairman of the Republican and
Democratic Parties -- it's time for our presidential debates to once
again be hosted by truly non-partisan, civic minded associations." If you support this declaration, let's hear from you.
nick kyonka
robin long
jeremy hinzman
spencer spratley
independent catholic reporter
the new york times
stephen farrell
richard a. oppel jr.
the los angeles times
ned parker
paul richter
leila fadel
jonathan s. landay
mcclatchy newspapers
david bacon
washington week
pbs
now on pbs
bill moyers journal
tim richard
thom shanker
campbell robertson
james glanz
the washington post
bill delahunt
rosa delauro
deborah haynes
dexter filkins
