 |
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, propaganda continues, the US military announces a death and more. On Monday, Al Anbar Province was 'turned' over to the Iraqis (don't try to define that term -- it's in dispute) and M-NF (Multi-National Forces) issued a press release officially and unofficially in the New York Times via their backchannel boy Dexy Filkins.
There's not a great deal of difference between the two, there never
is. The US military spits and Dexy's mouth is open trying to catch
it. Nowhere in that overly long article does he even acknowledge that
the 'handover' was repeatedly announced and repeatedly postponed. It's
all rah-rah from Dexy. Reality, the US military long ago realized that
they couldn't have any impact on Anbar. Which is why the "Awakening"
Councils (Sunni thugs placed on the US payroll) were originally
created. If the US couldn't scare the hell of out of the inhabitants,
lets put thugs on the payroll, put them in charge and let that scare
the hell out of the inhabitants. It's not a 'success' strategy but,
hey, Dexy got to attend a parade and who knows how much praise he'll
get from the US military for his 'reporting' this go-round. He
certainly got plenty last time and, as Thomas E. Ricks revealed in the Washington Post
(after Dexy left Iraq the first time), the US military considered Dexy
to be their go-to-guy. As Christian Parenti long ago noted (2005), the
reality is that Dexy of the paper and Dexy in person bear no
recognizable relationship to one another. As if to prove that point
made earlier today, this afternoon The Atlantic has published Jeffy Goldberg and Dexy's dishing in Q&A form
and there's Dexy saying "I don't think so" (to whether Iraq is a
democracy") and offering this on 'progress' and 'safety': "A couple of
days later I went to Sadr City, also at dusk. Sadr City is a vast slum
that takes in about three million people. It's the stronghold of the
Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia, and it's been the scene of heavy
fighting, as recently as a few months ago. I was with some Iraqi
friends. It felt perfectly normal. Then one of my Iraqi friends said to
me, 'What do you think would happen if you were alone?' And I said,
'What?' And he and the other Iraqis laughed and said: 'You'd be dead in
ten seconds'." Go down, Dexy indeed. In
order to sell Anbar as 'progress' a number of facts need to be
forgotten such as how many times Anbar was already supposed to have
been handed over (last June most prominently). Forgetting is also
required of last Thursday's Baghdad press confrence when 'freedom of
the press' got a little too 'free' for US Lt Gen Frank G Helmick as he
barked "one question, please, at a time" when realities began emerging
about Anbar in the questions. Among the many
hard-to-find-rah-rah-in-that statements was Iraq's Interior Minister
Jawad al-Bulani's insistence that, "We're having a plan to develop the
capability of Anbar police through providing them with arms." Good to
know you're having a plan, to bad it's a bad plan and one that's not
even implemented. AFP quotes
US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker (whom they call "US ambassador to
Bagdhad" -- which is certainly more telling) declaring limited success
with Gen David Petraeus at the Monday events as the Americans cautioned
that they were just withdrawing to their base and would still be around
'as needed' should the need arise. (Think the UK and Basra.) AP quotes
US Maj Gen John Kelly at the same ceremonies declaring, "Al Qaeda has
not been entirely defeated in Anbar, but their end is near and they
know it." And, apparently, so does Psychic John. No
one's supposed to notice that Monday's big to do about nothing was to
cover the fact that Iraq is no closer to holding provincial elections
(a White House imposed benchmark) before the end of the year. AFP reports
that there are exactly two weeks left for Iraqi lawmakers to come to
agreement or else there will be no elections until next year, Turning
to the "Awakening" Councils. They are the thugs on the US payroll (men
are paid $300 a month, women are paid far less -- and on one lodged an
objection to that). They are the thugs who sold their allegience for
coin. al-Maliki has surrounded himself with Shi'ite thugs and has
always been threatened by the prospect of their Sunni counter-parts.
He's made clear that the bulk of them will not be absorbed into any
Iraqi body (police or military) and, in fact, has launched attacks on
the Diyala Province. Erica Goode (New York Times) reports
the al-Maliki government says it will begin issuing payment at the
first of October and she quotes "Awakening" commander in Baghdad Ali
Bahjet dismissing all the Happy Talk by noting that he has been
"assured" by the US military "that 'our contracts will be renewed for
the next six months, beginning Sept. 1'" and quotes him adding, "We are
sure that the American will continue financing our program because this
program . . ." Turning to some of today's reported violence. Bombings? Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2
Baghdad roadside bombings that claimed 4 lives and left twenty-three
wounded, a Ninevah car bombing that claimed 7 lives and left seven
peopl injured and, dropping back to Monday, a Kirkuk roadside bombing
that claimed the life of 1 child and left his father and brother
wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul car bombing that claimed 4 lives (plus the drive) and left six people wounded. Kidnappings? Corpses? Today the US military announces:
"Multi-National Division -- Center reported a non-combat related death
in Baghdad Sept. 2." It's the first death M-NF has announced for
Septemeber (which doesn't mean it's the first death, especially
considering how often they forget to do their job of announcing) and it
brings the total number of US service members who have died in Iraq
since the start of the illegal war to 4152. Barbara Starr (CNN) reports
US Secretary of Defense "Robert Gates is expected to present proposals
to cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq to President Bush, along with
proposals for beefing up American forces in Afghanistan". Barring some
huge change of direction at this week's Republican Party convention,
the two major parties will both be offering the American people cuts
and calling them "withdrawal." Turning to the US presidential race,
not content to disgrace themselves on the front page of the New York Times
today, the press decided to do so at the White House. "One last
question for you," a reporter who will remain nameless asks, "because
this is another on that you hear a lot -- this issue is raising a lot
of questions and sort of prompting a lot of debate about -- the idea of
Sarah Palin, mother of five, soon to be grandmother of one, coming to
Washington potentially as a vice president, in the most demanding job
one could imagine. Any issues raised there about the whole
motherhood-work divide?" Pay attention to Dana Perino (White House
flack) responding because even WMC blows it (and Feminist Wire Daily
still doesn't appear to have noticed a woman had been named as a
running mate), " You know, I don't think that those questions would be
asked if it was Todd Palin that was the nominee. And I think that Sarah
Palin has proven that you can choose as a woman to be a mother and be a
strong executive, and to have a wonderful, loving family. And that's
what she's chosen to do. And I think that's why the party has rallied
around her so fully." Exactly right. Dana Perino got something 100%
right today -- a rare thing for her. But not only was it rare for her,
it's too much for many 'lefties.' The question WOULD NOT and HAS NOT
been asked of a man. But Palin, John McCain's running mate pick if he
gets the GOP nomination, is being 'probed' in what should damn well
remind many of the crap Kimba Woods and others had to put up with over
15 years ago. It wasn't right then, it's not now. The paper of little
record tries to hide behind "Mommy Wars" to 'cover' the non-story. Susan (Random Thoughts) gets right to the point, noting
no one gives a damn about Barak's two children while he's on a ticket
but Palin is supposed to be uanble to have kids and run for VP: "The
article reeks of sexism. The message is clear: If you're a woman and
you've just had kids, don't bother running for high political office."
Joseph (Cannonfire) notes
the garbage that's been thrown at Palin already (false rumors) and
where it's coming from: The Daily Toilet Scrubber and Andrew Bareback
Mountain Sullivan. Somehow Bob Somerby, covering similar terrain, can
only hiss at Andy Sullivan -- well Somerby's always been scared of his
own shadow. As for a non-rumor regarding Palin's family that is also
non-news, my opinion is here and Anglachel offers her own here.
It's a real shame that Stephanie Miller (who wants no one digging
through her closets) has chosen to demonstrate just how trashy she is
on this topic and it's even sadder that Women's Media Center finds her
to be a voice worth quoting in an article. As pointed out here last
night, "And 'scoring' a 'win' for Barack
via smut only further adds to the perception that he has nothing to run
on and no qualifications. Why else would you be tearing into a young
girl?" The RNC is currently holding their
convention and will select their presidential nominee (presumably John
McCain). Amy Goodman's already found attention getting stunts to get
her name in the headlines. She could have pulled the same stunts in
Denver and faced the same police treatment. But Denver was about her
selling the Democratic Party and Minneapolis is about her tarring and
feathering the RNC. (Most years, we generally let the RNC tar and
feather itself. But it's CrackPot time these days.) Ava and I addressed Goody's garbage Sunday
but two things need to be noted Obama Groupie Patricia Wilson-Smith
LIED on air and got away with it. She said early on (sticking with the
talking point) that she was for Hillary originally, as she became more
heated she wanted the whole world to know about the work she's been
doing: ". . . I've been working so tirelessly over the last year and a
half for Senator Obama". It's not both ways. Wilson-Smith lied. Get
used to it. You'll see a lot more woman trying to tell you they were
Hillary supporters at the start and then went over to Barack with the
implication being that you can as well! Don't believe liars. Do what
you want, but don't believe liars. The second thing is that, as noted,
there was no convention bounce for Barack. As Ava and I noted: The Thursday speech was a whimper (and as we feared last week,
no one taught Barack to modulate). The entire week was a Love-In. Only,
unlike past love-ins, it wasn't about "us" (however, you define the
noun), it was about Barack.
Try to get it if you support
Barack (we don't) because you (his supporters and the media) continue
to hurt his chances of winning in November. Americans want to elect a
president to work for them. Americans aren't electing a Love God, a
Second Coming, a Homecoming King. James Carville has famously (and
rightly) called the first night as a disaster. It was a disaster. The
disaster continued all week, with few exceptions.
The
convention was supposed to bring America on board. What was being sold?
It wasn't the Democratic Party. It wasn't a need to make the country
better. It was Barack, Barack, Barack, Barack. Over and over.
Here's reality that the campaign better start accepting: Barack is not experienced.
That's
a reality. America will gladly take a chance on a candidate if they
believe the candidate has something to offer them. You need to accept
the reality and you need to drop the testimonials. If you're serious
about getting Barack into the White House (we plan to offer advice when
we cover the GOP convention as well), you need to start making it about
America and not about Barack.
It was a vanity parade. It was
grown adults embarrassing themselves like Baby Soxers. It was never
about where American can go, only that Barack could lead.
"Change
to what?" was the question created during the primaries by the campaign
refusing to be specific. "Lead us where?" is the question they replaced
it with as a result of the convention. And, just like during the
primaries, they had no answer to the question their actions raised.
Four nights of non-stop infomercials told you there was a product named
Barack and that you should buy it. But no one could ever tell you what
Barack could or would do. Now people may buy a number of things from
infomercials. They might buy a treadmill or a hair care product or
anything else. But the infomerical has to tell you what it does.
Repeating "It's great!" over and over doesn't sell the product.
And
the convention didn't sell to America. It may have picked up a few
converts. It didn't provide what Barack needed or anything he could
build on. Four percent is what we're told the 'bounce' was. Four
percent isn't a bounce and isn't even beyond the statistical margin of
error. In other words, four four days, a non-stop infomercial ran and
it didn't sell a damn thing.
The
right wing makes their candidates earn their support. They don't beg
and plead. On the other hand, it seems like the only thing liberals
know how to do is piss, whine, cry, moan, complain -- and especially
beg and plead. If you have to do a
"Progressives for ," instead of doing it after the candidate has
wrapped up the nomination, a better strategy -- if you really want to
win -- would be to pick a candidate like Kucinich (whom I personally am
not enamored with for reasons that go beyond the scope of this essay;
however, there is no doubt he was the farthest left of the Democratic
candidates, and massive left support for him would not have been, I
don't think, a bad tactical move) and get behind him strongly at least
two years before the election, if not sooner. Let's
put this another way: Suppose McCain wins, which I think is likely. If
you must support somebody, then begin in December 2008 planning for the
election in November 2012. Find out if Kucinich is planning on running
again. If he is, start your Progressives for Kucinich website then,
bust your ass for four years, and see what happens. So
why didn't the liberals behind Progressives for Obama do that? Because
for them, it's not about winning change -- it's about electing
Democrats. It's about the home team. It's about the gang colors. As
Obama was making his expected (by radicals) moves to the right, the
phenomenal left-wing writer Paul Street asked Obama supporters how far
was too far? Their answer was, in effect, that it made no difference. As
the Democratic National Convention continued, Green Party leaders
called attention to sharp differences between the Democratic ticket and
Green nominees Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente. Greens
congratulated Mr. Obama on his historic nomination as the first African
American presidential candidate of an established party in the US. But
Greens noted that the nomination of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente
in July is also historically significant -- the first time a national
political party has chosen two women of color. Ms. McKinney is African
American and Ms. Clemente is Black Puerto Rican. "There's
a whole list of urgent issues that Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente
are talking about, while Barack Obama and Joe Biden remain silent,"
said Cliff Thornton, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States
and co-founder of Efficacy, Inc. (http://www.Efficacy-online.org). "The Democrats don't want to discuss the devastation
caused by the failed War on Drugs, or abuses by the police, courts, and
Homeland Security authorities. They won't mention the theft of the 2000
and 2004 elections by the Republicans or address the mass displacement
of poor and African American people from New Orleans. For Cynthia and
Rosa, these are major issues affecting the future of our country." Meanwhile, the Ralph Nader-Matt Gonzalez ticket files for the ballot in Kentucky tomorrow
and their state coordinator, Jim Wiese, will hold a news conference at
the Secretary of State's office at three o'clock in the afternoon
tomorrow: "A broad range of issues face Kentucky voters this election.
Kentucky has one of the nation's highest illiteracy rates, compounded
by fluctuating, and sometimes frozen, teacher salaries. Coal strip
mining continues in Eastern Kentucky, despite its devastating effects
on the environment. Lastly, a universal health care plan is definitely
needed in a state which holds a high incidence of diabetes cases. The
Nader/Gonzalez Campaign offers solutions to these and many other
problems facing the working families of Kentucky that Obama /McCain
fail to offer. For example, Nader and Gonzalez will guarantee a decent
education for all, ban mountaintop removal and launch a "Marshall Plan"
to repair the Nation's crumbling schools, clinic, roads, bridges and
other important infrastructure, creating millions of new
jobs. Nader/Gonzalez favors a Canadian-style, private delivery, free
choice of hospital and doctor, public health insurance system." Team Nader notes: The general election campaign kicks off today. That's one dollar a week between now and election day--November 4. I've worked on all three Nader campaigns--2000, 2004, and 2008. And trust me on this one. This year, we have the best chance to break through. Why? - There's a serious and growing independent movement away from the corporate Democrats and Republicans.
- We're
going to be on more state ballots this year -- 45 states (plus the
District of Columbia) compared to 34 in 2004 and 44 in 2000.
- We're heading toward double digits in a number of key state polls.
- And because we are going to implement a nationwide get out the vote drive that will put 2000 and 2004 to shame.
Translation -- we're shooting for a three way race. The last sixty days between now and election day will be a blur. We
have our Minneapolis rally coming up later this week. (If we don't all
get arrested first -- apparently the police in Minneapolis arrest you
for political organizing.) We're in the process of transferring our ballot access crew over to our nationwide get out the vote drive. And
then it's going to be all out, pedal to the metal --- precinct by
precinct drive --- until November 4--to let the American people know
that they have a choice. It's been one helluva year so far. And it's going one knock down drag out fight. Bring it on. But first things first. Thanks to your help, we have not missed one fundraising goal this year. And we don't plan to start now. We're entering the home stretch of our most recent drive. We're at $55,000. But we need to hit $100,000 in three days -- by this coming Thursday September 4. That's $15,000 a day. It's go time. And remember, if you give $100 or more now,
we'll send you three DVDs -- the Denver rally, the Minneapolis rally,
and a special debate DVD. (Three DVD offer ends September 4 at 11:59
p.m.) Onward to November. And what we hope will be a three-way race. Jason Kafoury,
National Campaign Coordinator
Posted at 04:41 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Today the US military announces:
"Multi-National Division -- Center reported a non-combat related death
in Baghdad Sept. 2." It's the first death M-NF has announced for
Septemeber (which doesn't mean it's the first death, especially
considering how often they forget to do their job of announcing) and it
brings the total number of US service members who have died in Iraq
since the start of the illegal war to 4152. Inside the New York Times today, Erica Goode offers " U.S. Military Will Hand Over Control of Sunni Citizen Patrols to Iraqi Government"
(A12) which would be the "Awakening" Councils. They are the thugs on
the US payroll (men are paid $300 a month, women are paid far less --
and on one lodged an objection to that). They are the thugs who sold
their allegience for coin. al-Maliki has surrounded himself with
Shi'ite thugs and has always been threatened by the prospect of their
Sunni counter-parts. He's made clear that the bulk of them will not be
absorbed into any Iraqi body (police or military) and, in fact, has
launched attacks on the Diyala Province. The bulk of that sort
of gets left out in Goode's report. She does remember to give figures
(54,000 -- which is not all the members and we're not told what happens
the rest), she forgets to tell what they were before they were
"Awakend" (by coin), she notes the al-Maliki government says it will
begin issuing payment at the first of October and she quotes
"Awakening" commander in Baghdad Ali Bahjet dismissing all the Happy
Talk by noting that he has been "assured" by the US military "that 'our
contracts will be renewed for the next six months, beginning Sept. 1'"
and quotes him adding, "We are sure that the American will continue
financing our program because this program . . ." Doesn't read like "handover" but neither did Al Anbar Province. Stacey notes this from Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign: Wisconsin Joins Growing List of Nader/Gonzalez Ballot Qualified States Media Advisory
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: (Washington) Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org;
(WI) Justin Richardson, 608-215-1342
WISCONSIN JOINS GROWING LIST OF NADER/GONZALEZ BALLOT QUALIFIED STATES
Supporters
of Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader will submit ballot
qualifying materials to the Wisconsin Secretary of State's office on
Tuesday Sept. 2, at 1:30 p.m., to place Mr. Nader and running-mate Matt
Gonzalez on the November 2008 election ballot.
Mr. Nader
announced his intent to run during a February 24 appearance on NBC's
"Meet the Press." To qualify to appear on Wisconsin's ballot, state law
requires submission of the signatures of 2,000 qualified voters. The
campaign intends to file 3,500 signatures.
The Nader/Gonzalez
Campaign is on schedule for securing ballots spots in 45 states, and
qualifying for write-in votes in 4 others.
Justin Richardson,
Dustin Underwood, and Mark Phillip, the three Nader/Gonzalez Wisconsin
State Coordinators, will hold a news conference on the steps of the
State Capitol, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Entrance, 2 East Main St.,
Madison , WI 53702.
Labor issues remain an ongoing problem in
Wisconsin, which has lost 12,000 non-farm jobs and construction
employment over the past twelve months, with paper plants slated for
more layoffs and GE scheduled to halt production entirely. Race
relations also continue to be strained, with high racial disparities in
prison sentencing, particularly in Dane County.
The
Nader/Gonzalez campaign offers a Marshall Plan for cities which would
create jobs and repair crumbling infrastructures, and advocates fair
and equal legal treatment of all citizens.
WHO: Wisconsin Nader/Gonzalez 2008 Campaign
WHAT: News Conference and ballot qualification submission
WHEN: Tuesday, Sept. 2, 1:30 p.m.
WHERE: steps of the State Capitol, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Entrance, 2 East Main St., Madison , WI 53702.
About Ralph Nader Attorney,
author, and consumer advocate Ralph Nader has been named by Time
Magazine one of the "100 Most Influential Americans in the 20th
Century." For more than four decades he has exposed problems and
organized millions of citizens into more than 100 public interest
groups advocating solutions. He led the movement to establish the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and
was instrumental in enacting the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Motor
Vehicle Safety Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and countless
other pieces of important consumer legislation. Because of Ralph Nader
we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink
cleaner water, and work in safer environments. Nader graduated from
Princeton University and received an LL.B from Harvard Law School.
About Matt Gonzalez Matt
Gonzalez was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2000
representing San Francisco's fifth council district. From 2003 to 2005,
he served as Board of Supervisors President. A former public defender,
Gonzalez is managing partner of Gonzalez & Leigh, a 7-attorney
practice in San Francisco that represents individuals and organizations
in mediation, arbitration, and administrative proceedings before state
and federal regulatory bodies. Gonzalez graduated from Columbia
University and received a JD from Stanford Law School.
About the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign According
to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted from July 27-29, Ralph
Nader is at 6 percent nationally (equivalent to about 10 million
eligible voters), higher than his highest major poll numbers during the
same time period in 2000 and approaching the 10 percent threshold
required for eligibility to participate in "America's Presidential
Debate in New Orleans," a Google-sponsored event scheduled for
September 18. In the key swing state of Michigan--whose Democratic
voters were partially disenfranchised by the Democratic National
Committee--an EPIC-MRA poll found Nader at 8-10 percent.
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
-End-
ShareThis ShareThis The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. the new york timeserica goode
Posted at 02:48 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Dexy, still working it for the military
Not surprisingly, M-NF (Multi-National Forces) issued a press release
on the 'handover' of Al Anbar Province that glossed over reality and
left out numerous details. They managed to do that in five paragraphs.
The Real Judy Miller gets 23 paragraphs in the New York Times
(and starts on the front page) and manages to gloss over all realities
throughout. That's because the Real Judy Miller was always Dexy
Filkins, the 'reporter' whose work never stood up (if anyone bothered
to examine it -- but why bother, he was a man) including his 'award
winning' 'reporting' which no one ever thought to count the days on --
count the days it took to be written before it could be published
(military vetting is a very slow process). Dexy's back in Iraq and
there's no indication that we're not about to see exactly what he did
before which should trouble the few that bothered to pay attention in
real time. On the plus, when Dexy does
another US speaking tour, we will (if pattern holds) learn all the
things (facts and opinions) he left out of his reporting and his
'analysis' (analysis requires opinion) and he will get applause from
college audiences -- ones unfamiliar with his work and believing the
man telling them the illegal war is lost is also bringing that reality
to his own reporting and 'analysis' for the paper. The
reality, as Christian Parenti long ago noted in early 2005, is that
Dexy of the paper and Dexy in person bear no recognizable relationship
to one another. Parenti gave Dexy the benefit of the doubt. We won't.
We're not concerned with the person, we're concerned with the byline
that was the most damaging throughout the illegal war, the one that
sold the illegal war day after day. Judy Miller (along with others) may
have helped sell the start of the illegal war. Once it started, it
required a lot of selling to keep the realities from the American
people and on-the-gound and under-US-military-control Dexy did more to
repeatedly sell the ongoing, illegal war to the American people than
anyone else. His latest nonsense is entitled " U.S. Hands Off Pacified Anbar, Once Heart of Iraq Insurgency."
Nowher in that overly long article does he even acknowledge that the
'handover' was repeatedly announced and repeatedly postponed. It's all
rah-rah from Dexy. Reality, the US military long ago realized that they
couldn't have any impact on Anbar. Which is why the "Awakening"
Councils (Sunni thugs placed on the US payroll) were originally
created. If the US couldn't scare the hell of out of the inhabitants,
lets put thugs on the payroll, put them in charge and let that scare
the hell out of the inhabitants. It's not
a 'success' strategy but, hey, Dexy got to attend a parade and who
knows how much praise he'll get from the US military for his
'reporting' this go-round. He certainly got plenty last time and, as
Thomas E. Ricks revealed in the Washington Post (after Dexy left Iraq the first time), the US military considered Dexy to be their go-to-guy. An election will change the presidency in November, but Dexy will continue selling the illegal war on the pages of the New York Times. Ralph
Nader is the independent presidential candidate who is calling for a
real end to the illegal war, not after a first term, not "combat"
troops only. Jonah notes this from Team Nader: Gustav, Iraq and New Orleans  We, like the rest of the country, are glued to the developments of Hurricane Gustav. On
August 27, 2005 I had just completed my initial week as a first year
law student at Tulane in New Orleans. I woke up that morning to my
roommate telling me she was evacuating due to Katrina. Without
a car and not knowing many people, I tried to buy either a plane, bus
or train ticket to evacuate, but nothing was available. I ended up
waiting four hours at a Hertz counter and getting one of the last few
dozen rental cars in the city just before midnight. I left thinking I
would be gone for days and ended up not returning for five months. Like everyone who evacuated, I knew nothing for months on the fate of everything I had left behind. Watching
Gustav coverage on the cable news networks has given me a sick sense of
deja vu over the last few hours. Countless talking heads from both
political parties keep saying that the evacuation is "going well" and
how prepared the state and federal governments are as they safely sit
on the floor of the Minneapolis RNC convention floor. Talking
with friends in New Orleans and Nader/Gonzalez Louisiana State
Coordinator Ramy Mousa, I'm left with a growing sense that New Orleans
is not prepared for this storm. The
Army Corps of engineers say levees are at "pre-Katrina strength" but if
there is a 12-15 foot storm surge as New Orleans Mayor Nagin is
predicting, 10 foot levees equal massive flooding. Nagin
is once again calling for a mandatory evacuation, but it's not being
physically enforced and 25% of the city's residents don't own a
vehicle. As of this morning only 30,000 had requested evacuation
assistance. Nagin is telling people who stay to "make sure they have an
ax" to cut holes in their roofs if the water rises. Meanwhile,
three years after Katrina, the $15 billion hurricane protection system
designed to protect New Orleans has only barely started, and serious
vulnerabilities remain, particularly in the eastern part of the city.
We spend $15 billion in Iraq every three weeks, and we haven't been
able to muster this amount to protect one of Americas historic cities. As I watch Gustav coverage, it's clear to me that the fall campaign needs Ralph Nader's voice to be part of the debate. More
than 14,000 Army National Guard troops have been alerted for deployment
to Iraq in 2009, and just a little over two weeks ago, another 140
engineers from the Louisiana National Guard were assigned to deploy to
Iraq. We need a voice calling for our
soldiers and National Guard troops to immediately start returning from
Iraq and Afghanistan to protect Americans from natural disasters like
Gustav. We need a strong voice calling for alternative energy development and against offshore oil drilling in the Gulf. We need a voice calling for a Marshall-like Plan to rebuild our clinics, our schools, and our cities. Let's
take a moment today to hope that the federal government really has
prepared for what Nagin described as "the storm of the century" hitting
New Orleans. Let's hope the levees really are higher and stronger, and
that people will safely evacuate. While
we wait, let's keep pushing our message of opening up the debates and
demanding that Ralph Nader be included. This is even more reason for
Google to support the local Women of the Storm organizers who wanted to
hold a Presidential Debate on these issues in New Orleans on September
18th. Let's demand that Obama and McCain agree to participate in this debate. Jason Kafoury
National Campaign Coordinator
ShareThis ShareThis
Posted at 02:47 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Monday, September 01, 2008
This August marks the 61st anniversary of the Taft-Hartley Act, one of the great blows to American democracy, going into effect.
The Act, which was drafted by employers, fundamentally infringed on workers' human rights.
Legally, Taft-Hartley:
impeded employees' right to join together in labor unions;
undermined the ability of unions to represent workers' interests effectively; and
authorized an array of anti-union activities by employers.
Among its key provisions, Taft-Hartley:
Authorized
states to enact so-called right-to-work laws. These laws undermine the
ability to build effective unions by creating a free-rider problem --
workers can enjoy the benefits of union membership in a workplace
without actually joining the union or paying union dues. Right-to-work
laws thus increase employer leverage to resist unions by undermining
individual workers' incentives to join a union; and thereby vastly
decrease union membership, thus dramatically diminishing unions'
bargaining power.
Outlawed the closed shop, which required that
persons join the union before being eligible for employment with the
unionized employer. (Still permitted are provisions that require any
member of a bargaining unit to pay a portion of dues to that union,
though not to join the union.)
Defined "employee" for purposes
of the Act as excluding supervisors and independent contractors. This
diminished the pool of workers eligible to be unionized, and has become
an increasingly serious problem as courts and the National Labor
Relations Board have authorized ever-expanding employer definitions of
what constitutes a supervisor. The exclusion of supervisors from union
organizing activity meant they would be used as management's "front
line" in anti-organizing efforts.
Permitted employers to
petition for a union certification election, thus undermining the
ability of workers and unions to control the timing of an election
during the sensitive organizing stage, forcing an election before the
union is ready.
Required that the employer be able to demand
hearings on key matters of dispute -- such as what constitutes an
appropriate bargaining unit -- before a union recognition election,
thus delaying the election. Delay generally benefits management, giving
the employer time to coerce workers.
Established the "right" of
management to campaign against a union organizing drive, thereby
scuttling the principle of employer neutrality.
Prohibited
secondary boycotts -- boycotts directed to encourage neutral employers
to pressure the employer with which the union has a dispute. Prior to
1947, secondary boycotts had been one of organized labor's most potent
tools, for organizing, negotiating and dispute settlement.
The
political damage of Taft-Hartley was just as severe. In addition to
starting an era of red-baiting with the American labor movement which
led to harmful internal division (a now-invalidated provision of
Taft-Hartley required union leaders to sign anti-communist affidavits),
the Act sent a message to employers: It was OK to bust unions and deny
workers their rights to collectively bargain.
In short,
Taft-Hartley entrenched significant executive tyranny in the corporate
workplace, with ramifications that are more severe today than ever.
Union membership is at historic 60-year lows, with only 8 percent of
the private economy's workforce unionized. Employer violations of labor
rights are routine, and illegal firings of union supporters in labor
organizing drives are at epidemic levels.
Major unions in the
United States have rallied around the Employee Free Choice Act, which
would begin to repair some of the damage caused by Taft-Hartley and the
anti-union culture it engendered. They should also speak out for
abolition of Taft-Hartley, and not concede this monumental employer
usurpation, during this period of giant multinational corporate power.
Once
again, neither the AFL-CIO nor other major unions have rallied against
what they believe to be the most anti-labor law ever enacted by the
federal government. Such chronic resignation would never be the case
within the business community were there a similar law on the books
stifling their organizational powers for so many years.
It is
past time for the repeal of Taft-Hartley. That would be one important
step in restoring workers right to organize into unions, achieve a
living wage in the Wal-Marts, McDonald's and other workplaces, and in
revitalizing American democracy.
Will any members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus introduce long overdue repeal legislation?That's independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader from " Nader Slams 1947 Anti-Union Law" (Nader-Gonzalez '08). Nader is now on the ballot in Wisconsin and geared up from Louisiana. Nader is for troops out of Iraq. All troops, not some semantic word-game of "combat troops." Iraq? Saturday the New York Times
ignored it. Sunday they punished it -- assigning Michael Gordon to
cover it is punishment -- we can skip his garbage, he filed from DC.
Two days in a row with not one story filed from Iraq. That's pretty
damn awful, isn't it? Know what's worse? Monday's paper? Nothing filed
from Iraq. "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has been on a roll, and American officials are getting worried," Leila Fadel reports in " Maliki's growing defiance of U.S. worries allies and critics" ( McClatchy Newspapers). Fadel continues: Once
perceived as a sectarian Shiite Muslim leader, the U.S.-backed Maliki
has won over Sunni constituents in recent months with offensives to
curb Shiite militias in southern cities such as Basra and Amara and in
the Baghdad Shiite slum of Sadr City.That's only
surprising if you're unaware of how, for the bulk of the 20th cenutry,
certain authoritarian regimes in Latin America successfully played the
US off the USSR and vice-versa. I'm thinking of one country in
particular that gave Time magazine fits from the 1920s to the 1930s because Time
supported authoritarian regimes and it was one thing after another each
year. Reading over it today, you can only laugh as then-right-wing Time
bent over backwards to minimize USSR involvement and gushed
breathlessly whenever it looked like that country and the US really
were best friends forever! ( Time today is a centrist magazine. It's roots are in right-wing and authoritarian.) al-Maliki
is the White House puppet. He wasn't the choice of Iraq. (He wasn't
even the first-round pick in the puppet pageant.) But most puppets have
some form of brain. Bully Boy's on the way out. Bully Boy can't protect
him. Whomever the next president of the US is, it won't be Bully Boy.
All you're seeing is a puppet realize he can pull on his own strings a
little harder. Like that country's leader, al-Maliki's playing the game for himself, not for the citizens of Iraq. And with BBC reporting that "Awakening" Council members are now "securing Baghdad," he better hope he's a better player than puppet. McClatchy reported on Iraq all weekend. Bombings? Mohammed Al Dulaimy reported Saturday a Baghdad roadisde bomb wounded two Iraqi service members and a Baghdad car bomb wounded two people. Hussein Kadhim reported Sunday on a Baghdad car bombing that wounded three, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded two. Laith Hammoudi reports
a Monday Baghdad car bombing that wounded three people, a Baghdad
assassination attempt via bombing on Emad Sa'id Jasim al Mish'hadani
("Awakening" Council) that wounded him, a Kirkuk roadside bombing that
claimed the life of 1 child and left two more wounded, a car bombing
outside of Kirkuk that targeted "Abudl Ameer Mahdi, the judge of Tuz
Khurmatu court" and left five of his bodyguards wounded as well as five
civilians and a Diyala Province bombing (in a farm's water pump) that
claimed 3 lives ("two brothers and their nephew"). Shootings? Mohammed Al Dulaimy reported
a Saturday home invasion in Diyala Province which 4 people were killed
(an "Awakening" Council member, his wife and two children). Hussein Kadhim reported
Saturday on the shooting death of a male "empolyee of Baghdad
municipality," 2 Iraqi military service members shot dead in Baghdad
and an armed attack in Diyala Province which "destroyed dozens of
houses and displaced 46 families from their own houses". Corpses? Mohammed Al Dulaimy reported 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad Saturday. Hussein Kadhim reports
2 corpses were discovered in Baghdad, the corpse of Dr. Tariq Muaeen
was discovered in Mosul (following his kidnapping), and two more
corpses were discovered in Mosul. Today Laith Hammoudi reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad Charles Levinson (AP) reports
that Al Anbar Province has been handed over to the puppet government
(in reality, nothing's been handed over -- hey, when do the British
leave Basra for real, not in yet another for-show handover, but
actually leave?). No US service member has yet been reported dead over
the weekend; however M-NF refused to make an announcement of a death so
the death toll increased by one when the Defense Dept named a service
member who had died (repeating, a death M-NF never announced). This
death increased August's death toll to 23
which is not only an increase of July's, it's ten more. It is highly
unlikely that will be front page news that way Operation Happy Talk
splashed July's death toll everywhere (and splashed it as 'good news').
4151 is the current number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. New content at Third: Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the Week II
Truest statement of the Week III
A note to our readers
Editorial: Ignoring the only news out of Denver
TV: The endless non-news
Sexism
MSNBC's Weiner Dog
The overview of Gutter Trash's attack
How it started and who started it
A rare moment when John Edwards told the truth
Highlights
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timesmcclatchy newspapersleila+fadelmohammed al dulaimyhussein kadhimthe third estate sunday review
Posted at 02:47 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
It's neither your news nor business
We aren't interested in your smutty writings. For some reason, that's not been clear. We did not note a governor's problems that led to his step down, we don't do that stuff here. We also don't go after someone's children here. At
Third, Ava and I don't even critique the acting of the under 18 in a TV
piece. That's why, though we wanted to review the final episode of Malcolm in the Middle,
we didn't. We neither praise children nor stay silent. If we allowed
praise, when we were silent the implicit understanding would be that
there must be some problem with the child's acting since we didn't
mention it. Early on, we dealt with the bad writing of a sitcom scene
that involved adults and children. Focused only on the writing of the
dialogue, we were still advised that a child could see that
differently. Absolutely. We don't even walk it up to that line anymore. Yet despite
the above, despite the ignoring of one 'sex scandal!' article after
another that people have sent in trying to have highlighted this year,
I go into the public account and there are seven people asking that
their 'news' article be highlighted. An underage woman who is pregnant is not your news. It's not even your damn business. A child is not a pawn to score a point. Going after a child is not an 'election strategy.' All you've done is demonstrate a huge lack of understanding and decency. The
child deserves her privacy and you're bad writing full of puns and
ha-has and 'I guess that tells us all we need to know . . .' It doesn't
tell you s**t. And I'd love to how many of the ones writing about it
were born to married parents and were born at nine months or later
after their parents were married. Generally speaking, the first to point the finger is usually someone with their own cluttered closet. It is not anybody's
damn business. It's not their business what happens, it's not their
business what's pursued. ____ is not the poster girl for you to splash
all your issues on. She is a young woman, not even an adult, who has done nothing to be in the public eye. Her getting pregnant is neither shocking nor revolutionary. None
of us would be breathing right now if someone hadn't given birth to us.
That required -- hate to shock you -- first getting pregnant. Proving
that you don't have to be a man to be a sexist, the most vile piece
sent in is written by a woman. Yeah, Red Annie's back. Red Annie
who tried to smear Hillary, attacked her for what her husband did or
didn't do, wrote her little sick fantasies about Hillary's sex life, is
going after ___ and she's "just posted this at my blog." You run to the
gutter if you want. Splash around in there. Don't think any of us have
to join you or that we want to join you. It really is amazing to
see this Closeted Communist flaunt how she herself (a mature woman, to
put it mildly) will use anything she can to elect a Democrat. I
would prefer we never talk about it. If she goes public with an
interview on TV, Ava and I will have to consider grabbing it and for
the reason that so many are now gunning for that woman. Otherwise, we
could just ignore it the way it needs to be ignored. ____ is not
asking anyone to vote for her, has not asked anyone to vote for her.
She is not an adult. She has not tried to be a public person. I'm not going back into the public account tonight. I can't believe this crap. We
did not cover the 'scandal' around ____ this summer here. (Nor did I
participate in writing a word on that scandal at Third.) We did not
cover the non-news out of New York State that all the trashy types
(including Amy Goodman) tried to pass off as news. We have never been
interested in that topic. If a 'straight' gay-bashing person is
revealed to be gay, that's the only time we're interested. And we're
only interested because s/he has made life harder for others by voting
against LGBT rights, by campaigning against them, whatever. Keep your crap out of the public account. I'm not interested. And
you can add to that, a first pregnancy has built-in difficulties for
all women regardless of age. The body is making adjustments. I wouldn't
be making pregnancy 'jokes' about a 40-year-old woman, I certainly
wouldn't make them about a young girl. Unless you are her or the father-to-be, it's not really your primary business. Unless you are a friend or family member of the parents-to-be, it's not even your secondary business. You
need to butt the hell out. You're supposedly a grown up. The young
woman is not even an adult. But you're supposedly grown up. So what's
your excuse for your behavior because kids try things, kids test their
strengths, they test their decision making and sometimes it works out
wonderfully and sometimes it doesn't. And that's all part of growing up
and it doesn't need to be 'reported' on or ' analyzed'. The attitude that you're going to help Barack
by shaming this young girl is disgusting. You don't know what the
future holds for her and her child nor does she. How dare you try to
stamp your tawdry version of events on her. All of you who
e-mailed are nothing but gossips with no scruples and probably a very
crowded closet of your own. You have nothing to be proud of or any high
ground to stand on. You're trying to publicly shame this young girl
when you are the ones who should be ashamed. And 'scoring' a 'win' for Barack
via smut only further adds to the perception that he has nothing to run
on and no qualifications. Why else would you be tearing into a young
girl? You really need to look in the mirror and examine your own actions. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com and it is not for sex 'scandals' or pseudo-morality. Don't even send that garbage in.
Posted at 02:45 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Sunday, August 31, 2008
No, the man e-mailing wasn't sincere
Yesterday, I addressed an e-mail appealing for Gutter Trash. I did that here and without revealing his name because, although he seemed sincere in the e-mail, it was also true that he had posted at Gutter Trash's site and joined in the trashing of me. I had started out responding to him privately. (I didn't even acknowledge it was "he" in the public post yesterday, nor did Ava.) But Ava stopped me and said, "Call ____" (my attorney). I did and told him why I was responding privately and giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was sincere and, having just learned of what had happened, I thought it was nice of him to write. My attorney said he wasn't being nice and that he had posted at Gutter Trash during their Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday . . . . More than once, it was explained to me, he posted there. So he's taken part in it, early on, at Gutter Trash's site and wants to play on Saturday morning like he's just learned of it? Did he ever post in his comments at Gutter Trash that what she was doing might hurt the "organization"? No. He only had that concern when I learned what happened and began responding. He didn't get a private response because it was highly likely that he was insincere and that any e-mail I sent him would end up posted at Gutter Trash's site. If there were any question of that, he cleared it up by posting his public comment at another site (not Gutter Trash). It wasn't a private communication he was interested in or he wouldn't have now posted at another site. To his credit (whether he's sincere or I just shamed him into doing it by noting his concerns didn't include my children's suffering), he makes some sort of statement (I'm told "mealy-mouthed") about their suffering. He then wants to some offer some advice that maybe I shouldn't have posted about it to begin with. That's a cute re-working of the whole thing, isn't it? My oldest son gets a call about what's up at Gutter Trash's site which is why I confirm to him that, yes, the cancer is back. My daughter and younger son have to hear about it over the phone from me (not in person) because I can't risk them hearing about it the way their brother did. Now that's all Thursday afternoon/evening. By that point, I hadn't posted a damn thing here. After it's out, I do post it here. It is my life and I'll be damned if it's commented on elsewhere by others and I'm going to be silent. The post ignores everything Gutter Trash did. No surprise. He can go public with his e-mail, I don't care. On the minor chance that it was sincere, he got a reply but only up here. It was very likely he was insincere (and his actions now prove that he was) and that a private reply would have ended up posted at Gutter Trash's site. Oh, yeah, "Gutter Trash." Poor Gutter Trash, I call her Gutter Trash. And I call her a coward. That's what he writes. I'm so mean. Mean? I'm a mother pissed off. And keep blogging and keep dreaming that a court would see it differently. The three kids who learned their mother had cancer because of Gutter Trash's actions or Gutter Trash, who do you think the jury would side with? The three children with respectable lives or the woman trying to become a citizen? Trying to become a citizen because George W. Bush is in the White House and she will not be an American anymore? There is on sympathy for her. She launched a week long attack. She posted and commented at her posts for four working days before I responded Thursday evening. No one's going to give her the benefit of the doubt. Unlike me, she didn't create names. Unlike here, where some are puzzled (which is why the Friday snapshot included my noting that it wasn't ____ because some visitors were confused and wrongly concluding that ___ was the "organization"), she's been very clear in her trashing. The man is too vested in Gutter Trash to either see it clearly or care. But his attempt at public relations damage won't help her a damn bit. Read Third later, we walk you through. Gutter Trash wanted attention and pulled her stunt. Few read her so she got away with it on Monday and amplified it each day subsequently. When we found out, I responded and I will continue to respond. Nothing will ever take away my my children having to be told over the phone. The woman is Gutter Trash and not only do some feel that way about her now, most Americans don't think highly of her either. That's not just the right-wing that laughs at people like her ("I'm leaving if Bush is in the White House!"). That's also the left which made a point rejecting that logic with many "I choose to stay and fight" essays and posts in 2004. That's before you get to all the attacks on America she's left at websites. And those attacks don't instill confidence for her in the country she wants to be part of now. She's not a refugee. She's had no suffering at the hands of the American government. She didn't like the election results so she decided to renounce her citizenship. That never looks good. There is no problem with anyone falling in love with another country and moving there to become a citizen. There is no problem with anyone suffering persecution leaving a country for another. But renouncing your citizenship to the country you were born in because you don't like the results of an election? Packing up everything to move to another country because of an election? No, it doesn't look good. It doesn't look good to the left, it doesn't look good to the right, it doesn't look good to the center. It plays like some self-created high drama. And when you then, as she has repeatedly, spew hatred at the United States online, you may think that looks good to the country you're trying to become a citizen of, but it actually looks like: "Well what election are we going to have that pisses her off and makes her leave us and start attacking us?" The "organization" never should have used her as a representative. As more and more learn of her, less and less support is there for the "organization." That's not learn of what she did to my children. When that comes out, it'll be even worse for the organization. That's as Americans learn that an "organization" they think might be worthwhile and might be helping people find out all the hate she's spewed at America online, they won't want anything to do with it. They won't want to donate or take part in any actions. In fact, a number of US left outlets would have to ignore that organization because they don't want the right-wing smear of "America haters! You hate this country!" Especially in an election year when they have become so tied to Barack's campaign and when Barack has had to wear a flag lapel pin to silence questions that he loves his country. With Gutter Trash, it's all about Gutter Trash. Instead of seeing Bully Boy's remaining in the White House until January 2009 as a time to roll up the sleeves and work, she saw it only terms of her ('I can't stand him! I don't want to be an American citizen anymore!'). That takes a lot of self-drama. As Gutter Trash demonstrated repeatedly last week, she loves being a Drama Queen. Thank you to the man for posting. It confirmed that he was never sincere. It's confirmed by his not noting (in his post) that he left comments at Gutter Trash siding with her trashing of me. It's confirmed by his not noting any of the attacks on us (right-winger was only one of the many charges she made against us). Marci e-mailed with one point she wanted made clear. What Gutter Trash did to Rebecca and Mike in 2007 is evident in what Gutter Trash does online at her site. She e-mailed them these supposedly sweet e-mails and when she got a reply she let her true nasty self show. As Marci points out, Gutter Trash tries to play it a little more high minded ("though not high minded") in her actual posts and then unleashes her real attacks in the comments. Marci is correct. That is a good way of explaining what Gutter Trash did to Mike and Rebecca. Read the posts (but soften them) as her initial e-mail, read all the comments she leaves to her own posts as her subsequent e-mails. Or, she tries to sound semi-rational in her posts and then lets her derangement really shine through in her comments. Funniest e-mails are from Canadian members who have started a betting pool on how long before election so enrages Gutter Trash that she decides it's time to pick yet another country to call home?
Posted at 02:43 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
So Gutter Trash has another admirer. Or maybe it's her with a sock puppet.
For
the record, only two e-mails have come in pleading for higher
understanding for Gutter Trash. It's off the charts at the public
account for those saying let her have it.
Unlike the earlier
Rodney King Can't We All Get Along e-mail, I don't know the person who
sent this one. I don't recognize the name.
She's really, really worried about Gutter Trash.
See, Gutter Trash is just really upset. Gutter Trash is just sick over everything that happened.
Really? Because the e-mails are still posted.
But Lady X writing wants to know how can it all end! How can it all end!
Lady X (I'm calling her that, she provided a name which I'm not using here), you and Gutter Trash should be worried.
[Deleting
a lengthy section before it posts. This probably reveals the legal
strategy should I pursue that avenue and I'm not showing my hand on
that.]
Lady X worries about the ones caught in the middle.
If you think she means my kids, you're wrong.
She's fearful for the 'organization.'
And she wants to know if I ever stopped to think about the 'organization' before I put anything up here.
Lady X, I did not start this.
Lady X, I still have not named the woman here.
Lady
X, Gutter Trash did a week's worth of posts trashing us. She then went
into her own posts and trashed us some more in the comment section.
("Us" includes me and that only further reveals the malice on her part
since I'd had no contact with her.)
If you really believe that
Gutter Trash's site and my site are so wonderful and so helpful, why
weren't you calling for Gutter Trash to stop her attacks on me.
Gutter Trash didn't invent a name to call me at her site.
There was no element of surprise for drive-bys at Gutter Trash.
She made it clear when she named and posted Jess, Dona and Jim's e-mail. Then she want on to post Mike's.
You were never concerned about any of that, were you?
Now you're concerned.
You
weren't concerned when The Common Ills was being trashed despite all
the things you've listed as "good" that we've done here.
If you
believe that (I doubt you do), then why weren't you going to Gutter
Trash as she launched her daily attack on us from Monday through
Thursday. (She has continued it. But I'm pointing out the very obvious
fact that Gutter Trash should have been called out before I commented
on this Thursday night.)
What will happen to the 'organization'?
If the truth hurts, ouch.
Instead
of writing me about the harm you fear it will do to the "organization,"
write them. I understand Gutter Trash's boyfriend gets all the e-mails
that get sent to the "organization" and writes angry responses.
Have you raised the issues you raise with me to Gutter Trash?
I doubt it.
And I don't blame you. I'm sure you wouldn't want your e-mail to end up posted at her site.
The public relations nightmare was not created by me.
It was created by Gutter Trash.
Gutter
Trash launched a week long attack on Jim, Dona, Jess, Mike, Ava and me.
(I consider posting Mike's e-mail without his permission -- expressed
or otherwise -- to be an attack on him.)
Don't try to turn it around into anything I did to her.
The
"organization" knows what needs to be done. There's some confusion over
whether or not I told them to fire her. That's apparently something new
that Gutter Trash is putting out. Nowhere in my eight lines of a
message does it say "fire her!" The e-mail is entitled "You have been
asked to remove those post."
But Lady X is insisting Gutter Trash says I said to fire Gutter Trash.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,
XXXX e-mailed this account as a representative of yours.
Jess, Dona and Jim responded to some of her e-mails. They did responding to the representative of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
The woman is now having a "wow" over my cancer.
It is not funny.
You need to do your job and do it now: Tell her to remove those e-mails.
Thus far, I haven't named her or your organization online. That will soon change.
Not
only that, but people contacting your organization are getting e-mails
from her partner. You have serious problems with trust and it will be
addressed in full if you do not have her remove the posts.
c.i.
Where do I say "fire her!" Where did I call for her head to the "organization"?
I didn't.
I
know what went in the message. The sentence that begins "Not only that
. . ." is my own. The rest was dictated to me by my attorney (and I
left out a "so"). That sentence was added due to the number of e-mails
coming in here noting they wrote the organization complaining and got a
nasty e-mail from her boyfriend. (And agreed to my attorney because the
"organization" was being advised of that issue via that sentence. Which
they already should have been aware of. If he's part of the
"organization," no respectable organization allows complaints on
someone to be 'dealt' with by the spouse, love-interest or known sexual
partner of the person being complained on. Right away, the issues of
whether it will be seriously addressed and whether the organization
itself will be informed of the complaints arise.)
Gutter Trash
'summarizes' my e-mail above but doesn't quote it at her site. Why the
sudden concern for the law? Because she wants to tell people I'm
calling for her to be fired.
She's trying to get some sympathy
and off spouting another lie. (Lady X says it's up at Gutter Trash's
site that I've called for her to be fired. I haven't read that myself
because I don't go to Gutter Trash's site.)
Gutter Trash just
tells one lie after another. She's saying I told the "organization" to
fire her because she hopes it builds sympathy for her. Nowhere in my
e-mail to them on Friday did I call for that. I didn't call for that in
my Thursday e-mail because I was not sure she was involved with them.
With her posting Jim, Dona and Jess' e-mail, I thought for sure she had
lied to us about being part of the "organization."
That's why my
attorney said to e-mail them on Friday. The e-mail on Thursday asked if
she was part of the organization. Once the organization established she
was, I was required (to show that I acted on good faith) to notify them
that the posts needed to come down.
They didn't come down.
[Deleted before posting because I'm not going to provide legal strategy.]
I've been very clear throughout on what she needed to do. The law is very clear on what she needs to do.
She's broken the law and continues to break the law.
The fact that she continues to break the law will not look good for her in court.
If she's really as worried as you say, then she needs to start thinking how to limit her liability.
We know she's not going to do anything out of goodness. She is, after all, Gutter Trash.
But you'd think she'd at least be smart enough to have some self-preservation instinct to save her own ass.
Instead of doing that, I suspect she's gotten you and the earlier e-mailer to e-mail me.
What part of "my children have suffered from her actions" is hard for you to understand?
Thus
far, I've only asked that she take down the posts. A judge will find my
request highly reasonable and will suggest that I could have asked for
more (especially some public statement from the "organization").
You and the earlier e-mailer act like this is all so confusing.
How did this public debate start, you both seem to puzzle?
It
started when she launched a week long attack on us repeatedly that I
wasn't even aware of until Thursday afternoon. I didn't make any
comment until Thursday night.
It's awfully strange that you
claim to be worried and concerned for both of us (Gutter Trash and
myself -- it's cute how her two supporters both avoid the pain she
inflicted upon my children) but you never e-mailed me to express that
concern on Monday when I was being trashed or on Tuesday or on . . .
Get the picture?
It's why your e-mail is also suspect.
Gutter Trash started this. You aren't apparently bothered by that. You're just bothered that I responded.
It's
as if she suckered punch me (repeatedly) and I finally defended myself
and you want to rush over and scream, "Stop defending yourself!"
She
started it. She started it on Monday, continued it on Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday without my knowledge. I would assume she wants
attention. (Which is why I've tried to avoid naming her here.) If she
didn't want attention, why did she post on it repeatedly at her site?
If she didn't want attention, why did she continue it and continue it?
She had to know that, in posting those e-mails, at some point it would
get back to us.
She started the dance and now you want to whine that she didn't learn the dance steps. Oh, boo hoo.
You
want to whine about the "organization" and its future. The
"organization" has been derelict in its duties. They believe she gets
the word out at her site. So they apparently monitor it in some manner.
They shouldn't have required me alerting them to the problem to first
learn of it. So you really have a lot of nerve worrying about the
"organization".
The "organization" allowed their staffer to do all of this. They have never objected to her.
You need to leave your pity party for Gutter Trash and start looking at it from the outside because it's not pretty.
On
behalf of the "organization," she repeatedly e-mailed this site. As a
representative of that "organization," she received responses from Jim,
Jess and Dona. She took those responses and posted them (without
permission or notice) at her site. That alone, leave out all the
attacks she made, is alarming and goes to how poorly that
"organization" is run.
I mentioned the Red Cross yesterday. I
was told that with blogs so numerous, they are especially careful about
blogs. I was told that they don't censor anyone's private thoughts but
they would have a problem with a representative of theirs contacting
anyone and representing herself as their agent and then taking the
e-mails public and would explain it is grounds for termination and
that, while they reviewed that, she needed to delete all references of
it from her blog. That's the case if the responses to her were
"abusive" or "violent," they would still have a problem with that. If
they were threatening, the e-mails would be turned over to authorities.
Even then, unless they were introduced into court, the organization
would not allow them to be posted somewhere. When I asked about Gutter
Trash writing about e-mails sent to the organization at her own
personal site, I was told that if she was a part of their organization,
she would not only be terminated, she would be told to delete her blog
under threat of lawsuit. Delete the entire thing, every post.
I
was told it would reflect poorly on the Red Cross and that they
wouldn't want the negative publicity. For days, the "organization"
didn't care. Even when I contacted them twice (Thursday and Friday),
they were indifferent to their own role or any public relations
nightmare. (Indifference defined by the first e-mail which offered no
action or plan of action on the issue and by the fact that they did not
reply to my second e-mail.)
Gutter Trash's actions created the
current climate that has you so upset. I didn't create it. I responded
after I found out about it.
I have made a very limited, very
reasonable request. A judge will certainly wonder why I didn't request
more from the start? I've not been unreasonable in any of this.
Lady
X, if you're not Gutter Trash, you need to be a little less quick to
believe her claims. If she blogged that I was calling for her to be
fired, your first question should have been, "Why didn't she quote that
e-mail? She's had no problem reposting e-mails."
The same way that her posting Mike's e-mail without his permission should have raised your eye brows. She's not being honest.
That
is why she had her problems with Rebecca and Mike in 2007 and it is why
Jess, Dona and Jim wanted nothing to do with her personally but told
her if there was news or events she could e-mail.
It's pretty
clear. And at Third (posting this evening) we go into it from a more
distant view and how, from a distance, her excuses crumble even further.
Posted at 02:41 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Clearing up Gutter Trash's lies
Gutter Trash has made a number of false charges (usually in her comments section) and we'll clear those up from a list provided to me. I haven't and won't read Gutter Trash. 1) We are right-wing! Did you know that? Maybe you didn't. I didn't know that either. I'm a liberal. Not a 'progressive' -- a term that's historically been used to bash liberals and historically been used by people not of the Democratic Party but of the Communist Party. As they say on Kids In The Hall, "It's a fact!" (It really is as anyone with any sense of history would know. Especially during McCarthyism, the term "progressive" became a cloak. Right or wrong, it became a cloak. "Progressives" sneer at liberals and consider them "reformers" and not "revolutionaries." The "revolution" is needed to take down the system, clearing the way for Socialism which will then bring about Communism. That's the theory.) This community has all kinds. Outside of Judge (my friend of many years), I'm not aware of any right-wingers. We have Greens, we have Democrats, we have Socialist, we have Communists (no closet cases), we have people not interested in party politics. We don't have any right-wingers. In my own life, I know and am friends with people of all walks of life. I make no apologies for that and my only "purity" test is are they an honest friend. 3) We are a site for the left. That was noted when this site started. That has always been the case. I will match the links we've offered up against any other site and argue we'll come out ahead. We started as a resource/review. One of our goals was highlighting different voices (from the left) so that if another attack like 9-11 took place, people would know there were other places to go and the efforts to reduce Americans to scared little children would not so easily take hold. We are, and have been from the start of this site, in oposition to the Afghanistan War. It is not a "noble" war, even when contrasted with the Iraq War. It's easy to understand why it is (still) seen that way because it was the first illegal war sold on the back of 9-11. Even The Nation magazine supported it in real time. Fear and anger were channeled by the White House (and others, including the media) to unleash war on the Afghanistan people and there has been no improvement in their lives despite that illegal war going on and on and on. (With Barack and John McCain arguing it should continue.) Barbara Lee was one of the few to stand up to the fear when it was first being sold. Had others stood up, it might have made a difference. As it stands, that war is still wrongly seen by many. John Kerry tried to use it to campaign with, the left (with few exceptions) refused to call him out on it. Barack uses it now and you hear the same silence. 4) Personally, I have voted Democratic in all presidential elections previously and that was noted here many times. In the 2004 primary, I supported John Kerry. By past statements up here, it is clear that I did not support Bill Clinton in the 1992 primary, Al Gore in the 2000 primary, Walter Mondale in the 1984 primary, Michael Dukakis in the 1988 primary, go down the list. That's clear because it has been noted over and over by me that, until 2004, I never supported the primary winner. (Bill Clinton wasn't contested in the 1996 election.) Despite having supported Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson and countless others, I always voted for the Democratic nominee in the general election. (And that's not just recent. I did not support McGovern in 1972. I did not support Jimmy Carter in 1976 or in 1980. Ted Kennedy was who I supported in 1980. Other candidates are no longer in the news, but for those wanting to smear me, let me make it easy for them.) I won't be voting for the Democratic Party nominee in 2008. I am far from the only one who won't be. 3) We're trying to defeat ____ [fill in cause]. Fill in whatever paranoia is up at Gutter Trash's site. We're trying to be honest at a time when honesty is in short supply. We're trying to be honest when others are trying to be alarmist. The left rightly criticized Bully Boy's use of fear to drive support. But some on the left did the same thing in 2004 and some But isn't that what Gutter Trash runs with when someone suggests it at her site. Doesn't she run with it and smear us as right-wingers? I'm also apparently a crazy for supporting Ralph Nader, right? 4) So I'm right-wing and I'm a Nader supporter? No one knows who I'm voting for. With New Hampshire, I was on the road to becoming a Hillary supporter. The race was then John Edwards, Barack and Hillary. I would never support John Edwards. John Edwards repeatedly lied to the press about John Kerry. I know for a fact what went down and I'm so surprised that now that "Honest John" Edwards has been blown out of the water, no one's gone back to that issue because Kerry said Edwards was wrong (Kerry was too kind to say Edwards was lying) and Edwards maintained he was telling the truth. Edwards was lying. We were in Boston the night of the election for the intended victory party and Edwards has always insisted that he wanted the votes to be counted. That's a lie too. I would have never have supported Edwards in the primary unless he was the only one running. I was focused on Iraq while there were multiple candidates. The New Hampshire primary coincided with our days speaking there. One of the college professors I knew from her work on a Clinton campaign (general election, I was for Brown in the primary) in the nineties. She asked me if I would be a Hillary speaker for a forum she had on campus. It was a last minute request. I said no and explained I hadn't decided who I was supporting (and I hadn't). She explained the Hillary speaker had to cancel at the last minute. She pointed out that I knew Hillary and she really needed someone to speak. I said fine but I'm going to say I haven't decided who to support. I spoke and noted that and then went into why Hillary would make a strong president. She had two more forums booked and I did two more. I wasn't attacking anyone, I wasn't comparing and contrasting. I was dealing with Hillary's long record. And she has a very long record of accomplishments. The students were excited because -- and this was the first I was aware of that -- it had been accepted that Hillary was just Bill's wife, just First Lady. I did campaign for Bill Clinton in 1992. So maybe that's why I knew about Hillary's accomplishments long before he won that election in 1992. But I still wasn't supporting Hillary (or opposing her). Somewhere during that the joke caucus in Iowa took place (we've called out caucuses here and at Third since both sites began, the caucuses are a joke, filled with voter fraud and intimidation, that's not a new development in 2008) and a crowded field reduced to three or four. (I'm not sure when Gravel dropped out.) I couldn't vote for Barack because he is a War Hawk who was lying publicly that he was for ending the illegal war when Elaine and I spoke with him and he revealed that it was too late because US service members were in Iraq. That was while he was running for the US Senate. Being hyped as the "anti-war" candidate. A liar. And John Edwards' unprincipled attack on John Kerry had taken him off a list of possibilities. But I voted in our primary (California) and I never said who I voted for. I never made it an issue. Ava and I tackled the sexism in the campaigns and media at Third. Third (with me included) made the following endorsements: Hillary for the Democratic Party, Ralph Nader's independent campaign and Cynthia McKinney for the Green Party. I was perfectly comfortable with those endorsements because I wasn't saying, "I am endorsing ___." We were saying we thought (take it for what it's worth or not) that those were the strongest ones and the ones who would do the best job. People act astounded by Barack's inability to connect with any more voters. By his inability to get a huge lead in the polls. I'm not shocked. We dealt with that when John Edwards was still in the race. (And you won't find me calling Edwards a "liar" then. I didn't do it. I didn't try to tilt the field in his favor or against his favor despite the fact that I didn't care for him and wouldn't support him. We defended him when Michael Gordon distorted his words in the New York Times.) But at that point, the problems the media now sees for Barack were already noticeable. It was no secret that many groups (including women, LGBT, Asian-Americans, and Latinos and white working class voters) were not being reached by the campaign. I made that very clear to friends on Obama's campaign as far back as January. This idea that suddenly last Thursday he would connect with the voters was always suspect. He didn't connect. Not even swiping from American President and Hillary. His problems are very real. And it is not about racism. But screaming "racist" falsely over and over has only intensified the problems. Over a year before Geraldine Ferraro made her 'controversial' remarks, Peter Hart had written more or less the same thing for FAIR's Extra! He was talking about the slide Barack was being given due to his perceived race (he is bi-racial). Barack himself had made similar comments. People tore into Geraldine (who I don't like and have never liked but have no problem defending from false attacks) and there is a backlash. When you falsely scream "racism" over and over, you do two things. One, you make it very difficult for real victims of racism to have their valid objections recognized because (two) you have treated everything in the world like racism and have turned the charge into The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. With the exceptions of Jesse Jackson Jr., James Clyburn and Melissa Harris-Lacewell, publicly those charges were not being made by anyone with a name that was part of the campaign. (His various flacks of course made it regularly to the press, both on and off the record.) The drive for the charge of racism came from Panhandle Media, from White people. (Often from non-praciting Jews, make of that whatever you will.) They better stop it because no one knows until the votes are counted who will win. And if Barack loses (yes, boys and girls, he could lose), you've just set the cause of a person of color winning the presidency (unless Barack loses to Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader) back for at least a decade. The most stunning person of color could emerge for the 2012 race or the 2016 race and they will be handicapped by this nonsense that "people won't vote for then! They didn't vote for Barack because he's Black!" (Again, he's bi-racial.) There is no data that demonstrates people aren't voting for him due to his race. There is data that suggests his race has been a factor in the African-American support. (That took place after the race card was repeatedly played in South Carolina.) There is anecdotal evidence of some strong support for him due to race and of some minor opposition due to race. But there is nothing that warrants anyone claiming he's winning support or losing support from voters due to his perceived race. (Had he ran as bi-racial, that would be more of an issue, as his campaign admits privately. Running as bi-racial would have pissed off many old lions -- the same ones who launched their attacks on the bi- and multi-racial movement in the nineties.) But it was Panhandle Media that led the charge on racism and continues it to this day. How does CounterSpin bill itself? "FAIR's weekly look at the press!" That half-hour weekly show couldn't stop reaching to find racism (often where it didn't exist or where it wasn't surprising to find -- from the right-wing pundits) but how many times did it call out sexism in the primary coverage? In 2008, it called it out only once and took a CNN discussion on whether or not Hillary was a "bitch" to get that one sentence on CounterSpin. One sentence. And they wonder why people stop listening to them? We have been a left site and we remain one. Early on, I was happy to highlight anyone suggested in an e-mail. That stopped when a sexual predator was being highlighted. I did not know his history. A friend provided me with the video of his refusal to answer the questions asked on TV about his past arrests. That began our move away from highlighting just anyone. We continue to highlight people on the left that I personally know and dislike. It's not an issue to me. It is an issue if they lie. Due to the fact that a number of Closeted Communists (and a smaller number of closeted Socialists) in Panhandle Media injected themselves into the Democratic Party, and pretended they were Democrats, they no longer get highlighted. I know they lied and they know they lied. There's no reason to believe another word from their mouths. The general election is for all. Party primaries are for members of that political party. There was no reason for those not in the Democratic Party to be pushing any Democratic candidate in the primary. There was no excuse for their posing as Democrats in order to do so. But had they said, "As a lifelong Closeted Communist, who never votes Democratic in the presidential election to begin with, I would like to endorse Barack Obama," their endorsements would have meant much less. One Closeted Communist (whose long been with a political magazine as a contributor) has never been highlighted. That's due to his promotion of The Ego Of Us All and his slanders against Gloria Steinem. I'm not talking publicly, I'm talking about his pitches to the New York Times (staff as well as editorial board). It's why Gloria, a lifetime activsit, never received the credit she deserved for a lifetime of work from that paper and why The Ego Of Us All got credit for a rip-off book. I do not like attacks on Gloria, I do not tolerate them. I don't tolerate them in my personal life (and never have) so I've not tolerated them in my online life. I have never spoken or written an unkind word about Gloria and do not intend to start. That's an important point because grassroots feminists are rightly outraged by what was done to Hillary and Gloria will campaign for Barack this fall. Gloria campaigns for every Democratic presidential nominee. It is who she is. So if she says something that sets you off while doing that (or just that she's doing that), remember that is who she is and remember that when the sexism got into high gear, Gloria stood up and called it out. (And was tarred and feathered as a racist for daring to believe that ALL women mattered. As Ava and I noted repeatedly during that and after that, it was really important to scream "racist" at any name who didn't support Barack.) You were silenced ( such as Amy Goodman deciding she wasn't interested interested in interviewing Paul Krugman, Sidney Blumenthal, Joe Wilson, Larry Johnson or various others who were supporting Hillary) or you were attacked. Attacks on a man didn't take place to a large degree but they did happen (Johnson was probably the male most attacked. Blumenthal was smeared and there are others) but it was open season on women. [Note. I planned a three-entry cycle. This was the second. The third is going over to Third. This wasn't the ending of this post but there's no way I can go further. The next four paragraphs set up the intended third entry that will now be a group piece written by and posted at Third.]
Posted at 02:40 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Ava here and I've got some notes to make. First, Jess' mother just told me C.I.'s kids are very upset about the e-mail C.I. responded to publicly.
What has them upset is that the 'caring' person who e-mailed made no
effort to note their mother's condition. C.I. doesn't care about
anything like that, it's the last thing on her mind. But Jess' mother
told me she thought C.I.'s kids would feel better if it was noted. So
let me be very clear, while ____ tried to play like this is something
just discovered (one would say ___ knew about it early in the week when
___ was posting at Gutter Trash and taking part in the trashing of
C.I.), ___ tries to act sympathetic. The reality is that as C.I. notes,
_____ the pain her children have been through is never mentioned or
even alluded to. However, the point that also needs to be made is that
C.I.'s condition is never noted or alluded to. C.I. doesn't
care. C.I.'s focus is on her kids. But it does matter to her kids that
this ___ shows up at the public account trying to act 'concerned' and
doesn't have the decency to ever acknowledge what got exposed by Gutter
Trash. If you hear someone's sick, you acknowledge it. The kids are correct, it is not a small point. Next, C.I. is editing another entry. Jim was reading over C.I.'s shoulder. The
plan was three entries. "I'm a mother" (which is the response to the
e-mail), "I'm a liberal" (which will post shortly) and "I'm a feminist." The
third one is the most powerful of the three and where C.I. was leading,
weaving threads here and there, so that it all culminated with that
powerful piece. However, did I mention Jim was reading over C.I.'s shoulder? Jim
wants it for Third and C.I.'s agreed because it's pretty much complete.
C.I. agrees because it's one less thing to write tonight for Third. I
disagree and take the position Elaine generally takes which is when we
pull stuff from C.I. and bring it over to Third, Third gets a good
article; however, as written by C.I., it was a powerful piece. That
happens a great deal and Elaine's never been silent about that fact. Something so powerful in first person gets watered down when others start adding to it. I'm
all for group writing. I think it's very productive and we hash out
numerous things in the process and explore points that, if one person
wrote it, wouldn't be explored. But this is the best example of something that gets watered down in the process. C.I.'s
pulling all of it for Third and, since elements lead up to that in "I'm
a liberal," C.I.'s pulling those out of the entry that goes up next. For
those who want to see if Elaine and I are right about this, I will pass
C.I.'s original over to Hilda and she can run it Tuesday in Hilda's Mix. (I can't pass it on to El Spirito.
If I do that, you'll read it before you read Third's version. Unlike
us, Francisco, Maria and Miguel are done by Sunday morning early.) Oh, I'm sorry. E l S p i r i t o. Did
I say that slowly enough for the useless readers of Gutter Trash? Yeah,
I heard they trashed me at her site. Unlike Gutter Trash, I actually
hold a degree in journalism. If I'm posting here, I'm doing a "talking
entry." C.I. invented them. Members love them. Sorry that it is so hard
for you to follow but I'll assume your education stopped early. And
unlike Gutter Trash, if I decide to use that degree, I won't have to
beg for work (and would never get the many turn downs Gutter Trash
does). Write from your stye, Gutter Trash, I was raised with money and
can go to work anywhere I want and, this'll really kill you, not even
25 yet and I already have enough money that I never need to work a day
in my life if I don't want to. Poor little Gutter Trash, still competing with college graduates for entry level jobs, all these years later. We'll
be off the road while C.I. gets treatments. We do have some speaking
events locally (mainly women's groups and a few student groups). C.I.
says if we don't, her attention will just be on the treatments so we've
got some planned. I will be popping in from time to time. As
always, when I write, it will say "Ava here." In 2005, C.I. did it all
by herself while going through this. There's no question that she can
do it again. However, there's also no reason that she should have to. So if you see me, don't assume, "Something's wrong!" It
will most likely mean that C.I.'s just sick of it. Gutter Trash --
check the other sites and note how the posting has been there -- has
left a very sour taste in our mouths. Because we will not be
right out the door in the morning. C.I. may drop back on the time for
morning entries she does and they may go up later than they usually
would. It may not happen. If it does, know that's why and don't think
something's wrong. Unless Gutter Trash violates the law again
for another 'exclusive,' if there's anything to learn, it will be
learned in a community newsletter. I don't feel like putting
this in but C.I. asked me to. Should something go very wrong, I am the
person who takes over (that was announced in April of 2005 here) and
keeps the site going until after election day. Nothing's going to go
wrong and we should all think positive. But in the summer of
2005, as announced at Third, the decision was made that the end date
would be after the 2008 election. That is not saying sites will all go
dark then. Some didn't think they would at that time (and we've had new
community sites since then). For The Common Ills, C.I.'s statement at
that time was "I want my life back" and that the community newsletters
would continue. Since then, many of you written about it going on
beyond that. That's a decision for C.I. to make. Obviously, that's the
last thing on her mind right now and no one's asked that in an e-mail
but if anyone's wondering, C.I. wanted it noted here. This is
parents' weekend with most parents here. (My mother is but my father
couldn't get away due to the political race -- what appeared to be an
easy weekend changed on Friday when John McCain announced his running
mate.) They leave tomorrow afternoon. The plan was to have a fun
Saturday, work all night, see them off at the airport on Sunday and
then C.I. was going to break the news to her kids while I explained to
Ty, Dona and Jim what was going on. (I told Jess weeks ago. He's the
only one I told and I had permission to tell him if I needed to tell
someone.) Our fun weekend (always questionable on fun for C.I., Jess
and myself since we knew what would take place Sunday evening) went
down the tubes thanks to Gutter Trash. What C.I. did not want to
happen has happened with all this, "Are you sure you can do the
edition? If you've got the energy, you and Ava can do the TV piece and
that's all you have to worry about." C.I. is working on the entire
edition. (Though we have all taken up Dona and Jim on their kind offer
to type up everything -- except the piece Mike, Elaine, Rebecca, Kat,
Betty, Cedric, Ruth, Marcia and Wally work on. Mike types that.) Seeing
C.I. bristle on that (as anyone should have expected), I will take a
second to say to members, "I'm thinking about you"? That's more than
fine. But, "Are you okay?" -- not really working. Think of how many of
you write and how many times C.I.'s reading, "Are you okay?" -- over
and over. I do understand the concern but I saw C.I. go through the
member accounts tonight and saw the toll it took to read that over and
over. If you need to express something like that, do it to us at thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and I are all here, will all be here, and if you're nervous, e-mail us and we'll be able to update you. (Needless to say, that applies only to community members.) I
mentioned John McCain before. C.I.'s on record (since 2004 here) that
she will not vote for John McCain. I am on record with that as well.
Neither C.I. nor I have said who we will vote for but we have stated
publicly we are noting for Barack or John McCain. I am a Latina.
I know many in my own community (especially men) who are voting for
John McCain. This is not a bash John McCain website. Third has
Democratic readers who are considering or are going to vote for McCain.
Third has a few Republican/Libertarian readers who are as well. Those
people are not left out. And C.I. and I go out of our way to make sure
that they do not feel that we think, "You're stupid for voting for John
McCain." Maybe I should throw in that I don't know Cindy McCain. I've
never said I do. But Elaine and C.I. do and have noted that they know
her, they like her and they have tremendous respect for her work. In
case anyone's wondering, I don't know Cindy McCain. But what I do know is that Sarah Palin is a woman and I do know that we're not going to allow the attacks to take place. Kat already wrote
about what happened on the taxi ride and how this sexist pig Barack
supporter started smearing Palin and Hillary and admitting that he
thought no woman should hold office. We will not be taking part in that
crap. We're not voting for McCain and the decision to put Palin
on the ticket didn't change that. We do not agree with her on abortion
rights or LGBT rights. We can note that and we can use any tone we want
-- serious, humorous, you name it. But we will not attack her for being a woman. We will not belittle her for being a woman. And we will call it out when see anyone doing that. She is not our candidate. That doesn't matter. Attacks
on her like the ones we saw on Hillary will be called out in the same
manner. Being a woman is not a 'danger' or a 'liability.' Those who
engage in sexism to go after Palin are using the same device they used
on Hillary and it was device that harmed all women. (Yes, Betsy
Reed, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Laura Flanders, Amy Goodman -- it's
amazing how many times she chuckled at Hillary on air and never got
called out, isn't it? -- participated. Women can be sexist pigs as well
although the proper term for it when it's a woman is "Queen Bee.") Due
to the crap that Gutter Trash started, and started in public and
launched for an entire week (though the person e-mailing this morning
forgets those BASIC FACTS) being only discovered late Thursday, we
still haven't seen Barack's speech. We've been dealing with other
things. We're going to try to watch it and other coverage before
writing our piece but we may not. (If we don't, we already know how to
handle that absence.) Jim, Dona and Jess have waited Thursday,
Friday and today to respond to the attacks launched on C.I. and on them
by Gutter Trash. It is most likely that we will be addressing it there.
If so, it will be harder hitting than anything here because Jim, Dona
and Jess are incredibly pissed (for themselves, for C.I., for C.I.'s
family). Betty, Rebecca and Wally (maybe Cedric too) are currently on
the phone with each other trying to figure out an outline for the
edition and Dona's already ruled, "Short pieces whenever possible." If
it gets very late and it's not anywhere done, we're going to sleep and
publishing Sunday evening. Again, it's 'parents weekend' at C.I.'s
house. (Partly because C.I. had already been talking about that and
also because, once the news came, it made it easier to explain to her
kids on why she was inviting them for the entire weekend. They fly in
and out regularly. But they have their own homes and jobs and generally
stay for more than two days only on their vacations or on Christmas and
Thanksgiving.) I want to strongly recommend Elaine's amazing post.
As I warned her, she better get it up before Jim hears about it. He
read it and his first comment was, "If I'd known she was working on
that, I would have tried to make it a group effort." No surprise. It's
Elaine's and it's wonderful. (Elaine says she didn't use spell check,
she didn't read over it. No s**t. How could she? She's been dealing
with Gutter Trash's b.s. since Thursday night. No one needed the damage
Gutter Trash caused. Something the e-mailer this morning forgot to
mention in the e-mail of 'higher purposes.') Wally and Cedric will post at some point Sunday morning or Sunday. Everyone else has already done their weekend post at their own sites. I think that covers everything. (And I'm sure it's all confused Gutter Trash and her knuckle dragging, mouth breathing readership of two -- plus sock puppets!) The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Members use the private e-mail addresses. The public e-mail is not for
penpals. That's probably what so upset Gutter Trash the most. When my
boyfriend explained to her that we didn't have the time or desire to be
her penpal. Poor lonely girl. Jess is good, but I never knew him to
inspire such a psychopathic desire on the part of someone to have him.
Paws off, Gutter Trash, I saw him first. Sorry, one more point.
The Palin issue. I raised it because a writer we do not highlight has
yet again e-mailed her crap to the public account tonight. We refused
to highlight all the garbage she wrote (sexist attacks) on Hillary. We
refused to highlight it here and Jess e-mailed her back to tell her to
stop sending it. She got the message. Now she's back with an attack on
Sarah Palin and how Sarah can't be qualified. Red Annie, Dan Quayle was
vice-president. The bar's not all that high. More importantly, we don't
need you sending all of your articles to us. We don't need it, we don't
have the time for it. You will never be highlighted here. There's
a Congressional candidate who still does not get that point.
(Democrat.) When we complain about the public account, we complain for
a reason. Everyone has a press release, everyone has an article,
everyone has a book tour, TV appearance, campaign stop, fund drive, you
name it. People who've been highlighted in the past know they can send
in and continue to be highlighted. Those who have been repeatedly
ignored really need to get a clue. (Such as a failed candidate who has
e-mailed every week -- sometimes twice a week -- for over eight
months.) In terms of the Green Party, anyone who e-mails a press
release on the Green Party gets highlighted. Congressional, Cynthia,
local race, it doesn't matter. In 2004, the wounds were still deep
(from the never ending attacks launched in 2000) for Greens who became
members of this community. C.I. knew that and made the decision that
their party would get highlighted. That's candidates. During the
primaries a number of Green voices thought they could join in the
attacks on Hillary. They're crap never went up here or at Third (and
I'm thinking of three people in particular that e-mailed here and to
Third always with the same stuff that we never highlighted). For
visitors who are NYT fanatics and will e-mail at some point asking,
"Why didn't you highlight ___ in NYT!" C.I. hasn't read it. No one has.
It's still in the blue bag it's delivered in. If it's a strong article
it will be noted Sunday night. (Assuming there's an article in it on
Iraq. That's not always the case.) I mentioned a number of people, I thought of all: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty and Jess Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Wally of The Daily Jot, Trina of Trina's Kitchenand Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
Posted at 02:39 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Public reply so everyone sees it posted here first!
I've got an e-mail from someone who is not getting a private response. For
someone who claims "respect" for me or this site or whatever, my
attorney advises me that was not evident in statements he made
elsewhere. (I've never read Gutter Trash's week long bashing of me.) He
is combing over everything. If the treatments do not work, I
will most likely be suing. (And my attorney has already made copies of
everything up at Gutter Trash.) That will be my last act to ensure that the pain and suffering Gutter Trash has caused my children does not go unpunished. I'd love to write you but I can't write you. You left comments at that site. I'm told those comments were not nice about me. For anyone late to the party . . . Gutter Trash pulled stunts with Mike and Rebecca over a year ago. The
way she works is she e-mails with a compliment, gets a reply from you
and then begins some screaming match with you over what she once
complimented you on but really wanted to disagree with you over in the
first place. When that took place and I learned of it, Gutter
Trash was not linked by this site again. She has not been linked to
since 2007 (no loss) and her name has not appeared here since then. And
that is: Her name has not appeared since then to this day. The e-mail this morning makes a laughable claim. The idea that I've taken something public is a laugh. Gutter
Trash e-mailed this site earlier in the week. (Monday, I believe.) Jess
saw the e-mail and knew how Gutter Trash worked. He also wasn't in the
mood for lectures from her let alone the abuse she tossed out at
Rebecca. He also knew about my cancer and wasn't in the mood for Gutter
Trash's uninformed bickering/dickering over details for that reason. But
she was writing on behalf of the "organization." So Jess e-mailed her
back and told her if she had an event or news to pass on, e-mail,
otherwise leave us alone. She didn't do that. She immediately posted Jess' e-mail. No one knew that on this end. All
that was known on our end was that she then clogged up the public
account (24980 unread e-mails, 556 in Spam which may or may not be spam
are the current total for all e-mails currently in the inbox of the
public account and we'll have to go through the spam folder as well --
we do not have time for anyone clogging up that account) in screeching
at Jess repeatedly the next day. Then she wrote a 'nice' e-mail. Dona
was on public account duty that day. She didn't have time for it. But
she saw Gutter Trash's nonsense and repeated Jess on why to e-mail the
public account (news or events) and went on to try to reach the nut job
by explaining what happens on our end and how we do not have time for
the crap Gutter Trash already pulled with Mike and Rebecca. Dona
sends that e-mail and it gets posted as well (uknown to any of us). And
Dona's insulted all over the blog for being "wordy." Dona went through
everything to try to tell a nut job when an e-mail from her
organization was needed and when it wasn't. Gutter Trash still
isn't done. We're now on Wednesday, I believe. She's still e-mailing
the public account and clogging it up with all her bulls**t. Jim's
had it with her by now. He's the one who pulled public e-mail account
duty. (And please note, the bulk who read the e-mails here were on the
private accounts because with Hillary not getting the nomination, not
getting a roll call, we knew ahead of time that needed to be the
focus.) He e-mails her back and, being Jim, he writes the shortest
e-mail possible. So she posts that as well. (She posted Dona's if I didn't mention that.) Now throughout her posts and her comments she, and her goon squad, are trashing me. I've never written the woman before in my life. I've never spoken to her. I didn't publicly call out the stunt she pulled on Rebecca or on Mike. So let's not pretend she's the innocent party. Read
her trashy comments about me and remember I've never said a negative
word about her in public. Not even like I am now where I just call her
"Gutter Trash" and don't use her real name. My oldest son gets
drug into it because someone outside of her freak squad finally sees
what's she's doing and sees Dona's sentence about my spending a week on
medical exams. He calls my son to ask if the cancer is back? My
children did not know (by my choice -- it is my life) about the exams.
They were going to find out what was what this weekend, face to face.
That didn't happen. Instead, because of Gutter Trash, I had to confirm
to my oldest that the cancer was back and then call my two youngest and
break the news over the phone to them before they heard something the
way my eldest had. That was not fun. That was not delightful. It was very painful for them. I do not take their suffering lightly. Gutter
Trash found that so amusing (and this really pisses my daughter off)
that she then went on to write about that and continue her insults and
add little jabs like (I've been told) "wow!" I think any sane person would take offense at Gutter Trash writing about my cancer and including little jabs. That's not all that's happened. As
legally advised to do so, I contacted the organization Thursday to see
if Gutter Trash was indeed their representative and, if so, asked them
to address the situation. I received a reply stating she was (from the head of the organization) and nothing was done except to pass on my 'concerns.' Under legal advice, I wrote again on Friday to say the e-mails needed to be taken down from Gutter Trash's site. I received no reply. But, pay attention, my e-mails to the "organization" are now dicussed by Gutter Trash at her site. Her own personal site. If you don't see the problem with that, you're crazy. If
the Red Cross has some staffer who is a loon and decides to post
e-mails she receives while presenting herself as a Red Cross staffer
and you complain to them what would happen? I know what would happen
because I made a point to call everyone I could on Friday to ask. The
person would be told to pull them down from her private site and would
be told she was no longer part of the organization. Why? It's a public
relations disaster. Now that's the Red Cross. They help people
in need and people who don't need to hide their need before they get to
the Red Cross. This 'organization' allegedly helps people in need including people circumventing US law. How
much faith will there be in the 'organization' from people who might
consider asking for help? Not a whole hell of lot if it's known that
Gutter Trash is posting private e-mails (to her as their representive)
online or talking about e-mails coming into the organization -- talking
about them at her private site. The e-mail sent here this morning has "public debate" in the title. Until Thursday night, I hadn't said anything about this because I didn't know anything about this until late Thursday afternoon. If
you're concerned that a "public debate" on this issue might hurt the
"organization," you're a little late to the party, aren't you? Gutter Trash started it and she started it on Monday. You should know that because you posted to her site. You never posted a word at her site about concerns over a "public debate" according to my attorney. With me, this morning, you're concerned? I didn't initiate this. I didn't start it. I was drug into it and it was going on for days before any of us on our end knew about it. If
you were concerned about the "public debate" nature, you could have
stopped everything that had happened at any point before Thursday
afternoon. You could have sent the e-mail you sent to me today to
Gutter Trash. You could have made the case you attempt in your e-mail
about larger purposes. It's too late for that now. And you
certainly have no right to show up in the inbox making that request of
me after all my children been put through. That is what I've focused on, my children. And I find it really offensive that in your e-mail calling for a truce*, you don't even acknowledge them. [*I don't know what the e-mails calling for. It's a 'Can't we all get along' type vibe.] You want it to end? It hasn't even started yet. Jim,
Dona and Jess have not had the chance to publicly reply. Third Estate
Sunday Review posts on Sunday, hence the title. Truest statement from
last week (still up at the top right now) might be of interest to you. Jim, Dona and Jess held off because they were hoping the e-mails would be taken down. They never should have gone up. And why don't you ask Gutter Trash why they went up? I'm told her defense is Jess said mean things to her so she felt she could violate the law and post them. Would she like to then explain why she posted Mike's e-mail from over a year ago? Posted it without his permission. ( Click here for Mike's comments on that.)
It's funny that you never pointed that out to Gutter Trash -- nor did
anyone commenting at her site. That's when Gutter Trash exposed herself
yet again as a liar but you're all so busy lapping up her lies that you
didn't bother to notice that. All it would have taken was one of
you to say, "Hey, Gutter Trash. You stated you weren't sure about
posting Jess' e-mail but then you felt you had the right to because you
thought he was mean. And yet, now you've posted an e-mail by this guy
Mike and his e-mail isn't mean at all, even you don't think so. Did you
get Mike's permission?" You should be afraid of a public
debate because my focus has been on my children and everyone on our
end, community wide, has been in a holding position. My children's
attitude is now known: Nail Gutter Trash to the wall. In other words,
no one has to hold back. I woke up Thursday morning and did what
I usually do. By the afternoon, these days of abuse that had taken
place online were dumped in my lap. Except for the plane ride back
today, I haven't slept a wink since. I was up all night Thursday, I was
up all night Friday. I didn't sleep during the day. I didn't grab a nap. You say you're concerned about the 'public nature.' That's something to address with Gutter Trash. And it's something you should have addressed with her long ago. Had
you done that, you would have had no reason to e-mail me now. She
trashed me for how many days before you got 'concerned'? Oh, that's
right, you only got concerned when it turned out I wouldn't just be
silent and let her s**t all over my kids' lives. Now I'm goig to
be upset at what was done to Dona, Jess and Jim at some point. I love
them. But they aren't my kids. I'm not even sure what I feel on my own
about what was done so I haven't had time to think about what Dona,
Jess, Jim or Mike are going through. My kids have been my first
priority and focus. My kids aren't mentioned once in your e-mail
so it is very easy (before we take into account whatever you posted
about me at Gutter Trash's site) for me not to be at all concerned
about what interests you. My kids didn't do a damn thing to anyone and they're the ones who suffered. Before
you next try to offer advice, here's some for you: What she did hurt my
children very deeply. I do not allow that. I do not forget that. Any
request to me for anything starts off badly when it refuses to
acknowledge their suffering. I think your e-mail is suspect and will not reply to it privately. Why should I? So she can post it too? More laughs? It's
cute the way your second paragraph begins. Read that to yourself. Read
it to yourself and grasp that I know you posted comments to her site
before I ever found out what she was doing. So don't try to pull an 'I
just discovered' with me. It's not only dishonest, it lies about your own part in all of this. You
knew what was going on. If you wanted to stop it, you could have done
so a long time ago. If you'd acted like the adult you seem to be in
your e-mail you sent at 8:57 a.m. this morning, none of this would have
happened and my children wouldn't be hurt. So, excuse me, but
yeah, you owe my kids an apology. At the very least when you decide to
e-mail the public account, you need to include "I'm sorry about your
kids." This implication that you just discovered what was going on
makes your entire e-mail suspect. It looks like you're trying to do damage control. For Gutter Trash, for yourself, for the 'organization,' I don't know. And
I don't really care because, again, any points you make about the value
of the 'organization' and how it might be hurt by all of this are
points you should have made to Gutter Trash when she launched her week
long attack. Day after day. You said nothing. Excuse me, I'm told you said a few things. I understand you left comments. You
didn't call her out. You didn't tell her, "Hey, this could hurt the
'organization,' stop it." You took part in the trashing, you backed her
up. And now you want to show up, days later, asking me to please think about the 'organization'? She was told to take down those e-mails. You
might want to look at those e-mails really closely because their being
up hurts war resisters. You might want to try reading them from that
view and not from the view of "Ha ha lets attack Dona, Jim, Jess and
C.I." If you read from that perspective, forget my health information,
you'll see they need to come down. I'll be kind and not clarify that in public at this point. "Solidarity"? My solidarity is with my children. That's
a concept your own parents understand but there's nothing in your
e-mail that indicates you grasp that. So setting aside the suspect
nature of your e-mail (due to your having taken part in a public
trashing of me, actively posted there and refused to call for her to do
whatever you're calling for me to do now), the fact that you refuse to
either grasp or acknowledge that basic fact (one widely noted here
already) only makes me doubt your sincerity. I wish that wasn't the
case but that's how it is. The e-mail for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. And the only people mentioned by name in this entry were: Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona and Jess Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude's Rebecca and Mikey Likes It!'s Mike
Posted at 02:38 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
