 |
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Wednesday,
September 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, China gets a windfall,
US forces and Iraqi forces clash, reporters remain targeted and more. Starting with Monday's 'handover' of Al Anbar Province. The Los Angeles Times filed an interesting report . . . at the paper's blog Babylon & Beyond.
The byline-less article (16 paragraphs) talks about the very clear
tensions evident in the for-show ceremony itself with Abdul-Salam Ani
("head of the Anbar provincial council") stating the tribal leaders
were "trying to stir up sedition with their claims that the Islamic
Party leaders ar corrupt" and Sheik Ahmed B. Abu Risha, a tribal leader
and "Awakening" Movement 'fellow' who claimed it was the other way
around. The article reminds, "The sharp words at the podium highlight
the reason that the original handover date, in late June, was delayed.
There are concerns among locals and officials that the political
animosity could lead to an unraveling of the security here. Despite
the tribes' actions since 2006, they remain politically disadvantaged
in Anbar because they did not take part in provincial elections in
2005. Hence, the Islamic Party holds 36 of the provincial council's 41
seats." The provincial elections will most
likely not take place in 2008. Time is running out to put them in
place in what remains of this year. Over the weekend Leila Fadel (McClathy Newspapers) reported
that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki was said to be "on a
roll, and American officials are getting worried." 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. The puppet does not the "Awakening" Council members in the Iraqi
military or the Iraqi police. He controls both and has staffed them
with Shi'ite thugs so he doesn't want to allow in Sunni thugs. Since
the start of the illegal war the US has repeatedly sided with thugs
within Iraq because it was hoped that a thug could 'snap' the people
into 'order' quickly. So they leaned towards Shia extremists early on
and the Sunni extremists came into play only after reports on the
Interior Ministry's 'security' guards' actions and other issues became
news. That leaves the "Awakening" Council as a very real threat to
al-Maliki. They may be more of a threat currently than the White
House. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported
over the weekend that al-Maliki had tossed out the "negotiating team"
that was representing his interests in the treaty with the US. So
al-Maliki has a new team advising him? B-b-but we were told it was all
taken care of! (Told by the press rushing to create a story where
there was none and ignoring repeated remarks by the US State Dept that
no agreement had been reached). So al-Maliki has a new team. Where's the team fighting for Iraqis. Sarmad Ali (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) observes
the US concerns over oil prices but has "a harder time understanding
why Iraqis -- with their oases of crude oil reserves and untapped
oilfields in the south and the north -- have had to put up with high
oil prices and severe shortages of gasoline, diesel and cooking gas."
Ali explains that "ordinary Iraqis still face fueld shortage and high
rates . . . three-hour lines of cars queued up for gas . . ." Nouri
al-Maliki (my point, not Ali's) sits on millions and refuses to use
them to make life better for the Iraqis. And the money just keeps
rolling in. Eric Watkins (Oil & Gas Journal) states the oil contract to China National Petroleum Co (CNPC) has been approved by the Iraqi Oil Ministry today. Today's Azzaman sees an exclusion of the US from the oil deals and insists this is due to pressure from Iran. David Berman (Globe & Mail) dismisses "the concern about China cornering Iraqi oil, it's nonsense". BBC via redOrbit documents the press conference in Baghdad today, presided over by Husayn al-Shahrastani Reuters new photographer Ibrahim Jassam Mohammed has been held by the US since the first of the month. Reporters Without Borders is calling for Ibrahim's immediate release and notes:
"Ibrahim Jassam was picked up from his home in the capital and soldiers
took him to an unknown location after checking the ID of members of his
family and seizing four cameras along with his phone and laptop
computer. His family still do not know why he was arrested. Jassam
had worked for Reuters for four years and had received a
number of anonymous death threats. More than 20 journalists have been
arrested in Iraq in similar circumstances since 1st January 2008, all
of whom have been released after spending days or even months in
custody without any charges being made against them." Reuters quotes
their Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger, "We are concerned to hear
about Jassam's detention, and urge the U.S. military to either charge
or release him once an initial investigatory stage is concluded. Any
accusation against a journalist should be aired publicly and dealt with
fairly and swiftly, with the journalist having the right to counsel and
present a defense. Iraqi journalists llike Jassam play a vital role in
telling this story in the world." Anna Johnson (AP) reports
on a shootout between the US and Iraqi forces -- yes, "between" the two
-- that resulted in the deaths of at least 6 Iraqis and involved US
boats, US helicopters (two) and who knows what else. Johnson reports
the dead includes 2 Iraqi police officers, 2 Iraqi soldiers and 2
"Awakening" Council members. Reuters reports 10 more Iraqis were wounded. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) contacted
M-NF and received this comment, "We have initial reports that while
coalition forces were conducting operations against suspected AQI there
was an incident involving weapons fire between Coalition and Iraqi
Security Forces north of Tarmiyah, Baghdad. Reports indicate ISF
sustained casualties. Coalition aircraft were involved in this
incident. It is always regrettable when incidents of mistaken fire
occur on the battlefield; a review of the circumstances is under way." In other of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing that left two people wounded, a Diyala
Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi solider with
four more wounded, 2 Mosul roadside bombings which claimed 1 life and
left seven wounded and a Tikrit roadside bombing that left "[s]ome
policemen injured". Shootings? Corpses? Ralph's Daily Audio
is a segment of the Nader-Gonzalez presidential campaign that offers
audio commentaries. This is "Nixon and Ford Now Seem Progressive:" This
is Ralph Nader. In recent weeks, I've been making the point that if
voters don't condition their vote on some response by the candidates to
the priority issues on the voter's minds, every four years both parties
will become worse. Because, twenty-four seven, the corporate lobbies
are pulling on both parties and if voters who are liberal or
progressive are not pulling in the other way to make the least worse
candidate accord with the important priorities favored by a majority of
the American people, then the corporate interests have a pull without
any pull in the other direction and you know where that leads. I was
reading the other day some of the policies by Richard Nixon and Gerald
Ford in the 1970s. Richard Nixon, for example, besides signing into
law with enthusiastic statements, the EPA Bill, the OSHA Bill, the
Product Safety Bill, among other legislation we pressed through
Congress in those heady days. He offered a policy on drugs in the
streets and addiction that emphasized rehabilitation of drug addicts,
not incarceration and imprisonment. He proposed a health insurance plan
that observers say was better than the Clinton plan, He supported and
articulated a minimum income plan to move the country toward abolishing
poverty No other president has done that since. And he favored vocally
the voting rights for the disenfranchised citizens of the District of
Columbia. Can you imagine a president
today demanding an excess profit tax on the oil companies and demanding
higher fuel efficiency for motor vehicles in no uncertain terms? Well
that's what President Gerald Ford did following Richard Nixon in the
1970s. See what I mean about both
parties getting worse when we as voters freak out, vote for the least
worst and let the least worst be pulled by the corporate interest
closer to the worst every four years? This is Ralph Nader. And this is "Corporate Hands in Your Pockets:" This is Ralph Nader. I was watching the CBS national Evening News with Katie Couric on Friday. And she came on with an interesting segment
about how people are charged for services they never receive. She
highlighted one woman who had a back operation and She was billed about
$60,000 and it turned out $40,000 of that $60,000 were for phantom
charges -- things she never received, were never treated with. Well
that's just the tip of the iceberg. The General Accounting Office
years ago estimated that billing fraud in the health care industry is
10% the entire health care bill of the whole nation. This year that
would mean $230 billion. Imagine $230
billion dollars. Malcom Sparrow the applied mathametician at Harvard
who specialises in health care billing fraud thinks that that is the
most conservative estimate. Have you ever heard any of the
presidential candidates talk about billing fraud phenomena year after
year that costs more than the war in Iraq? Have
you ever heard any of the presidential candidates -- John McCain,
Barack Obama, or the primary candidates for that matter in the
Republican-Democratic Party ever mention or pay attention to a rip-off
phenomon that is costing more than the Iraq War at least in dollas -- Well
that's why the Nader - Gonzales is so necessary to provide the
contrast, the alternative to focus on the need to crack down on
corporate crime, fraud and abuse that is looting or draining trillions
of dollars from consumers, worker-pensions, savers, mutual funds It's
all reported in the mainstream press except this billing fraud that I
just mentioned from Enron to Wall St. and yet John McCain and Barack
Obama have no program to engage in the necessary resources and
willpower to crack down and prevent corporate crime fraud and abuse
including corporate crime ripping off Medicare in the billions of
dollars. Just another difference between Nader-Gonzalez and McCain-Obama the corporate candidate. Thank you. GSR: How do you seek to redefine sources of electoral power come November?
CM:
My political career started in the state of Georgia as a member of the
Georgia Legislature. When I ran for that particular position, the
corporate press all touted the fact that I was not going to win and yet
we were able to win. We won because of people power. We went outside
the existing electorate. We brought new people in. That is, of course,
one of the hopes that we have with this campaign. We hope we are going
to bring new people into the political process and let them see the
efficacy of their vote. Now how is it that we can do that? We have to
talk about the fact that we are operating in a political environment
that lacks election integrity. One of the things I have been able to
say quite convincingly because of the precedent set four years ago by
the Green Party and David Cobb is that the day after the election when
there are reports of disfranchisement and fraud, the Green Party is
going to be there when the Democratic Party capitulates. It was in 2000
that we know that the voters of this country gave the Democrats the
White House and instead they didn't even fight for the victory that the
voters gave them. They capitulated to the Republicans and allowed
George W. Bush to assume the presidency. Again in 2004, John Kerry
promised that we would not see this kind of action on behalf of the
Democratic Party that took place in 2000. In 2004, on the very next
day, even as the reports were coming in from Ohio, John Kerry conceded.
He gave up once again. He gave up the White House, so that George W.
Bush could continue this reign of terror on people inside of this
country and outside this country. So
now comes 2008. We understand that there are already efforts afoot to
disenfranchise certain populations through the Voter ID laws that have
been passed in various legislatures as well as with voter caging. Voter
caging is just a fancy way of saying you show up at the polls on
election day and you find out that your name is not on the voter list.
What is your recourse? You have none. You don't get to vote. If you
have the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot, there's no guarantee
that the provisional ballot will be counted. We still have to deal with
the electronic voting machines. The ills of the 2000 election remain
with us. The ills of the 2004 election remain with us. New ills have
been placed on top of those ills for the 2008 election. It will be the
Green Party and activists across this country who will demand election
integrity and who will move from protest to resistance. That is what we
have to do now.
GSR:
You mentioned protest. Define a vote for Cynthia McKinney in this
election. Is it a protest vote or something more substantive?
CM:
It's a values vote. What we are asking people to do is vote their
values. I am so proud to say that at a recent meeting with Rosanne Barr
she said, "I'm sick and tired of being put in a box. I'm going to vote
my values. I'm going to vote Green." We invite people to join the Power
to the People campaign. This is a campaign that seeks to include
everyone. We want to draw from every population that feels that somehow
their values are not represented by the powers that be. They are not
represented by the two corporate parties. They are not represented by
any other way, shape, fashion or form. And so perhaps the Power to the
People campaign and the Green Party can express the views and the
values of people who want peace for a change. They want ecological
wisdom for a change. They want social justice for a change. They want
real democracy for a change. That's what the Green Party vote
represents and so I invite everyone to vote your values and vote Green.
Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) explains,
"Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente are running for president and
vice-president on the Green Party ticket, but their larger goal is to
reignite a mass movement based on principles that are anathema to the
financiers that call the shots in the Obama campaign. They are among
the voices that have not been silenced in this deformed election
cycle." Meanwhile Chris Hedges encourages
people to examine the health care plan Barack is proposing and to show
spine, "We on the left, those who should be out there fighting for
universal health care and total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq and
Afghanistan, sit like lap dogs on the short leashes of our Democratic
(read corporate) masters. We yap now and then, but we have forgotten
how to snarl and bite. We have been domesticated. And until we punish
the two main parties the way big corporations do, by withdrawing
support and funding when our issues are ignored, we will remain
irrelevant and impotent. I detest Bill O'Reilly, but he is right on one
thing-we liberals are a spineless lot. . . . We need to throw our
support behind alternative candidates who champion what we care about,
whether Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader."
Posted at 02:57 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
It is summer in Iraq as it is in the northern half of earth but summer in Iraq is something different. Its not hot because the world hot is not strong enough to describe our summer. So, let me say it is like hell. Yes, we practice hell every minute during summer in Iraq with a temperature of 107 degrees. Furthermore, Ramadan started. Today is the second day of Ramadan. As so many people know; fasting is ordinance. That means to control myself from dawn until sunset. I must not eat or drink and I have also to control my nerves because fast means more than feeling hungry or thirsty. It means to feel the suffering of poor people and to behave like real good people.The above is from Laith Hammoudi's " the old child" ( Inside Iraq, McClatchy Newspapers). Turning to print, the Los Angeles Times appears to be the only paper interested in Iraq today. They do know it's the locale of an ongoing war, right? Forget "illegal" if that's too much for other papers. The US declared war on Iraq. The war continues. It's just the coverage that's vanished. From Caesar Ahmed and Ned Parker's " In Iraq, Muslims hope for calm during Ramadan:" Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset during Ramadan, the ninth month of the lunar calendar, when the prophet Muhammad is said to have received the first revelation of the Koran. The faithful mark the period by asking forgiveness for their sins, performing good deeds and helping the poor.Ramadan began in Iraq on Monday for Sunni Arabs and Tuesday for the Shiite majority, determined by each sect's senior clerics receiving reports of the sighting of the crescent moon."This Ramadan, we have confidence in our government," said Akram Nouri, a political science professor at Baghdad University, who was walking on a quiet street in the capital's Karada district. "We feel they are capable of managing any riot that may occur. There are many changes. The displaced are returning to their homes."Qassim Mohammed, who owns a clothing shop in Karada, said that he appreciated the decrease in violence, but he still wished for a steady supply of electricity -- the extreme heat during blackouts, even with generators, makes fasting difficult."Of course this makes Ramadan even harder for us," he said. "We want better services and most importantly electricity."Meanwhile Anna Johnson (AP) reports on a shootout between the US and Iraqi forces -- yes, "between" the two -- that resulted in the deaths of at least 6 Iraqis and involved US boats, US helicopters (two) and who knows what else. Johnson reports the dead includes 2 Iraqi police officers, 2 Iraqi soldiers and 2 "Awakening" Council members. Reuters reports 10 more Iraqis were wounded. Noon PST (two Central, three EST), Dissident Voice's Joshua Frank will be among the guests on KPFA's Against The Grain. Ralph Nader is running for president. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. They are pursuing ballot access and today should add another state. Kyle highlights this from Team Nader: Nader/Gonzalez Campaign Files for Kentucky Ballot Line Media Advisory FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: (Washington) Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org;
(KY) Jim Wiese 859-229-7284, wiese@votenader.org.
NADER/GONZALEZ CAMPAIGN FILES FOR KENTUCKY BALLOT LINE
The Nader/Gonzalez presidential campaign will submit petitions to the Kentucky Secretary of State's Office Wed. September 3, to place Ralph Nader and running-mate Matt Gonzalez on the state's November 2008 election ballot.
To qualify to appear on Kentucky's ballot, state law requires submission of the signatures of 5,000 registered voters. The Nader/Gonzalez Campaign will submit around 12,500 signatures, which evidences an overwhelming show of support. Voters are clearly stating that they do not want to be restricted to only two choices on the ballot in November.
Jim Wiese, Nader/Gonzalez Kentucky coordinator, will host a news conference at 3 p.m. Wednesday, at the Office of the Secretary of State, Elections Branch, 700 Capital Avenue, Suite 148, Frankfort, KY 40601.
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. For more on solutions Nader and Gonzalez offer that Obama and McCain have taken "off the table," visit: votenader.org/issues.With the Nader/Gonzalez ticket on the ballot, Kentuckians will now two champions of working families to vote for.WHO: the Kentucky Nader/Gonzalez 2008 Campaign
WHAT: News Conference and nominating petitions submission
WHEN: 3p.m., Wed. Sept. 3, 2008
WHERE: Office of the Secretary of State, Elections Branch, 700 Capital Avenue, Suite 148, Frankfort, KY 40601.
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-
ShareThisShareTI am noting this from John McCain's campaign: Remarks by Cindy McCain and the First Lady
By Press Office
September 1, 2008 Remarks of the First Lady
Thank you.
 Like many of you, the president and I were preparing to come to Minnesota together to enjoy a convention experience that would nominate John McCain and Sarah Palin to be our next President and Vice President of the United States.
But as we all know, events in the gulf coast region have changed the focus of our attention.
Our first priority for today and in the coming days is to ensure the safety and well-being of those living in the gulf coast region. And to all of those living in the gulf states, please know that our thoughts and prayers are with you.
The effect of Hurricane Gustav is just now being measured.
When such events occur, we are reminded that first, we are all Americans â€" and that our shared American ideals will always transcend political parties and partisanship.
We hope that the people on the gulf coast know that the American people are here to do what we can to assist them. President Bush has been speaking with officials in the region to ask what they need from the federal government. And today he visited the emergency operations center in Austin, which is helping to coordinate efforts among federal, state and local officials.
 During our time in the White House, I have had the pleasure of getting to know each one of the governors of the gulf coast states.
They are all wonderful leaders and wanted to be with us today, but we all know it was far more important that they remain in their states to provide strong leadership and management of this crisis.
Four of these gulf coast governors have taped messages for us. As I am sure you can understand, Governor Jindal could not participate.
So please listen to these important messages from these four great governors.
Let's listen to what they have to say.
Remarks by Cindy McCain
I am so proud to standing next to Mrs. Bush as we work together to extend our support to relief efforts in the gulf.
As each of the gulf coast governors just expressed to us, their challenges will continue in the days ahead. I would ask that each one of us commit to join together to aid those in need as quickly as possible. As John has been saying for the last several days, this is a time when we take off our republican hats and put on our American hats.
In that spirit, we'd like to ask that you go to a website called "cause greater" â€" or www.causegreater.com -- that will allow all of us to aid those who have been affected by Hurricane Gustav.
Although the task of helping the region recover from this disaster is too large for any one individual or organization, together we can accomplish so much to help those who have been affected.
This fund will play an important role in contributing to other relief efforts already underway.
Today - and in the coming days - let us work together to provide those affected with the means to restore and rebuild their communities. The charities listed on the screen behind us have been identified by each of the gulf coast governors to accept donations of funds, clothing, and other necessary and much needed supplies.
As you can - as you are willing, please support these important efforts.
Thank you. Now if you're confused as to why that's noted, you're not paying attention. I'm not voting for McCain. But isn't it strange all last week's garbage that other speeches aren't noted? Laura Bush is a First Lady. Yes, Laura Bush spoke last night, to introduce her husband. But she and and Cindy McCain spoke on Monday as well. It's certainly interesting what passes for news and what doesn't. Michelle Obama? Amy Trash Goodman (chatting on air with a PEDOPHILE today) thinks it's news when a possible First Lady speaks -- or at least does when it's Michelle Obama. (Offering that hideous and pathetic anti-woman speech.) It's a changing standard because Laura Bush IS a First Lady and Cindy's position in her husband's campaign is the exact same as Michelle's. Some things are 'news' and some things aren't when you are not really just a journalist. Probably explains how Larry F**nt's little buddy Amy Goodman can chat it up with known pedophiles. John McCain is the presumed GOP nominee. He has announced Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Below is a photo from the McCain-Palin campaign of Govenor Palin with First Lady Laura Bush and Cindy.  Palin is set to speak tonight. Again, I noted the above. And will continue if the media can't establish a set criteria of standards and stick with them. I have stated I'm not voting for McCain since 2004. This is not about who you vote for, it's about the decay of journalistic standards. And the H**tler publishing Amy Goodman leads the way on the decay. [And noted here before but in case anyone hasn't seen it before. I know Cindy McCain, I have tremendous respect for the work she's done and think she's a wonderful person. That said, I'm not voting for her husband.] The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.  iraqlaith hammoudimcclatchy newspapers the los angeles times ned parkercaesar ahmed kpfa joshua frank against the grain dissident voice
Posted at 07:07 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Silences . . . despite cholera, fuel and energy shortages and violence
Saturday, Sunday and Monday the New York Times
filed zero reports in the paper (print edition) from Iraq. Yesterday,
they offered two articles. Apparently that was exhausting which would
explain why they have nothing to offer today. Amazing when you consider
how much money the paper is spending on Iraq and how many are hopeful
of laying the groundwork for a takeover. More than anything else in
recent years, the cost spent on Iraq versus what's actually running in
the paper (which is the reason to station journalists in Iraq).
Amazingly, Campbell Robertson can report for the paper's Iraq blog --
even if the paper itself isn't interested. From Robertson's " Rings of Death" ( Baghdad Bureau): The
graveyard was divided into thirds, or so people said: one section for
Iraqis who were killed by Americans; one for Iraqis who were killed
during the sectarian war; and one for those who died of natural causes.
But in 2006 and 2007, Adhamiya, a Sunni island in a sea of Shiite
neighborhoods, was a no-go zone for Western journalists. It was
swarming with Al Qaeda death squads. To take a trip there was to invite
a beheading.At Baghdad Life ( Wall St. Journal), Sarmad Ali offers " Despite Iraq's Oil Oases, Its Citizens Still Live in Darkness:" U.S.
policy makers and American consumers in the past few months have been
immersed in concerns about soaring oil prices and how to lower them.
Fuel prices are also expected to be a focal issue when American voters
cast their ballots in the upcoming presidential elections.But
while I can understand Americans' fears about fuel prices and
availability, I have a harder time understanding why Iraqis -- with
their oases of crude oil reserves and untapped oilfields in the south
and the north -- have had to put up with high oil prices and severe
shortages of gasoline, diesel and cooking gas.That's the opening. The Los Angeles Times
actually includes Iraq in their physical paper. We'll note the article
filed from Iraq in the next entry and here we'll note Paloma Esquivel
and Christine Hanley's "' Mentally unstable' Iraq veteran arrested in death of girlfriend, 19:"
Late
Monday night, when Orange County sheriff's deputies responded to a
complaint about an argument at Needham's San Clemente condo, the
25-year-old veteran answered the door naked. He was belligerent and
needed to be subdued with a Taser, deputies said. And in a bedroom they
found his 19-year-old girlfriend, Jacqwelyn Joann Villagomez, severely
beaten.
By Tuesday morning, Villagomez was dead and Needham was charged with murder and was being held in lieu of $1-million bail.
The
alleged slaying capped a tumultuous period during which Needham was
wounded in combat and returned home late last year with severe mental
problems, his family said. He was still in pain from the shrapnel in
his legs and back. He struggled with nightmares that left him
screaming. He had been hospitalized and medicated, had consulted with
therapists and had reached out for help.The United Nations' IRIN reports: At
least five cholera cases have been confirmed in Baghdad and the
southern province of Maysan, due to soaring temperatures and rundown
water plants, the Health Ministry said on 2 September."Four
cases have been confirmed in Baghdad and the fifth one has been
confirmed in Maysan province. Of those, three are children younger than
10 years and the others are adults," Ihssan Jaafar, general director of
the Health Ministry's general health directorate, told IRIN.Turning to the US presidential race, Eddie notes this from Team Nader: Third time's a charm  The general election campaign kicks off today. To rev up our engines, drop $8 on Nader/Gonzalez now. 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. So, give whatever you can afford now -- $10, $20, $50, $100. 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 ShareThisShareThis The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraq sarmad ali campbell robertson the new york times the wall st. journal paloma esquivel christine hanleythe los angeles times
Posted at 07:06 am by thecommonills
Permalink
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
david bacon
john pilger
cbs evening news
katie couric
