Q: Two questions:
1) In your interview with Gen. Petraeus, you noted that 100,000 Iraqis are on the U.S. payroll as peacekeepers. I’m assuming they are not part of the Iraqi military. What happens if we stop funding them?
2) Rightly or wrongly, I have long thought that the best coincident indicator of progress in Iraq would be the repatriation of refugees. Any signs folks are coming home?
— Posted by Ken Gilpin

A: Dear Ken: Super good questions. Those 100,000 guys -- ­the members of the Sunni Awakening -- ­are one of the main reasons why the violence has dropped so much. A lot of them are former insurgents, a lot of them are unsavory. So I think if the U.S. stopped paying them, there would be a big problem immediately.
On refugees: Some have come, but not a lot, and many of those who have come home have not returned to their old neighborhoods. It seems they are too frightened, for now, that the violence will return.

That's "Q&A With Dexter Filkins" and there are hundreds of unintended laughs to be found in it (Baghdad Bureau, New York Times' blog). I loathe Dexter (or, as he would put it, I "super loathe" him) but, if nothing else, he can claim he didn't take part in The Myth of the Great Return. It is not a past myth, it is one that the US military and especially Nouri al-Maliki is interested in reviving. They try to float it weekly. So, if nothing else Dexy ever gets credit for from me, he deserves credit for at least once not taking part in the ongoing myth. Over 4 million Iraqis are refugees. That's internally and externally. It is the largest refugee crisis in the world. That reality doesn't make for easy waves of Operation Happy Talk around Iraq, so The Myth of the Great Return is a ploy to make it look not only like things are better but like al-Maliki is some sort of leader. For his vanity and to sell the illegal war yet again, Iraqis around the world are at risk. When the myth is repeated uncritically by an outlet (or, worse, presented as truth), it can be responsible for an Iraqi returning. From the United Nations to the International Red Cross and every credible agency in between, the message is loud and clear: Iraq is not safe and refugees should not be returning. [Damien Cave and Cara Buckley of the New York Times were the domestic reporters to break the myth. Cave's "Pressure for Results: The Politics of Tallying the Number of Iraqis Who Return Home" ran November 26, 2007. Buckley's "U.S. Military Plans to Bolster Iraqi Sentry Forces by 10,000" ran November 29th. ]

From Alexandra Zavis' "In Iraq, displaced families return to ruins" (Los Angeles Times):


When the family of 12 returned to Hay Askari in mid-July, little remained of the prosperous market village they remembered from a year ago. Every facade had been sprayed with bullets. Entire blocks had been reduced to charred shells. In a daze, they picked out the place where their house had stood. All that remained was a pile of rubble.
"We were all crying," said Salar Kadim, the head of the family.
When Iraq plunged into civil war in 2006, Hay Askari was caught on the front line between the country's two main Muslim sects. Sunni Arab militants pushed into the village from the north, and Shiite Muslim fighters fought back from the south. Hundreds of families of both sects fled.
The return of about 230 of the families since June is a sign of the uncertain calm taking hold in some of Iraq's most treacherous corners. Whether the peace lasts, however, hinges on whether Iraq's traumatized communities can set aside their hurt, whether there will be sufficient forces to protect them, and whether the government can provide the financial help they need to start over. Already, the government's attempts to compensate for losses are mired in allegations of corruption and sectarian bias.

No, Alexandra, it is not a sign of calm -- uncertain or not -- and you should really have known better. Nor is "about 230" a large number of returnees nor is it a number used consistently by the puppet government. This is how The Myth of the Great Return takes off yet again -- people start loosening the standards on what they will accept as fact. And let's remember when "calm" is tossed around, the International Organization for Migration continues to maintain its "Baghdad office" in Amman, Jordan due to the very real safety concerns. PDF format warning, IOM's most recent study on Iraqi migration, published earlier this year, can be found here. That report concluded:

While the rate of displacement has slowed to a trickle and returns are increasing, Iraq's approximately 2.8 million internally displaced continue to face deteriorating living conditions with poor access to shelter, food, health care, water, and other basic services. 70% of those IDPs assessed by IOM report intermittent or no access to PDS rations, 14% have no access to health care, and 30% cannot access the medications they need.
IDPs cite shelter, employment, and food as their priority needs. Currently, eviction from public buildings and land is a major concern for squatting IDPs. In addition, skyrocketing food and rent prices and little hope of employment exacerbate their already difficult siuations.
61% of assessed IDPs wish to return home, and that figure grows to 82% when IDPs were displaced within the same governorate. 26% of assessed IDPs say that their property is occupied, 15% say it is destroyed, and 43% of assessed returnees have found their property in use or partially or completely destroyed upon returning home. Some returnees may begin to reintegrate neighborhoods once homogenized by sectarian violence, especially in Baghdad, other IDPs have been killed upon returning home, and still others refuse to come back for fear of violent reprisals. However, the GoI is working to improve security and assist Iraqis to return home.
Despite limited funding and insecurity, IOM continues to assist the displaced, returning Iraqis, and host communities with emergency food, water and household item distributions, community assistance projects, and advocacy. However, overall assistance to these vulenerable communities remains inadequate. Until long-term stability is realized, rule of law improved and basic services restored, internal displacement in Iraq will remain a serious humanitarin crisis that calls for urgent assistance.

At McClatchy's Baghdad Observer, Leila Fadel provides an update to her earlier report on the female would-be suicide bomber in "Rania, Her Story Changes:"

At first she told police that she had no idea where the vest came from, the next day she told me her husband's relatives gave it to her but she didn't want to die, she didn't know what the vest was.
Today her story changes yet again. She tells us that her husband told her about the beauty of death, convinced her that paradise awaited her if she killed herself and others for the cause of Al Qaida in Iraq.
Today she may be telling the truth as she sits in a small cell with three other women and once again recounted her tale with new lies and new truths.



Ralph Nader held his Super Rally in Denver yesterday. Jesse A. Hamilton's "4,000 Blow Off Biden, Clinton for Nader, Penn" (Hartford Courant) reports:

But at a University of Denver auditorium right now, a collaboration of the disaffected have come together. It is nominally a Ralph Nader presidential rally, but it's acted in a larger sense as an Everybody Else town meeting. (Though it's possible that one significant draw for the young crowd is the several musicians performing between those issuing political rhetoric.)
Sean Penn just spoke. He's clearly not into the offerings of the Republicans and Democrats. He called McCain "the Man Who Would Be George Bush the Third." He did seem to be pretty impressed with Nader, but he said he didn't know who he'd vote for yet. He also blasted the media -- at some length.
[Hey, Sean, I own "Dead Man Walking" and "Mystic River" and, if we want to recall how you weren't always so serious, "Fast Times at Ridgemont High." Maybe it's time you buy a copy of The Courant?]
[. . .]
Nader got major cheers during his amnesty talk for non-violent drug offenders. Replace them in the prisons with corporate criminals, he said.
Nader cautioned about his fellow politicians: "Every politican I've ever known from the major parties ... starts flattering the people. Oh, how they flatter the people! Because that's what gives the people weak knees. ... Well, we have got to start getting tough with each other." He said he's disappointed about the percentage of people 18-24 who don't vote. "Read the grim lesson of history, here and abroad. When people do not turn on to politics, politics will turn on them."
"If only you knew the power you have at this young age," he said. "Chuck the iPod once in a while. Stop listening to non-stop music, which is blowing out your mind. And get serious."

Lloyd notes this from Team Nader yesterday:

D-Day Denver: Nader Protest Rally Tonight

D-Day.

Denver tonight 6 p.m.

University of Denver Magness Arena.

Sean Penn, Tom Morello, Cindy Sheehan, Jello Biafra, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez will be there.

Standing up to the corporate two-party controlled debate commission.

Calling for an opening up of the Presidential debates.

If you are in the area, see you at the event.

If you know people in the area, call them, text them, e-mail them -- and give them the details.

Free Speech TV will be streaming the event live on the Internet. (Wednesday, August 27, 7 p.m. Mountain time, 9 p.m. Eastern.)

Just click here to watch.

Also, Free Speech TV will be broadcasting the event live on Dish Network Channel 9415.

If you are home watching convention coverage on cable, watch for Ralph.

He'll be in the DNC belly of the beast at the Pepsi Center today.

He'll be on Fox TV with Neil Cavuto in this afternoon at about 4 p.m.

And MSNBC with Dan Abrams tomorrow morning at about 10 a.m.

Other mainstream media interviews are being nailed down as we speak.

Stay tuned for more details.

The bottom line is this.

The conventions are supposed to be about democracy.

But in fact, they're two big corporate parties.

Talk about corporate crime and corporate power, and you are drummed out of the building.

Talk the happy corporate talk, and they invite you in for a drink.

Thank you Ralph Nader for having the guts to stand up.

For the American people.

Against the corporate takeover of our democracy.

Stand with Ralph today.

If you are in Denver, come on down and join with us at the Magness Arena tonight at 6 p.m.

If you are not in Denver, give whatever you can afford -- $10, $20, $50, $100 -- to help defray the costs of tonight's event. (Renting the arena, sound, lights, stage hands, video crew and equipment, flying in road trippers, printing of 100,000 fliers -- you get the picture.)

By the way, great start on the fundraising drive -- we're at close to $15,000 after just two days. But we have to hit $100,000 by September 4. So, let's get 'er cranked.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

With your help, tonight, we will shake it up.

Onward to November.

The Nader Team

PS: Remember, if you donate $100 or more, 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.)

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

iraq
dexter filkins
the new york times
the los angeles times
alexandra zavis
mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadel
jesse a. hamilton
cara buckley
damien cave

Online and offline, I've been called "whore," "slut," "bitch." It's never bothered me. Call me "stupid," I don't care. And if you write that or speak of me on a broadcast, I'll hear about it and won't give it a second thought.

What does bother is what happened today.

It doesn't bother me because my feelings are "hurt" (I'm too angry to be hurt), it bothers me because I had to tell my children something by phone that I intended to tell them in person on Labor Day weekend.

Well, see, I didn't have to tell all three. I only had to tell two. One had already learned of it.

Which is why, instead of explaining to my children that the cancer was back in a face-to-face setting, I had to dump that news over the phone.

Now again, you can insult me and I really don't care.

You may be right, you may be wrong. It's your opinion and I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

But that's not what happened. Well I was trashed.

But what happened was my medical issues were made known on the internet.

By a liar with a "peace" group.

Why she felt the need to post about my having gone undergone medical exams is a question she'll try to justify and try to excuse and maybe even play dumb on. But there's no excuse for what she did.

And whether I see a doctor or not, it's none of her damn business.

More importantly, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with peace.

Now she could have listed my lovers (and added a number of men to the list -- like many women of my generation, I'm portrayed as a "slut" while the men we slept with -- in their write-ups -- are just "studs"). She could have ripped apart my statements, she could have distorted them. I wouldn't give a damn about that piss ant, too many stand ahead of her who actually have semi-names.

But it wasn't her right to force me to tell my children that the cancer was back. And it certainly wasn't fair or "peaceful" for her to throw my medical issues up at her trashy site. Three decades ago, she would have carried a camera, had a black eye or two and several restraining orders.

That's all she is: gutter trash.

She wants attention.

She lies on her blog about what she did.

But here's the basic breakdown. And, no, we're not going to help her be famous by naming her.

Back in 2007, she got into a heated e-mail exchange with Rebecca (at her blog she only offers up one e-mail to Rebecca -- she leaves out Rebecca's response, then her own response to Rebecca and what followed). Whenever I learned of that in 2007 (my mind is elsewhere tonight), I found out that she'd done something similar to Mike. At which point, we stopped linking to her. She has nothing to offer. There's no reason to link to her. I didn't say a word about her actions here, I didn't attempt to run off whatever 'traffic' she might have.

I just moved on.

Then this week, she decides to write the public account.

She wrote one of her usual 'let me pretend I'm paying a compliment and then, when you reply, attack you' e-mails. We all knew about her. Jess certainly did.

Jess worked on a reply which he toned down because she wasn't writing as herself, she was presenting herself as a representative of a 'peace' organization.

Jess made it to clear to her that she didn't know what she was talking about (she didn't) and that we didn't need to hear from her and have the back and forth that she'd already had with Mike and Rebecca. He explained the public account wasn't for her. He stated if the organization had something they would like noted, she could e-mail to inform on that but otherwise, don't bother e-mailing.

She then e-mailed repeatedly the next day. Over and over.

Now I don't know what other sites do. I don't read most of the e-mails that come here. The ones I read are put into a folder for me entitled "MUST READ." That would include any journalist named here wanting to criticize me (in whatever terms they wanted). It also includes important e-mails. Today there were several Congressional candidate staffers needing help regarding information on Congressional hearings in 2008. As always, there were the people looking for attorneys and the women in abusive relationship needing help finding assistance (the latter was going to be the topic tonight until ____ pulled her stunt). That's all that ever gets put in my folder.

The public account gets a ton of e-mails every day. Some of it is people wanting things noted. When it can be worked in, I work in every request that comes in.

But the e-mails I focus on have to do with the issues above.

The exceptions being on the weekends when I quickly read the top incoming e-mails in the public account.

In their own way, I'm sure that the bulk of what comes in here is worth reading. I don't have the time. That's why so many people help with the public account and -- when the e-mails from members to the private accounts starts backing up -- sometimes everyone gets pulled off the public account just to focus on members.

That would be a week like this week where members are offended by what went down at the DNC. It is a stressful time and when we know it's going to be like that, one person is assigned to the public account each day and everyone else is working the members's accounts.

So Dona this week did not need repeated nasty e-mails from ____ to sift through on the day when she was reading the e-mails to the public account. Because ____ represented herself as speaking on behalf of a 'peace' group, Dona had to go through every one of that LUNATIC's e-mails in case there was something happening that needed to be noted.

At the end of all that nastiness, Dona thought, "I'll write her back, I'll will go through everything slowly so she will understand that we do not have time for her nonsense."

Dona did that.

She explained in great detail why none of us have the time for ___'s nonsense.

That didn't stop ____ from writing again and again and again . . .

Jim saw she'd e-mailed the next day when he was working the public account.

She'd already insulted Dona and Jess and he told her do not write the public account again unless you have something you want highlighted. He told her that we all laugh at her (which we do) because she's one of those COWARDS who said, "If Bush is elected, I'm moving to Canada!" And, coward that she is, she moved.

On her end, she leaves all of that out. But she does manage to respost about my medical exams. She certainly knows what's important.

And here's the thing, she was posting those e-mails as she received them.

She wanted to pull the stunts she pulled with Mike and Rebecca. Had she not represented herself as the spokesperson for that 'peace' organization, she would have been ignored throughout or told to go ____ herself in strong language.

But because we tried (note the past tense) to be supportive of that organization, everyone of her rants in the last four days had to be read because something might be happening to war resisters in Canada and that might be why she was writing.

It was never why she was writing.

She wanted to pull the stunts she did with Mike and Rebecca. She's a woman with problems.

And as soon as she got Jess' e-mail, she posted it at her site claiming she had been abused and she was the wronged party. Then she kept writing and writing and writing. And never saying in her abusive e-mails, "I've already posted your last response."

You need to ask why?

On our end, no one had any idea she'd posted Jess' e-mail. (I didn't know anything about any of this until this afternoon, I'll get to it.)

So why is she still writing?

Because she wants to stir up ____.

She screams like an insane woman in her multitude of e-mails that she forgets to post at her site -- the e-mails that led to Dona finally replying to her -- and she's just trying to get attention for her vain self.

So we're speaking, Wally, Kat, Rebecca, Ava and I, and we leave an afternoon meeting and one of my cells (the one that I'm trying to keep the number private) is filled with friends and family on the voice mail.

Someone saw her nonsense online and asked my son, "Is the cancer back? Why was your mother doing a week's worth of medical exams?"

That would be my son who didn't kow the cancer was back and didn't even know I'd spent the last week of July doing repeated tests.

He calls the house when he can't get me on the phone (again, we were speaking, our phones are off during that) and speaks to Ty who knew about the exams but didn't know the results.

He calls his uncle to find out and his uncle doesn't know anything (I only told Ava and Elaine the results of the exams) and pretty soon, a whole host of friends and family are being brought into it as he tries to find out what's going on thanks to ____'s b.s.

And, on our end, we've got a full speaking schedule by the time I get to Ty's message saying, "Call me ASAP." I'm wondering what's going on as I hear "Are you okay? Call me" over and over and over on the voice mails.

So I call Ty who explains the call with my son and how he was told there was something online about my doing exams for a week which had everyone wondering what that was about and fearing that it was yet again the cancer.

So I call him not knowing what to say because the plan was I would tell them all when we were together for the holiday. I had no plans to call my children on the phone and chirp, "Mommy's got cancer again!"

But thanks to ____, that's exactly what I had to do. Because after I got off the phone with him, I knew I had to do it with my other son and daughter because they might hear about it the same way he had.

None of this has to do with peace, none of it has to do with war resistance.

____ had no business posting a damn thing at her site about my seeing doctors or not seeing doctors or how often or when.

I am not mad at Dona who wants to apologize for this. Dona walked the woman through slowly in her e-mail to her to ask her (as Jess had) to stop e-mailing her garbage to us. (And currently, some woman -- her lover -- is e-mailing Third repeatedly and we all assume, despite the woman calling ___ a "drama queen," that it's ____'s lover.)

At some point, before the calls to my two other children child (and all my children are adults, to be clear), I grabbed the laptop and wrote the organization in question to ask what the hell was going on?

The 'peace' organization's reply? They don't know anything about it. But they're forwarding it to ___ and she's a great volunteer.

No, she's not a great volunteer. A great volunteer for a 'peace' organization is not putting my personal, medical information online.

If that's to hard for them to grasp, they can visualize that they were the ones who had to call my children and tell them the cancer was back.

And the organization? When your reply is "I've forwarded it" -- not a "I'm so sorry." Not a "I'll get to the bottom of this," then you're not a peace organization, and you're not an organization period because this is a disaster and you're damn lucky I'm not naming you here. (Though community members already know all about it. The whole thing spread like wildfire in a matter of hours. So thanks, too, for telling the community something that was very private to me and that I hadn't planned on disclosing for several weeks and then only in a community newsletter.)

Everyone knows in the community at this point but Mike. Wally called Mike and invented a problem (lying at my request) to keep him (a) out of tonight's roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin (the first one I haven't participated in ever) because this was surely going to be brought up by someone and (b) to keep him occuppied so he wouldn't go into his e-mails.

Mike, like Rebecca, doesn't handle things like this well. Elaine's in her group session, as soon as she finishes that, Wally will ask to speak to her and explain to her that the news is out and she needs to tell Mike. Whenever she's reached some reasonable point with that, she'll call me and at that point I will go from angry to breaking down.

I can't do that with Rebecca. She'll start crying, I'll cry more, it just won't work. That's why I told Elaine back in July. It wasn't anything against Rebecca (who is my best friend, along with Elaine, of so many decades), it's just that she can't handle the news and also my breaking down. The news has already been hard enough for her.

And thank you for that ___ and 'peace' organization because it's not like we didn't have a full schedule all day and all night. Or that we don't tomorrow.

There's a half-assed snapshot that goes up when Wally nods to me indicating he's talking to Elaine. I didn't want Mike to find out about this online. It's a half-assed snapshot but it's the best I could manage today. Thanks to ____. And the peace 'organization.'

Seems to me when you're a 'peace' organization and this ___ goes down, you're not saying, "I've forwarded your e-mail."

You're addressing the damn situation.

That organization is not being noted again.

Not for any reason.

That isn't to whine, "They hurt my feelings!" I haven't had time to be personally hurt yet. I've had to focus on meetings where we discussed Iraq and war resisters after I had the joy of breaking the news to my kids over the phone.

So the plan was we'd be home on Saturday. My kids were flying in and would be there then as well. We'd have a little bit of fun and I'd begin easing them into the latest news slowly. For me, that meant Sunday night. They had to leave Tuesday morning, this would give them all time to have a little bit of hopefully fun memories as well as time to be upset (with the results, with me, with whatever) and that was how I planned to break what was my personal news.

But they didn't get it like that. Instead they had to hear it over the phone. And for that I cry.

And there is no apology, there is no excuse that that woman or that organization can ever offer me that will take back those phone calls.

It was my news and it was my choice when to break it to my children. Until a pushy ___ wanting to start something had to decide that she'd post about me online.

Until today, I never wrote her. Sometime late today, after I first learned the news, I e-mailed her asking her to please take it down. Though she's gotten my e-mail forwarded from the 'organization' and though she's gotten my e-mail to her, she's refused to do either.

In those moments when I was first learning what was up online, all I could think was, "If it goes down, I won't have to tell all the kids. I'll just tell ___ and explain that we'll tell his brother and sister on Sunday."

That's all I could think of.

____ never wrote back. I'm sure she'll have some lovely blog post painting herself yet again as the victim tomorrow.

I'm not the victim in this. My kids are.

And for that, I will never forgive that ___.

It wasn't her business.

Had she not represented herself as the spokesperson for the 'peace' organization, no one would have read her after she started e-mailing non-stop. Had she said, "I'm posting these e-mails," we would have complained to the 'organization' earlier.

But she wanted to start something because her own life's so damn pathetic. Well congratulations to you. Because of you, three children had to learn that their mother (their only parent, I am a widow) has cancer again.

I will never forgive her for that. I will never forget that my children had to hear that over the phone. Had to hear it cold with no easing into.

I know how they handled their father's death. I hate that woman.

I will not note her organization -- an organization that doesn't deserve to be noted anyway.

They're gone from the links.

They think she's a, quote, "well respected volunteer." She is gutter trash.

They think telling me "I've already replied to your e-mail" (they hadn't, they'd replied to an e-mail Dona wrote and we both signed our e-mails) and saying, "I hope this can be worked out" and "I've forwarded your e-mail" to ___ makes them anything other than gutter trash. They are mistaken. They are gutter trash as well.

Gutter trash was why my daughter was crying on the phone.

There is no excuse for what happened.

There is no, "Oh, I'm/we're sorry, didn't realize you had cancer." If you google you should find "cancer scare" or "health scare" up here very often. There is no, "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize posting about your medical checkups was a problem."

There is no out for what happened. There is no excuse for it.

My children deserved better.

Especially if you think I'm asshole (and you could be right), you should grasp that my children deserved better.

But thanks to ____ and the 'organization,' they didn't get that, now did they?

If you read the snapshot, you'll see that what it all boiled down to was ____ didn't like Robin Long being said to be extradited. She never likes anything. Which is why, before the coward ran to Canada (cowards are people who leave a country due to who the ruler is instead of fighting -- cowards are not war resisters whose very resistance makes a difference), she had to write one letter after another to the editor of the New York Times over and over which Dona says ___ denies at her site. Dumb ass, NYT is online now. Their archives are online for those who pay or subscribe to the paper. Plus, you really got a repuation at the paper because you couldn't stop writing.

Jim's summary of members' e-mails is that everyone's worried. Don't be. Whatever happens happens. However, don't assume something bad has happened if I don't post tomorrow morning. When Elaine and I are on the phone, I will fall apart. And I can't promise that I will be posting tomorrow morning. I would like to. I hope to. But I had planned to deal with my own feelings after I broke the news to my children. Which I did today -- not by choice. But the plan was to focus on them first. Now it's out there. At another site. (Which few read. Dona says the bulk of the comment's at ___'s site are from ___ herself as she tries to stir her five or six readers up.) And that isn't something that I was prepared for, even me, notorious for always planning for the worst.

Repeating, call me stupid, insult me, I don't care. And I'm not even going to argue that point with you. I won't even read what you write.

But that's not what happened. Someone thought she could post my medical information at her site to attack me (even though I'd never written her) to try to get a little attention to her pathetic life. And there's no comeback for that, there's no excuse.

There are three children who had to hear the news over the phone because of ___'s actions. There is no excuse for that. There will never be an excuse for that.

For any drive-bys who are pleased with news, have at it. It was never planned to be noted here. For any who think this will become the cancer site or that I will go 'soft,' you're wrong. Especially on the latter. I knew/feared what was coming before the tests. I don't go soft. I'll fall apart on the phone tonight with Elaine. But we'll remain the same site we were before ____ decided to hurt my children and, yes, that is how I will always see what she did and, no, there is no excuse in the world for it.

Seven hours ago, I e-mailed ____. She didn't have the guts to e-mail me back. The Coward who destroyed my children tonight, doesn't have the guts. She'll no doubt invent some lovely little excuse for herself tomorrow at her site. Maybe she's offer an apology of how she just didn't realize what was and wasn't acceptable. Maybe she'll justify exposing my health with the claim that I wronged her. (Again, I never wrote one word about her here until this post and she's alluded to in the snapshot that's not up yet.) Maybe she'll claim she didn't check her e-mail for seven hours?

To buy that ___, you'd have to believe that the organization received my e-mail (and Dona's) and forwarded it (and Dona's) to her without even bothering to call her and say, "Uh, I think there's a problem." Believe that while you believe that Rebecca's response to her, left in a comment at ____'s site, just vanished into thin air.

She knew what she was doing. She is responsible. She's too busy enjoying the pain she's inflicted or she's too much of a Coward to apologize for the harm she's caused. And there's no excuse for it and Wally's just told Elaine so I'm sending the snapshot and posting this.

Thursday, August 28, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, so does ignorance (yeah, we'll get to it), the US military announces another death and that's probably all I'm in the mood for.   Starting with war resistance:   "The Harper government has shown a consistent pattern of placing its faith in the Bush administration over human rights issues such as this one and others including the refusal to push for clemency of Canadians on death row. Canada also extradited Robin Long, a U.S. war resister, who did not want to take part in possible war crimes. This is a very different role than Canada played during Vietnam," said Byers.   That's international law expert Michael Byers quoted in Am Johal's "CANADA: Gov't Slow to Defend Guantanamo's 'Child Soldier'" (IPS).  Judge Anne Mactavish -- and it is spelled with a small "t" -- extradited Long.  She did not deport him.  She called it deportation -- as covered here over and over -- because the only way a US service member deserting is extraditable is if the US service member was stationed in Canada.  Calling it extradition -- as noted over and over -- would have meant Mactavish's order would be reviewed by higher courts.  She didn't want that.  She called it deporation, it was extradition.    Deportation is expelling someone from your country.  Extradition comes into the picture when you turn someone over to the government of another country.  Robin was handed over to US authorities.  That is how it is that Lond was extradited and not deported.  It is an illegal extradition.  Amazingly, those basics are beyond the grasp of some.  And, yeah, we'll get to it.  It needs to be noted that so was the fact that Robin was the father of a Canadian citizen.  Along with pre-existing laws and guidelines from the Vietnam era, Canada's ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should have applied in Robin's case.  That's before you get to the 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which also echoes the provisions on the best interests of a child (although in a weaker manner but it does reinforce that interest -- already established in Canadian law).  It can certainly not be seen to be in the best interest of a Canadian child to deport the father.  Judge Mactavish (as we've pointed out before) ignored that as well.  She split up a family.  Her goal was to Robin out of the country and quickly.   Robin could have been dropped off at an airport or bus station while authorities made sure he departed the country.  That is "deportation."  When Roger Judge was expelled from Canada (not a war resister) a US Court  (United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit) ruled Canada didn't extradite Judge (Roger Judge v. Canada).  Canada did. It was in the US court's interest to say they did not.  With Judge being wanted in the US for two murders and a prison escapee -- as well as having committed armed robbery several times in Canada -- the issue of extradition was raised to the US courts after he was back.  It was argued he was extradited and the US court said no, he wasn't.  The US court does not make the decision for Canada.  But in Long's case, it's not?  That's beyond stupid.  Of course he was extradited.  Flight risk?  You don't imprison a flight risk.  Canada didn't imprison Bambi Bembenek.  They did, however extradite her and she faced trial in the US for murder (USA v. Bembenek).    Robin Long was not deported, he was turned over to authorities at the border in an arragement over seen by Judge Mactavish.  Repeating, murderers have raised the issue that Canada extradited them to the US (due to turning them over to authorities).  But that's the difference between criminal attorneys and civil attorneys, the former know the law and they know how to make an argument.    Robin long was extradited.  And that was the common consensus everywhere but in the Canadian press.  July 16th, The Australian: "A US soldier who deserted to Canada and sought refugee status for opposing the war in Iraq has been extradited to the United States, officials said, in Canada's first such case since the 2003 invasion of Iraq."  (The official then quoted is Shakila Manzoor of Canada Border Services Agency.)  MWC News: "On Monday, a federal court in Vancouver refused to suspend the extradition order. Judge Anne Mactavish said he had not convincingly proven that he would suffer irrepararable harm if he were extradited."  Those sentences?  From AFP: "On Monday, a federal court in Vancouver refused to suspend the extradition order. Judge Anne Mactavish said he had not convincingly proven that he would suffer irreperable harm if he were extradited." KPFA's The Morning Show, August 11th, "In the second hour a Report on Robin Long first U.S. War Resister Extradited from Canada."  We could go on and on.  But the point some in Canada don't want to.  One foolish person wonders what will happen to Robin.  He or she is so 'concerned' about Robin that he or she hasn't made time to listen to Robin's interview with Courage to Resist where he reveals he does not feel returning to Canada (after he's released) will be a problem.  But here is the problem: Jeremy Hinzmanm, scheduled to be expelled September 23rd if he (and his family) haven't already left by then.   Any attorney is supposed to know that you make your case, you build your case.  Any organization even semi-functioning knows you get publicity for your cause.  But hey, kiddos, be useless.  You know all about the law.  You know how to stop the expulsions, right?    Possibly nothing's accomplished because the 'helpers' have so much more to do.  Like revealing people's health online.  Yeah, that's really sweet.  I'll address it later tonight.  Of course, the reality is I've been addressing it with my children most of the afternoon thanks to your little stunt.  Doing so by phone.  What better way to break that news, right?   But let's be really clear, people working for peace organizations aren't supposed to have the ethics of The National Enquirer.  But that's what we've seen, right?    Any half-wit knows you never put anything about a person's health online.    Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed when terrorists attacked a patrol with an improvised explosive device in eastern Baghdad at approximately 11 a.m. Aug. 28."   Maybe in Canada, they can find a way to turn that into a joke as well?  Why not, after what they did today, why the hell not?   Bombings?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left five people wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack that left two people wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded two police officers, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and a Kirkuk roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left seven people wounded.   Shootings?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports  Brig Gen Najam Abdullah and his wife were shot dead in front of their home in Baghdad.   Kidnappings?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 people kidnapped.   Corpses?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.   Turning to the US presidential race.  Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and he held a Super Rally in Denver yesterday.  From Team Nader:   Last night in Denver was a wild party for democracy. Four thousand people jammed into Magness Arena. Sean Penn hit it out of the ballpark. Tom Morello sang a glorious version of Woody Guthrie's This Land is Your Land. Cindy Sheehan ripped into the dastardly twins (Democrats and Republicans). Two new supporters came out of the woodwork to support Nader/Gonzalez. When we asked for donations, Brooke Smith, star of ABC's Grey's Anatomy, rose out of the crowd, took the stage, pledged her support -- and $4,600 -- to the Nader/Gonzalez campaign. Then we had another convert. A 21-year-old African American from Phoenix -- Rev. Jarrett Maupin -- gave an eloquent speech as to why he's breaking with the Democratic Party, and vowed to organize the Latino and African American communities for Nader/Gonzalez. And off course, Ralph laid it on the line, as usual. Free Speech TV was slammed. So, few people were able to watch on line. Our apologies.  But highlights from the rally have now been posted on the internet. Click here to watch. Then click on the icon that says FSTV Coverage: Ralph Nader at the Open the Debates.  So, take a peek at this amazing show, and then get the DVD (see below). As you know, we're in the middle of a fundraising drive to raise $100,000 by September 4. We're off to a great start, hovering around $25,000 in just four days. But we have to crank it up to meet our goal (we haven't missed one yet -- good job troops). Let's get it done. 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.   Froma Harrop (Creators.com) spoke with PUMA's Darragh Murphy and explored where things are today, "The Democrats clearly have a hooligan problem. It was as though their left-wingers suffered a kind of Karl Rove envy. They wanted to go on the attack, demonize a Clinton and hurl abuse at the Clinton's friends. Only a year ago, Vanity Fair ran a cover story on how Clinton hatred had infected much of the right wing. The left seems to have grabbed the baton. And it apparently did not dawn on the Obama shock troops that they were offending the very people their man might someday need."  Meanwhile Deeky (Shakesville) notes that Maureen Dowd's cultural tutor (yes, Bob Somerby, the link you can never locate -- at last the mystery is solved -- and, no, I am not joking) Nora Ephron was displeased with Hillary's speech last night.  Deeky forgets to note that Nora's been issuing complaints about Hillary for some time now.  If Ephron can't direct a new movie (and she can't as every film since Sleepless In Seattle has demonstrated), why should we think she's any longer capable of new criticism? In the days of vinyl, we'd say her needle was stuck. That out of the way, Deeky makes a point that the DNC better get used to hearing because it is not going away: "I'm a gay man, and so refer Mrs. Ephron to one Donnie McClurkin. And when she's done making herself familiar with McClurkin, I'd like to point her toward James T. Meeks. You see, there are other things that are important to me; this isn't a one issue election. And I have a very big problem voting for a candidate that uses anti-gay bigots as part of their campaign, regardless of the threat McCain may pose to Roe v. Wade."  Equally true is Barack hasn't earned trust on Roe v. Wade -- in fact, allowing a screaming LIAR to cover for his "present" votes actually did more damage to him with women.  Blue Lyon writes at length of yesterday's suspension of democracy and notes, "During the campaign, you never heard Bill Clinton say about Obama that he would have to 'think about' supporting him and that his support would depend on his 'tone.' But Michelle Obama said that of Hillary. You never heard Hillary say that she would get Barack's supporters, but that she couldn't guarantee that he would get hers. But we heard Barack say that of Hillary's supporters. Frankly, I don't think she owes Barack another second of her time, but guess what? She'll give it. And gladly. She's a better person than I am. That's why I wanted to see her as President."  Blue Lyon has many wonderful observations but with Harper's deciding Toad Gitlin's tired (and overpomoted ass) was just the thing to feature this week as a blogger and with the notoriously woman hating Toad dissembling, that section has to go in.  Meanwhile, remember when Barack's Beggars in Panhandle Media were offended (The Nation couldn't stop hissing) when John McCain's campaign compared the Christ-child to Britney Spears? bostonboomer (The Confluence) explains who built Barack's mock Pagan temple he'll stand in front of tonight -- the people who did the stage design on Britney's most recent tour.  The John McCain campaign issued a fashion advisory for those attending: "Today, workers at Invesco Field are putting the final touches on the newest wonder of the modern political world -- The Temple of Obama ('The Barackopolis'). It is upon this pulpit that Barack Obama will tomorrow night address thousands of screaming, adoring fans. There may be some confusion among the press about the venue and appropriate dress code for Barack Obama's big speech. To help out, we wanted to provide the following tips on appropriate attire. The toga may have gone out of style centuries ago, but after Obama's temple speech tomorrow night, they're sure to be flying off the racks.  Suggested Toga Styles: The Nobleman -- This toga is recommended for men. For celebrities and lobbyists, please add the red over toga. One should expect to see such stars as Ben Affleck dress in red robes, along with the lobbyists who fill Invesco Field's skyboxes."   That's it.  I'm not in the mood for more and am suprised I pulled that together.  As of noon today, Robin Long was still in Colorado, by the way. He hasn't been transferred yet and no one knew when he would be at that point.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, 2 US soldiers state they killed handcuffed Iraqis and did so on official orders, Ralph Nader's Super Rally takes place in Denver tonight, Courage to Resist speaks with US war resister Robin Long and more.   Starting with war resistance.  In Canada yesterday, protests took place.  Total Catholic reports, "Catholic groups demonstrated outside Canada House in London on Tuesday in protest against the deportation of US soldiers who refused to fight in Iraq and sought asylum in Canada."  It notes the groups included Voices in the Wilderness, Pax Christi, the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Catholic Worker Movement and that they carried posters with photos of war resister and the following "Canada: Stop Deporting US Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in the Illegal War in Iraq."   Bruce Kent explains, "In the year that Franz Jagerstater was beatified by the Pope in recognition of his conscientious objection and subsequent execution for refusing to serve in Hitler's army, it seems extraordinary that the Canadian Government is adopting this position.  These soldiers have every right to refuse to fight in an illegal war."  While they stood up "White boy" (read his article -- better yet, don't) Nathaniel Hoffman (Boise Weekly) blathers on about the DNC convention (24 paragraphs) before including this: "Now for a few updates on the home front. Army deserter Robin Long, a Boise native, was sentenced to 15 months in jail, after being kicked out of Canada and returned to his unit at Fort Carson, Colo. He will also get a dishonorable discharge."  That would be Robin's local weekly and that's all they have to offer.  Never forget the 'alternative' press always has something else to do.  Robin was court-martialed last Friday and Courage to Resist spoke to Robin spoke with him later that day:   Courage to Resist: Well Robin your court martial is done, you got 15 months in military prison, how are you feeling about the outcome?   Robin Long: I -- all in all -- on the day of the trial, had a really good day.  I got to tell the army and the world exactly how I felt and I got to meet one of my heroes, one of my heroines, Col. Ann Wright and I enjoyed all the support that was there, all the people that came to see.  It was kind of funny, when I was leaving, they rushed me off to a Humvee and they had -- they had the military police escort front and behind and they stopped traffic at all the intersections.  And while I was leaving, all the supporters, a lot of them were saluting so that felt really good.  I was kind of looking at different figures -- that I could be out as early as April of next year.  With everything so . . .  I don't know.  I'm just looking forward to getting the RCF Unit and start doing my time.  And when I come out, start speaking for peace again and my word will be that much more powerful.  I can talk now in the States instead of being up there in Canada. And hopefully, we can end this occupation, this war.    Courage to Resist: Now you said you got to tell the army exactly how you felt?  What did you tell them?   Robin Long: Oh, I told them, I mean, with my defense case, Col. Ann Wright and with the other witnesses, we basically got to say to a forum and an audience that normally wouldn't hear the things we were saying about the legality of the war in Iraq and, you know, following your conscience and international law, a higher duty and it felt really good to say those things.  And to let people know that they can think for themselves and follow their heart.   Courage to Resist: And did Col Wright testify at your trial?   Robin Long: Yes, she did.   Courage to Resist: And what did she say?   Robin Long: She was basically saying the things she saw working in the army and with the State Department and her decision to resign from her position in opposition to the Iraq War and also she kind of said that she wasn't offended because she's part of the military you know she wasn't offended by me deserting.  Having a colonel, someone in that high of a position, you know, with the State Department, working with different embassies, MongoliaSomaliaia, Afghanistan that maybe they paid attention to her.  The military judge looked really interesting in what she was saying so.   Courage to Resist: You said that she was one of your heroes.  I'd be willing to be that the next time we see Ann Wright, she'll be saying that you're one of her heroes.  So now you're back in the county jail?   Robin Long: Yep, I'm here at the El Paso jail waiting for transport transfer.  They haven't told me yet where I'm going.   Courage to Resist: Any hints, any clues about where you might be headed?   Robin Long: No, not yet.  They said whichever place has availability.  It's kind of -- kind of weird.  I can't bring anything with me in jail.  Like all of the books that nice people have sent I can't bring any of that stuff with me.  Mail, I can't even bring address book.  So I'm going to be sending out all my, my papers that I need to have with me to somebody so that can mail them back to me when I find out where I am.   We'll note more from Robin's interview later in the week (hopefully tomorrow).  US war resister Jeremy Hinzman is the US war resister who was the first to go to Canada and apply for asylum. August 13th, he was informed he had until September 23rd to leave Canada or be deported.   To show your support for Jeremy and other US war resisters in Canada, Courage to Resist alerts, "Supporters are calling on Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to intervene. Phone 613.996.4974 or email finley.d@parl.gc.ca,"Iraq Veterans Against the War also encourages people to take action, "To support Jeremy, call or email Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and ask her to intervene in this case. Phone: 613.996.4974 email: finley.d@parl.gc.ca."   Aidan Delgado is a war resister who has told his story in book form. The Sutras Of Abu Ghraib: Notes From A Conscientious Objector In Iraq is now out in soft cover (list price $15.00).  Eric Snider (Creative Loafing) states,  "The most engaging aspect of The Sutras is Delgado's quest for CO status; although he's ostracized for his stance, overall he's treated quite fairly."  Three other war resisters have told their story in book form: Kevin Benderman's Letters from Fort Lewis Brig: A Mater of Conscience, Camilo Mejia's Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia (Camilo plans a second book), and Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale.  Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq details many war resistersincludingng Joshua Key and Jeremy Hinzman) and Aimee Allison and David Solnit's Army of None: Strategies to Counter Military Recruitment, End War, and Build a Better World covers war resistance with a strong focus on stopping it at the point of the entry.  Many of these books (and other items as well) are available at Courage to Resist.   There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Yovany Rivero, William Shearer, Michael Thurman, Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Daniel Baker, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).   Turning to Iraq.  At the US Pentagon today Gen James Conway declared that there might be a drawdown of some marines because "to do more in Afghanistan, our marines have got to see relief elsewhere". No, that would not be withdrawal, no that would not be troops home.  Now or later.  It is an acknowledgement -- public -- by a marine commander ("The Commandant of the Marine Corps," says the Defense Dept) that the US military is stretched to the limit fighting two illegal wars that neither the White House nor the Congress has the guts or desire to end.  So the Pentagon announces: "This week the Army and Coast Guard announced an increase, while the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps announced a decrease. The net collective result is 4,519 more reservists activated than last week." Conway also declared that Al Anbar Province would be turned over to Iraqis (Iraqis under the control of the puppet government controlled by the US).   Meanwhile Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reports that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani says US troops (of some formation) will be out (or 'out') of Iraq in 2011 and that the US wanted 2015 but Iraq held firm.  Take a second to let the laughter die down.  Aboard Air Force One this afternoon, Tony Fratto held a White House press briefing and said nothing about any agreement.  At the State Dept, Robert Wood (Deputy Spokesperson) held a press briefing was asked if the US had asked for the US to maintain their presence through 2015 and Wood refused to answer that and stuck "there are discussions going on between the United States and Iraqi Government.  We're working to try to finalize an agreement by the end of December.  I don't have anything new to offer other than what we've said, and that we think this is an important agreement.  And once we have an agreement, we will certainly make that known to the publics."    This morning Paul von Zielbauer (New York Times) reported that "a first sergeant, a platoon sergeant and a senior medic, killed four Iraqi prisoners with pistol shots to the head as the men stood handcuffed and blindfolded beside a Baghdad canal, two of the soldiers said in sworn statements."  The bodies were then dumped in the canal according to Sgt 1st Class Joseph P. Mayo and Sgt. Michael P. Leahy Jr.'s statements which have each man killing one Iraqi and stated that 1st Sgt. John E. Hatley killed two and ordered the killings.  von Zielbauer quotes Leahy's statement: "I'm ashamed of what I've done. . . . When I did it, I thought I was doing it for my family.  Now I realize that I'm hurting my family more now than if I wouldn't have done it."   Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .   Bombings?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left five wounded, another that left six wounded, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 1 life (seven wounded), another Baghdad car bombing that wounded one person, a Tal Afar car bombing that resulted in fourteen wounded (and the driver dead), 2 Mosul "suicide car" bombings -- one targeting "an American patrol" with no known casualties for eitehr bombing. Reuters notes the Tal Afar wound count is not at twenty-two "according to Sabih Hussein, chief physician at the Tal Afar government hospital".  The US military announces: "Coalition forces killed three terrorists – two of whom were wearing suicide vests – and detained six suspects, including an alleged al-Qaeda in Iraq leader, during operations in Diyala province Wednesday."   Shootings? Reuters notes 1 person shot dead in Mosul.   Corpses?    Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 female corpse was discovered in Numaniya.   Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier died at a Coalition forces medical facility in Baghdad today as a result of wounds sustained following an IED attack Aug. 26.  The Soldier was wounded after the vehicle he was traveling in was struck by an improvised explosive device in northeastern Baghdad Aug. 26."   The death brings to 4148 US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war and 20 since the start of the illegal war.   Moving to the US race for president.  Tom Hayden lied (there were many but where there are Barack lies, there is Tom Hayden) that Barack had done a bang up job helping Hillary retire her campaign debt.  He DID NOTHING.  As community member Eddie points out, even Danny Schechter's fallen for the lie ("Remember, Barack's campaign helped her retire her campaign debt!").  Reality, New York Times, A16 today (buy a paper), Michael Lau and Griff Palmer report: "The analysis by The Times found that Obama donors gave $300,000 to Mrs. Clinton in July and $135,000 in June."  Chump change.  He did nothing to help retire the debt.  He's gotten credit from liars like Hayden and from people too smart to give credit like Danny.  Her worshippers, Danny?  Her worshippers?  And you're puzzled so many see you and Media Channel as part of the problem?  Hillary busted her ass for the Democratic Party last night and it is exactly the attitude Danny's exhibited today (short on facts and sprinkles of insults) that has no defense.  There is no defense for it.  And, no, PBS' convention coverage is not praise worthy?  Was no one watching last night?  Ava and I skimmed last night's coverage today and sexism was on parade.  We'll address it Sunday.  One example: Maybe someone thinks it's 'natural' to have three historians on repeatedly during the broadcast to talk about Hillary and the women's liberation movement when . . . all three are men.  Talking about the struggle for women's equality?  PBS should be ashamed.  Unless they're so ignorant that they believe there are no female historians?  Is that it?  And because women know they can count on attacks from all sides, be sure to check out how Eleanor Smeal chose to smear other feminists.  When a DC lobbyist takes over Ms., feminism suffers -- and it has suffered.  In the real world, To The Contrary's  Bonnie Erbe (at US News & World Reports) observes, "The Democrats nominated a junior, inexperienced Senator with no legislative accomplishments on his resume to whom young Americans and latte liberals swarmed due to his cool, celebrity-like demeanor. But then, those same Democratic leaders act surprised that Middle America isn't following suit. How bizarre!!!"  Kownhaus notes, "The meltdown of Progressive Blogosphere 1.0 is due in large part to major 'A' list bloggers turning a blind eye to misogyny and sexism because it helped the candidate they supported.  MASSIVE FAIL!"  Meanwhile Jerry White (WSWS) takes on the latest nonsense from fauxgressives Katty-van-van Heuvel (who doesn't do corrections) and Robert L. Borosage, "Apart from their assertion, which is false, that Obama will end the occupation of Iraq, the authors make no attempt to substantiate their claim that Obama represents a 'stark ideological contrast' with McCain. In fact, they virtually acknowledge just the opposite."  And White drives it home with this section:   The Nation is no more able to explain how such a movement represents an alternative to the "entrenched order" than they are able to establish Obama's reformist credentials. Both in their support for Obama and their insistence that all social opposition after the election remain oriented to the Democratic Party, the Nation reveals itself to be a critical prop for precisely the reactionary order they claim to oppose. They themselves are simply its "left" flank. Of course, the political milieu for which the Nation speaks has a direct and personal stake in the outcome of the election. They count on the arrival of a Democratic administration as an opportunity for many in their ranks to secure choice positions and enhanced status within the apparatus of power in Washington DC, whether as congressional staffers, trade union functionaries or researchers at Democratic-linked think tanks in the capital.   Martha saw that highlighted by Susan (Random Thoughts from Reno) and Susan has my nomination for "Truest Statement of the Week" at Third this weekend:  "The party is 'worried' now about mass defections by Clinton supporters to John McCain.  Well, what in the hell did they expect? After the May 31 charade effectively handing Obama the nomination, they lost what little chance they had in the fall.  Don't expect Clinton supporters to 'get over it' any more than Gore supporters when the 2000 election was stolen."  Hillary Clinton gave a great speech last night.  Jess, Dona, Eli, Martha and Shirley report the community members e-mails agree it was great and agree it didn't change their mind one bit.  Who are they supporting?   Ralph Nader is the independent candidate for president.  Tonight he and running mate Matt Gonzalez hold their first Super Rally.  This one in Denver.  From Team Nader:   D-Day. Denver tonight 6 p.m. University of Denver Magness Arena. Sean Penn, Tom Morello, Cindy Sheehan, Jello Biafra, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez will be there. Standing up to the corporate two-party controlled debate commission. Calling for an opening up of the Presidential debates. If you are in the area, see you at the event.  If you know people in the area, call them, text them, e-mail them -- and give them the details. Free Speech TV will be streaming the event live on the Internet. (Wednesday, August 27, 7 p.m. Mountain time, 9 p.m. Eastern.) Just click here to watch. Also, Free Speech TV will be broadcasting the event live on Dish Network Channel 9415. If you are home watching convention coverage on cable, watch for Ralph. He'll be in the DNC belly of the beast at the Pepsi Center today. He'll be on Fox TV with Neil Cavuto in this afternoon at about 4 p.m. And MSNBC with Dan Abrams tomorrow morning at about 10 a.m. Other mainstream media interviews are being nailed down as we speak. Stay tuned for more details. The bottom line is this. The conventions are supposed to be about democracy. But in fact, they're two big corporate parties. Talk about corporate crime and corporate power, and you are drummed out of the building. Talk the happy corporate talk, and they invite you in for a drink. Thank you Ralph Nader for having the guts to stand up. For the American people. Against the corporate takeover of our democracy. Stand with Ralph today. If you are in Denver, come on down and join with us at the Magness Arena tonight at 6 p.m. If you are not in Denver, give whatever you can afford -- $10, $20, $50, $100 -- to help defray the costs of tonight's event. (Renting the arena, sound, lights, stage hands, video crew and equipment, flying in road trippers, printing of 100,000 fliers -- you get the picture.) By the way, great start on the fundraising drive -- we're at close to $15,000 after just two days. But we have to hit $100,000 by September 4. So, let's get 'er cranked. Thank you for your ongoing support. With your help, tonight, we will shake it up. Onward to November.   Green Party presidential candidate's Cynthia McKinney spoke in Denver this week and Black Agenda Report (which is endorsing McKinney for president) posts her speech.  This is an excerpt:     Cynthia McKinney: Our country has been hijacked and the Democrats have proven themselves to have been in on the plan.  When it came to the Constitution, the Democratic leadership showed us that aiding and abetting illegal spying on us was more important to them than protecting our civil liberties.  When it came to war and occupation, the Democratic leadership showed us that financing an illegal and immoral war, based on lies, was more important to them than they people's desire for peace.  And when the people, hurting from the financial mismanagement of this country, called foaccountabilityty for the crimes that have been committed against the people here, against the global community, against nature, itself, the Democratic leadership took impeachment off the tableGrassrootsts Democratic Party activists want a livable wage! A "Medicare-for-all" type of health care system, repeal of the Bush tax cuts that have ushered in the greatest income inequality in this country since the Great Depression.  But the Democratic Party has shown itself to be incapable of providing even a semblance of the values even of its own activists.  The Democratic Party's national leadership didn't even mention Hurricanes Katrina and Rita survivors in their Congressional agenda for the first 100 days.     iraq robin long jeremy hinzman kevin benderman aidan delgado joshua key camilo mejia peter laufer aimee allison david solnit bonnie erbe  danny schechter  the new york times paul von zielbauer