Thursday, June 05, 2008

I Hate The War

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: We've got breaking news to tell you about that's coming to us from the Pentagon, and specifically from the Department of the Air Force. We have just learned that the top Air Force leadership is out, fired.
Let's head straight to the Pentagon and our senior correspondent there Jamie McIntyre. What's going on, Jamie?

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, this is an example of Defense Secretary Robert Gates no-excuses management style. As you said, heads are rolling over the issue of the handling of nuclear weapons and other leadership issues in the Air Force.
Asked to resign, which is code for firing, is the top civilian in charge of the Air Force, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and the top military general in charge of the Air Force, Air Force Chief of Staff General Mike Moseley. The two top leaders of the Air Force are being replaced because Secretary Gates has received a highly critical report of how the Air Force has reacted to an embarrassing incident last year which a B-52 bomber flew across country with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that nobody knew were live nuclear weapons until the plane landed in Barksdale , Louisiana .
There were supposed to be big changes made from that. But a recent inspection of the base was less than satisfactory, and Secretary Gates just got a report on his desk from an independent investigator, a Navy admiral who has been in charge of reviewing what the Air Force has done to take care of this.
It's not just this issue though. There have been a number of leadership issues in the Air Force including questions about a conflict of interest around a high-profile public relations contract that was left from the Air Force. And all of that together led Secretary Gates to decide that he was going to take decisive action.
It's not unlike what he did when he heard about the shortcomings at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital . In that case, he fired the Army secretary and head of the hospital there, as well -- Brianna.

CNN's Jamie McIntyre broke the above story on CNN Newsroom today. It should have made the snapshot today but it will make the snapshot tomorrow.

Why didn't it make it today? This is a talking post, if you haven't already figured that out.

If you look at the snapshot, you'll see some white background. That wasn't added by the person I dictated the snapshot to. It's some new Yahoo feature.

We'll come back to it. I was dictating 'live' -- meaning not to tape. Some friends tape my dictation and then type it up. This was live. When I'm doing it live, it's saved repeatedly because otherwise the whole thing can end up lost. The first indication of a problem came when my friend couldn't save. It turned out it was saved but Yahoo's features had changed. It offers an auto save now (option? if it's an option, how do you turn it off?). In the past, when doing that live, the person would end up with 12 or more drafts. Now each time you save, it's the same draft. So he was saving but seeing only the one in the draft and thinking the more recent was lost.

On my end, the big concern was when he told me we had reached 56K. 52K is risking that the snapshot will not hit the site when it's mailed. Ideally, we stop at 49K. Otherwise, I have to make time to copy and paste in because the e-mail never hits. (I copied and pasted Tuesday when it wouldn't hit. Which is why you had it here, and then when two e-mail versions finally hit, here and here.) So when my friend stopped to save and said we were at 56K and there were still things to be noted, that abosultely had to be noted, it was figure out what to pull. I didn't think it felt like 56K at that point but I'm not typing it, I'm just dictating.

It wasn't. It's shorter than a 49K for example. Click here and look at the bottom of the snapshot after the links. The archives are still running down the side. April 10th was 52K. It was 56K when the dictation was finished and then 4K was cut out to make sure it would hit the site when e-mailed. You'll notice the archives running down the left side end long before the snapshot does.

So why was it taking up so much K? This blank page (white page) feature that's showing up behind today's snapshot. That's apparently taking up K. Will it still hit if we take that into account and go over 56K? I don't know. But that's why there was no room for the CNN story or Leila Fadel's report today or two other things.

"The type is so much smaller" is a big complaint in the e-mails. I agree with you. But that's the new Yahoo. That's not anything that was done by my friend when he typed it up. I have no idea what to do other than try utilizing another e-mail. We did Yahoo because it's easy to add links. Most of the time, I go in and put the links in. Then a friend logs into the account and I dictate around the links. But usually there's at least one thing breaking since I did the links and if a link has to be added, it can be added easiest in Yahoo.

So that should answer the questions in the e-mails today regarding the snapshot. As for tomorrow (and the immediate future), I don't know what to do. We may switch to another e-mail system for dictating. We may try using Yahoo and copying it into another e-mail system. Most likely, the same process will be used tomorrow just because I won't have time to play around and see what can or cannot be done.

Moving on to the ungrateful. Tuesday's snapshot went up three times and older members (I'm not calling them ungrateful) e-mailed to point that out and how I generally delete it when that happens so there's only one. We display 5 entries on the main site, for anything else you have to go into the archives. (Otherwise, the main page takes too long to load for those with older computers and/or dial up. We dropped down to 5 entries per page in 2005 for that reason.) Tuesday's snapshot stayed with three postings for three reasons. 1) I didn't know until Wednesday morning that had happened. 2) When I did know it didn't bother me because the snapshot covered Tuesday's historic vote in Canada's House of Commons. 3) It knocked something else off the main page after Wednesday's two morning entries went up.

The third is the ungrateful. I was e-mailed and asked to highlight something from a stranger. It's not a friend. And I did highlight it. In full, no edits even though someone needs to explain to ___ how you write a press release. (Press releases are supposed to be short.) In that press release (job application form, if you're searching your brain for what highlight I'm referring to), there were links to other things including the person's presidentail race page.

Two members posted comments on that page: Martha and Deidre. Martha pointed out that all candidates (except a Crowley in one of the Carolinas whose name wasn't on many if any Democratic primary ballots across the country) had links with one exception: Hillary Clinton.

The reply comment was "I'm busy! I'm an activist! It's not my problem!" No, it is your problem. When you've created a page -- and done so some time ago -- it is your problem. When you're promoting it as a resource and you're providing people with the ability to click on all known and semi-known candidates and you're not providing them with that option for Hillary, it is your problem.

When you're known as a Hillary Hater, it is your problem. That page has been up for months (I've never visited it but we've promoted it here before and I believe at Third as well). There was more than enough time to fix it so you could click on Hillary the same way you could John McCain, Cynthia McKinney, John Edwards, et al. You chose not to fix it (and had been alerted by a member over a month ago to the need to make it clickable). Martha called you out on it publicly and you tried to play like you never noticed.

You noticed and, in fact, you intended from the start not to provide a link because you don't like Hillary, because you voted for her as your senator (why, I have no idea, she's not a Green and you are) and you're just so pissed at her and so mad at her and blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter. You promoted that as a resource for all presidential candidates. And yet for Hillary, you short changed her. Martha was right to call you out on it.

So she took a nasty attitude with Martha (who laughed about it when I checked to make sure Martha was okay with the nonsense). Then other members saw her nasty attitude with Martha and the thing got copied and pasted and e-mailed around. That's when I started hearing about it. That may be when the decision was made not to allow it (Wednesday morning) to display on the main page after the two morning entries were up (those two plus the snapshot posted three times were the five). But everyone was ticked off and Deidra went and posted. Like many Greens in the community, she's about had it with Green Party 'leaders' (and the woman we're referring to is married into that party structure though she may claim to be 'just a Green'). Deidre wrote something about the attacks on women (and may have tied that into the woman's rush from Cynthia McKinney -- whom she'd led a draft Cynthia campaign for in the fall of last year -- as it looked like Ralph Nader might run on the Green Party ticket). She noted that this was a pattern and typed something like "If I'm wrong, please provide me with the link where you call out the sexism in this campaign season." Instead of providing a link (there are none, that woman has engaged in hateful, sexist commentary throughout the campaign season), the woman took an attitude with Deidra.

There's no reason a Green has to praise Hillary. That's a given, it's two different political parties. But the Greens didn't play, "Bad Democrats." They praised Barack (as that woman did over and over, gushing in the worst Ruth Conniff fashion -- think about her love for Joe Klein) and attacked Hillary. Over and over. Which led to Jess calling a phone conference with several community members who were Greens and led to his e-mailing all the rest. Jess is a Green and he found that outrageous. He found the psudeo Green I-Need-Attention Benjamin's actions appalling. Greens were trying to influence a Democratic primary by lying (and it is lying or ignorance, take your pick) about Barack and demonizing Hillary. That doesn't play.

Because the party structure has refused to call out sexism in this campaign season or to curb their members' behaviors, we may soon pull the link to the national party. We will not promote their national candidate whomever it is. Greens in this community will be voting for Ralph Nader. Like Nader, they've seen a really ugly side of the national party and they're not taking part in that.

Early on, while really working her Hillary hatred, the woman (White) felt the need to e-mail Ty. Now Ty's the only one other than me who really replies to her. Ava did twice and lived to regret it. But Ty and I have replied to her frequently. Ty was outraged by what she wanted highlighted and I explained that in an e-mail to her because Ty was too upset to write her. He found what she wanted highlighted to be condescending and racist. She wanted to disagree with Ty about what African-Americans suffer in this society. The White woman wanted to disagree with African-American Ty about what it was like to be Black.

And she didn't understand his outrage and offense?

She wanted to play what Cedric's dubbed White Momma (after the Bette Davis TV film). And it grates on the nerves of every African-American in the community when they see that nonsense.

I love Betty's father and listen to his complaints which are always valid. Had White Momma sent her crap to this site (that offended Ty), it wouldn't have been highlighted. Betty's father was the first to be outraged by the way the MSM was portraying Jeremiah Wright as 'normal' and as 'typical' of Black churches. He's a deacon in his church and he found it offensive that, across the country, people who had never been inside a Black church were being told it was normal to repeat crackpot theories (the US government created the AIDS virus to wipe out African-Americans) and to thrust your hips and imitate the sexual act. Betty found it offensive (as did he, but she pointed it out first) that a preacher/pastor would curse from the puplit with a variety of words (stronger than damn) and that would be presented as normal. She has three children and, as she's noted, if any pastor tried that stunt while she was in church, she and her children would immediately exit. Her children are not (will not, two are very young) allowed to curse like that and she would not belong to a church where they were exposed to that and taught it was church behavior.

So along comes White Momma with her justifications and excuses and praise for what Wright did in church. White Momma who is not religious herself.

Betty's father takes this very seriously because he's lived long enough to know that when White people get 'creative' with the facts, it will blow up at some point and, when it does, it won't be White people who get blamed. It will be, "Oh, that's another Tawana Brawley! Oh, you can't trust 'them'." A lot of 'helpful' White people do a lot of damage and it's the African-American community that gets stuck with the blame after it's all over. He can provide one example after another of that. It is not 'helpful.'

So that's White Momma I. Let's move on to White Momma II. Marcia writes about her, Sharon Smith, tonight.

Sharon Smith first became an irritant to this community when she chose to attack Naomi Klein in a 2005 article. Then my position was we have tremendous respect for Naomi but people can disagree. My take on the latest stunt is very different. It's exactly what Betty's father warns about. (And Three Cool Old Guys take on Sharon Smith in tomorrow's gina & krista round-robin. I haven't read the column but Gina passed that on, so check your inboxes tomorrow morning.)

Sharon Smith, who is perfectly happy to call out Naomi Klein, showed up today to shovel some Hillary Hatred. It was time to sing Barack's praises. Sharon Smith is a Socialist. I have no idea where she sees Socialism in Barack or in his campaign. But in some knee-jerk manner, he must be elevated and Hillary must be ripped into shreds. (I'd love to see Bob Somerby take on Smith's nonsense but he generally ignores Panhandle Media.)

White Momma II wants to break down what's what, toss out the 411. It's a pity she wasn't as concerned with facts.

At one point she's smearing Hillary by saying Hillary provided the photos of Barack in the native garb of a country he visited. Proof, Sharon? She has none. She wrongly says that Insight magazine said Hillary did it. Matt Drudge said Hillary did it. Socialists are now taking the word of bottom feeder Drudge?

She praises the crazy Bob Herbert who's disgraced himself so much this campaign season that his work is a lot like the alarmist (although then he was calling innocent African-Americans crooks) junk that he produced at the New York Daily News. Herbert is a columnist for the New York Times today. I thought Socialists called out the New York Times? I guess they use them when it's helpful to them. I'm reminded of the exchange about a prostitute in The Two Jakes.

Sharon Smith tells you that Hillary supporters from Michigan and Florida were protesting in DC last weekend. The people bussed in were Florida and Michigan voters. Some were Hillary supporters, some were not. The AP had to correct their own false claim earlier this week but, hey, no one asks Smith to be factual. If truth mattered, her little rant never would have been posted.

That same weekend, she tells you, Hillary's brother said he wasn't sure he could vote for Barack if he was the nominee. Another example, in Sharon Smith's demented mind, of racism or a racist plot. In February, on national TV, Michelle Obama was asked if she would vote for Hillary if Hillary were the nominee. Sharon Smith apparently missed that and Michelle Obama's response. Missed it or, more likely, chooses to pretend she missed it.

With one column, Sharon Smith has made herself total and complete trash. You do that by putting your name to something that you either know is repeatedly false (not once, not twice, but over and over) or by being so stupid that you repeat lies without even knowing. In a functioning Real Media, Sharon Smith would now be locked out. She would have no comeback (we don't have a functioning Real Media -- but that is what the standard's supposed to be).

That may be hard for Panhandle Media to grasp. For those who've forgotten, they worked overtime to defend Jayson Blair who was fired from the New York Times for lying, for making up stories and details the paper ran, for telling the paper he was reporting from Jessica Lynch's hometown when, in fact, he was still in NYC.

That Panhandle Media defended. And they're so all knowing that they wanted to insist that his lies didn't hurt anyone (his lies hurt journalism) but Judith Miller's lies got people killed.

Did Judith Miller lie? Her reports don't hold up, no question. But where is the proof that she lied? In Iraq, she 'commandeered' US soldiers to search for WMD. The public record indicates she believed what she was told. Her mistakes were in being so gullible, so quick to report just one side and so eager to shut out dissent. It got her fired in the end because her name was mud. Call her a bad reporter and I won't question you. Call her a liar and you better have some proof when, at the same time, you're defending an admitted liar.

That's what Jayson Blair is. He made up reports. He plagiarized the work of other reporters (also a no-no). He lied to his employers and falsified where he filed from. Just one of those things is enough to get you kicked to the curb (and should be). Instead you got LOSERS like Amy Goodman saying poor Jayson Blair.

Obviously, Goodman knows nothing about journalism. If she did, she'd know that everything Blair did was a breach of the public trust and he got caught so he got fired.

Judith Miller? Too close to her sources, too close the government, too little interested in dissenting voices. She set herself up for her own fall. All of that goes against what journalism is supposed to stand for. Some speculate she got addicted to the trip of being the first with the story. I have no idea. But there's nothing in the public record that indicates she intentionally lied about WMD. Her actions in Iraq indicate she believed every half-baked claim she repeated as fact in her 'reporting.'

But Judith Miller wasn't the only one to do that. She became the scapegoat for all the press failures and let's not kid that it wasn't because she was a woman. List the ones practicing bad 'reporting' in the lead up to the illegal war and it's predominately a list of males (because, in part, women under-represented in today's press corps). Some critics of the press coverage list two papers and only one of them is the New York Times. Judith Miller didn't work at the other one. Why have none of the male reporters for that major daily become as infamous as Miller did? Miller's gone and still their work is not explored.

Miller's gone and her writing buddy Michael Gordon remains at the New York Times. Gordo was never called out like Miller. Gordo could have, in fact, slinked away unscathed like most males who practiced the same sort of 'reporting' that Miller did. But Gordo wanted war with Iran and he utilized the same 'reporting' to get that. Only after that went on forever did some begin to call him out. All this time later (and he's been selling war on Iran for approximately two years ago as well as filing War Porn from Iraq), he's still not as well known as Miller -- who left the paper approximately two years ago. Why is that?

Want to pretend it's not about Bash the Bitch? Michael Gordon wrote a really bad article this year. We didn't link to it. We called it out. But Amy Goodman included it as 'news' and did so in her headlines. She didn't credit Gordo -- had she, her audience might have hissed -- instead she said "The New York Times reports . . ."

I'm confused. Is Gordo to be trusted now?

I have a hard time believing that, were Miller still at the paper, Goodman would be using Judith's questionable scoops as headline material. But Gordo gets a pass.

We have always said, "If Judith Miller got the US into Iraq, a lot of people kept us over there." "If" because Judith Miller reported for a newspaper. If you saw her on your TV and no one questioned her, that goes to the programs that booked her. (That includes Oprah's failing daytime show.) But there were no WMDs. And that should have been obvious to most Americans shortly after the illegal war started and certainly after the fall of Baghdad. The illegal war has dragged on for five years and counting. So when do the ones who filed their feel-good, rah-rah-rah stories get called out? That's what's kept the US in Iraq. But those men (they are largely men) don't get called out. John Burns and Dexter Filkins, to name but two, are not household names the way Judith Miller is. And those two are more responsible for the garbage after the illegal war starts than any others. Throughout his years reporting in Iraq, Dexy would come back stateside and as much as a year prior to completing his time reporting from Iraq, Dexy would tell audiences he was booked to speak to that the war was lost. But he never filed those stories for the paper, did he? Was it the paper refusing to let him report the truth? If that's the case, you'd think he be disciplined by the paper for those many public speeches. That never happened. What appears to have happened is Dexy grasped how unpopular the illegal war was and tailored his speaking remarks to fit his audiences.

But that didn't prevent the 'left' from praising him. CounterSpin, via the Washington Post, has confirmation that when the US military wanted to plant a story in the press, they always knew they could count on Dexy. They never explored that. It was more important to 'explore' what crackpot Bill O'Lielly said.

So let's all stop pretending that the mighty and all powerful Judith Miller is responsible for everything. And let's try to grasp that what Jayson Blair did -- intentionally lying to the public -- is not something that can be justified no matter how hard Amy Goodman tries to. Journalists are not supposed to betray the public trust. They do, but they aren't supposed to. When they're caught doing that, they get fired. That's how the system is supposed to work. Allowing known liars to continue to work in the Real Media destroys the public trust in the profession. Jayson Blair was fired for good reasons.

Judith Miller 'reported' badly. There's no indication that she intentionally lied, just that she was happy to play stenographer and never met an extreme claim that she wouldn't peddle as fact because she fell for it. And she fell with prodding. That goes to the paper itself. Judith Miller did not decide what ran on the front page. She did not decide assignments. The paper went along with and promoted her 'reports.' With Abu Ghraib we hear (rightly) that those at the top aren't being punished. The problems with Miller's 'reporting' go above her. Reporters, even good ones, can get too caught up in a story. That's what editors and publishers are for. They are supposed to question. They are supposed to use judgement. Where were they? Waiving through Miller's 'reporting.'

None of the above is a defense of Miller. It is noting she was one of many reporters at many outlets doing her part to sell an illegal war. Who else was fired? It is noting that at the New York Times, she was not the last say. She was a reporter. A star reporter, no question. But that's not supposed to prevent editors and publishers from questioning and using their own judgement.

The same lack of judgement the New York Times continues to demonstrate by keeping Michael Gordon on the payroll and front paging his 'reports.'

We all know that the same paper can sit on stories. Bully Boy's wire was sat on, the illegal warrantless spying was sat on. They have no problem telling some reporters 'no.' They could have done the same with Miller. They didn't.

No one's telling Sharon Smith "no" either. She wrote an article that wouldn't get printed in the MSM even though it is a greatest hits of many the MSM smears against Hillary. It wouldn't pass the fact check of even a lazy editor. But because it attacks someone that the outlets hate, it gets waived through. It's the same as Stephen Zunes and Jar-Jar Blinks writing that Hillary only visited Iraq once (Feb. 2005!) when, in fact, Hillary visited Iraq in 2003 in a well publicized and documented trip. When the objective is to spew hate at a target the outlets hate, there's no need to be concerned about facts.

Sharon Smith likes to say she's a feminist. But Sharon Smith has written no article decrying the sexism in this campaign cycle. Sharon Smith like to pretend she's a feminist but happily repeats lies about another woman. Sharon Smith likes to say she's a feminist but there's no indication in any of her recent writing that she is one.

The reality is that Sharon Smith is a feminist. But no one could tell it by reading her recent output. When I started saying that Panhandle Media was toxic and viral that's exactly what I meant. I wasn't saying, "It's garbage!" It is that. And I've called it that. But when I say toxic or say that it has poisoned the well, I'm talking about this sort of thing.

When people can abandon willingly all the standards they supposedly value because it's more important to trash Hillary than to be journalists or feminists, they've been infected with the toxic nature of Panhandle Media. It's past time for some mea culpas on their part because this campaign season will be studied for years to come and it will not be favorable to Panhandle Media. Women are always the targets. Sharon Smith was happy to make Hillary her target but, guess what, it cuts both ways. The ones who will be called out for their toxic natures the loudest will most likely be women. A David Corn (who has gone completely batty) will be let off with a pass while people will point to women. Sharon Smith decided to go into whack-job mode and it is her and women like her that future analysis of this campaign cycle will target.

If Sharon Smith doubts that, she can ask Judith Miller. Or she can look at the scorn and abuse heaped on Katie Couric. That started from the first announcement, months prior to Couric's first broadcast. In April, Panhandle Media finally noticed Charlie Gibson. That would be "I moved from Good Morning America to World News Tonight." Ava and I called Gibson out repeatedly. We pointed out that to install him, you had to get rid of not one but two anchors -- one injured in Iraq, the other pregnant. But while Couric was Today! and made so many so nervous, no concern was expressed over Charlie moving from a daytime entertainment program (that he went to by choice) and taking over the nightly news. Katie Couric does the same thing and gets piled on and we're supposed to pretend that Panhandle Media has any standards?

Women are always singled out for attack. There's a non-actress who's been doing TV. Ava and I caught it at the urging of friends with the show who want us to re-evaluate the show. We passed because that woman has been the source of enough scorn. She can't act. We passed on explaining that and how bad she was on the program.

When a woman's the object of a pile on (and it's usually woman that are), the feminist thing is to find something else to cover. If you can't do that, it should either be because this is your 'beat' or because the woman has broken laws. (Laws, not mores.)

There's another woman who is an actress. I like her, she's a sweet young woman trying to find her way and making a lot of mistakes. And don't we hear about it over and over? But how many times is the former lead singer of Stone Temple Pilots going to get busted for drugs before we get the hand wringing that we do over any number of young women? A man does it, or does it and bites a police officer (to mention another), and it's no big deal. A woman does and it's non-stop, international 'news.' Let's stop pretending the real 'crime' wasn't gender.

This week, Today put Danny Bonaduce on as an 'expert' to talk about Tatum O'Neal whom he has never met. But he was there weighing in. And you had to wonder, how long is this 'rehab' going to last for Danny? (Disclosure, I've known Tatum for many years.) Tatum's the object of ridicule and scorn but how many chances has Danny had and how many times was he given a pass? Men in the same or worse circumstances are "Bad Boys" -- regardless of age. Women are, by contrast, public disgraces and called out repeatedly.

Now you can take either approach but if you have any standards, you'd apply your 'judgment' to men and women equally. To return to Scott, formerly of STP (whom I loathe), think about all the women or just think about Courtney Love. What do we hear with Courtney? She's a mother! Well, guess what, Scott's a father. But the tut-tut police don't make a point to grand stand on that 'issue' when it comes to Scott, do they?

A woman who wrote for Rolling Stone (wrote some fine and outstanding pieces) died this decade. The New York Times ran an insulting and moralizing obit. Her behavior was not of Gonzo proportions. But she was called out. We apparently love our "Bad Boys" but our "Bad Girls" can go straight to hell and, if we fear they may not, we're more than eager to help them along the way.

You saw the same thing in the drug deaths of the early seventies. The men were "artists." Janis? She was "pathetic." She was a "transgressor." The men were following the muse, drawn to the muse, living wild and exciting lives. But it was 'poor Janis.' The sexism is nothing new. That it continues at this late date is just sad. And Sharon Smith rushing to take part in a public stoning of Hillary Clinton and doing so with what can't even be called 'half-truths' is really pathetic. Repeating, when a pile-on takes place, real feminists need to ask what they think they're adding or contributing by joining in. If they take a second to stop and look around, they'll notice the loudest yellers are men. They'll notice that the men are screaming vile and sexist things. That alone should make them recoil. But Panhandle Media is toxic and, a few years from now, a number of women will have to claim they are in 'recovery' to justify their actions this year.

In March of last year, Kat reviewed Show Up. That's Holly Near's latest CD. It's an amazing CD and my favorite track is the second one, where Holly sings "The war against women rages on, Beware of the fairytale" ("Somebody's Jail"). That is a war too and one of the oldest but no one's supposed to notice. Certainly most women (and men) in Panhandle Media elected to ignore it. Because, hey, it's just women and how important are we?

The treatment of women says a great deal about a society. And one that regularly attacks women is one that readily (and eagerly) goes to war outside its own borders.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love

There's a war going on

So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove

And I'm writing a song about war

And it goes

Na na na na na na na

I hate the war

Na na na na na na na

I hate the war

Na na na na na na na

I hate the war

Oh oh oh oh

-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4083. Tonight? 4092. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,221,154 up from 1,217,892 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War.

The e-mail address for this site is