Safely secluded in the New Mexico desert, a Vietnam War-era draft resister named Zeke lives a life of contented self-exile with his wife and teenage daughter. But when his long-unacknowledged younger brother arrives bearing a bequest for Zeke's daughter, the uncontrolled collision of past and present triggered by that bequest threatens to tear Zeke's world apart.
Directed by Dr. Brian Haimbach, Stephen Kilduff's The Uncurled Hand is the winner of our 2007 New Play Festival, a year-long, nation-wide search for new works for the American stage. The festival receives hundreds of scripts throughout the year submitted by playwrights from around the country and abroad. Centre Stage is one of only two professional theaters in South Carolina that mount full productions of new play festival winners and the only theater in the Upstate to do so.
The above is the opening to Leah Thomas' "Past and present collide in world-premiere production of The Uncurled Hand at Centre Stage" (South Carolina's Greenville News). The play runs from July 10th through 19th and CentreStage.org will provide more information (such as ticket prices, purchasing tickets, times and directions). Meanwhile Joseph G. Cote's "Marine is arrested, turned over" (Nashua Telegraph) is much more interesting than some of the briefs popping up about it which generally just note that that Lance Cpl. Jose Flores was arrested and that he was AWOL from the marines. Take the AP's nonsense brief which claims he "has been picked up in Hudson, New Hampshire, after being stopped on a traffic warrant." Hmm. Sounds like Flores was picked up after being stopped while driving, doesn't it?
But that's not what Cotes reports (AP credits Cotes' paper, if not the reporter himself). Cotes does mention a traffic warrant. But that was outstanding. The article notes ("according to [police] Capt. Donald Breault"), "A Marine representative had contacted Hudson police and asked them to arrest Flores because he was deemed a deserter" and so the police did that. He wasn't stopped in traffic. More importantly, this yet again demonstrates that the US military has consistently LIED about "All we do is put their names in a computer. We don't have the time or energy to track them down." They go out of their way to do that. Whether it's tipping off Alameda police that Kyle Snyder is in the area of sending police to search parents' homes, they actively are pursuing people who self-check out. Cotes reports it, cites a police captain explaining how they got involved: contacted by the marines. Whether this is true or not (it's from a flack for the marines), this is how the process is described after the arrest "the Marines dispatch a Marine Corps Absentee Collection Center team to extradite him or her and return the Marine to his or her assigned unit."
Since yesterday morning, the following community websites have updated:
Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Betty's Thomas Friedman is a Great Man;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
Ruth's Ruth's Report;
and Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
leah+thomas
joseph e. gates
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
ruths report
sickofitradlz
Saturday, June 28, 2008
A personal loss for Nouri
Outraged Iraqi officials demanded an investigation into an early morning U.S. military raid Friday near the birthplace of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, saying the operation violated the terms of the handover of Karbala province to Iraqi security forces.
Karbala Gov. Oqeil al Khazaali said U.S. forces killed an unarmed civilian and arrested at least one person in the raid in the southern town of Janaja. The governor's brother, Hassanein al Khazaali, said late Friday that the Iraqi killed in the operation was a relative of the U.S.-backed prime minister.
The above is the opening of Hannah Allem's "Iraqi officials outraged by U.S. raid in prime minister's hometown" (McClatchy Newspapers) and quoting officials, such as Karbala's military commander Raed Shakir Jowdet, Allem reveals it was a US operation involving US helicopters and at least one US plane with US forces on the ground while the governor of the region (Oqeil al Khazaali) wants answers and points to "faulty intelligence" on the part of the Americans.
Big question, will it matter more -- that an Iraqi civilian was killed -- to the puppet of the occupation (Nouri al-Maliki) that the dead civilian is a relative?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
hannah allem
Karbala Gov. Oqeil al Khazaali said U.S. forces killed an unarmed civilian and arrested at least one person in the raid in the southern town of Janaja. The governor's brother, Hassanein al Khazaali, said late Friday that the Iraqi killed in the operation was a relative of the U.S.-backed prime minister.
The above is the opening of Hannah Allem's "Iraqi officials outraged by U.S. raid in prime minister's hometown" (McClatchy Newspapers) and quoting officials, such as Karbala's military commander Raed Shakir Jowdet, Allem reveals it was a US operation involving US helicopters and at least one US plane with US forces on the ground while the governor of the region (Oqeil al Khazaali) wants answers and points to "faulty intelligence" on the part of the Americans.
Big question, will it matter more -- that an Iraqi civilian was killed -- to the puppet of the occupation (Nouri al-Maliki) that the dead civilian is a relative?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
hannah allem
Friday, June 27, 2008
Iraq snapshot
Friday, June 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the deporation clock ticks down for Corey Glass, another Iraqi judge is assassinated, MTV accepts political advertisements . . . or at least some, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Iraq Veterans Against the War Matthis Chiroux remains in the news. Chiroux announced June 15th that he would not report to duty (as he'd stated he wouldn't on May 15th). South Carolina's WIS News 10 reported on some reactions yesterday (link has text and video):
David Stanton: Being called to deploy? It is a possibility that all of South Carolina's bravest face but the refusal of one soldier to go to Iraq has many military members talking. Sgt. Mathhis Chiroux was honorably discharged about a year ago. He served in Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and the Phillipines. Chiroux was then called back to duty for service in Iraq. But Chiroux says he will not report to Fort Jackson as ordered. As Trey Paul found out some have a hard time supporting the decision.
Mst. Sgt. Gary Villanueva: My father always taught me that a handshake was a man's honor. And signing on the dotted line is equivalent to a handshake. And s-s-so if they made that comitment I believe they should honor it and if they didn't, quite frankly, I question them as a man.
Trey Paul: We asked and Mst. Sgt. Gary Villanueva did not hold back.
Gary Villanueva: Maybe it's best if they don't come into the military because that type of person I would really question my . . . uh . . . back half of my life. And then protecting me or any other individuals I fight with.
Trey Paul: When it comes to a soldier who doesn't complete a military contract lets just say Villanueva doesn't agree
Gary Villanueva: I-I-I uh really think that uh there subject to the punishment that the military law stipulates because they signed a contract.
Trey Paul: Villanueva is one of several soldiers here at Fort Jackson taking part in the IRR -- that's the Individual Ready Reserve. It's the same type of program that Sgt. Matthis Chiroux was required to attend. Other reservists like Sgt. Nolze don't agree with Chiroux either but he thinks he understands where Chiroux's coming from.
Specialist Joshua Nolze: Up until a couple of years ago the military never really used IRR and they told you when you signed the contract, 'Don't really worry about it. You're not going to get called up.' Now days, it's a different story, different world. You're getting called up so it's something you've got to think about before you sign up.
Trey Paul: The IRR works like this: As a soldier you always sign at least an eight-year contract. Most spend at least two of those years serving active duty. The remainder of the contract is spent in some form of the reserves. Mostly the IRR. First Sgt. Reid is helping train these reservists.
1st Sgt. Michael Reid: I also have mixed feelings because some of these young fellows have already been two or three times and probably don't want to go back.
Trey Paul: Since 9-11 a spokesman for the national IRR says Chiroux is just one of seven-hundred who have been a no-show
Gary Villanueva: Whether I agree or disagree with this war is im-imaterial. But one thing I'm soli- I'm sure of, that there are servicemen overseas that need support and that's why I'm coming back to support them.
Trey Paul: At Fort Jackson, Trey Paul, WIS News 10.
IVAW notes:
How you can help:
Find out more about Matthis Chiroux.
Moving to Canada, "I'm refusing to kill innocent people and I'm the one waiting to go to prison and they're the ones setting us up to commit war crimes and they go free," US war resister Ryan Johnson explains to Bill Kaufmann in "Writing on wall for deserters" (The Calgary Sun). Ryan and his wife Jenna Johnson moved to Canada in June 2005. Johnson notes that if a war resister is deported in July, he would most likely be the next one. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Corey Glass is an Iraq War veteran and a US war resister. He went to Canada seeking asylum -- the kind of welcoming Canada provided to war resisters ("draft dodgers" and "deserters") during Vietnam. After being told he was being deported, he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. Douglas Glynn (The Barrie Examiner) quotes Corey stating, "The motion is not legally binding, though the majority of Parliament voted for it. I realized innocent people were being killed. I tried to quit the military while in Iraq," he said, "but my commander told me I was just stressed out and needed some R and R (rest and relaxation), because I was doing a job I was not trained to do. I went home on leave and said I was not coming back." Ryan also notes the motion and points to the apparent dismissal of it by Stephan Harper (prime minister of Canada) wondering, "He ran on a platform of democratic reform -- he should take some advice of his own."
Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign will hold a "Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass" July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008. Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this motion." They are also asking for a July 2nd call-in. Diane Finley is the Immigration and Citizenship Minister and her phone numbers are (613) 996-4974 and (519) 426-3400 -- they also provide her e-mail addresses minister@cic.gc.ca ("minister" at "cic.gc.ca") and finled1@parl.gc.ca ("finled1" at "parl.gc.ca"). To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes 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, 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). "Ultimately, the way I look at it is," McClatchy Newspaper's Leila Fadel offered to Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) yesterday, "there were 23 death certificates, 24 people died. Among them were toddlers and women, and Sergeant Wuterich has said this is what his training told him to do--go into the houses, throw grenades, and apparently shoot children and women. And it did happen, no one disputes that these women and children were killed. And that is what is angering the people of Haditha, that somehow, even with all of these bodies, that no one is being held accountable. And from what I understand, the case against Sergeant Wuterich is particularly strong and he's given eight--I think seven Marines immunity in order to have testimony against the sergeant. And he says, 'I did the right thing.' But toddlers--three-year-olds--and women died." Fadel was on to discuss the realities she reported in "Hadith victims' kin outraged as Marines go free" (McClatchy Newspapers, and link has text and video):"Khadija Hassan still shrouds her body in black, nearly three years after the deaths of her four sons. They were killed on Nov. 19, 2005, along with 20 other people in the deadliest documented case of U.S. troops killing civilians since the Vietnam War. Eight Marines were charged in the case, but in the intervening years, criminal charges have been dismissed against six. A seventh Marine was acquitted. The residents of Haditha, after being told they could depend on U.S. justice, feel betrayed." With Gonzalez and Goodman, Fadel shared, "We took a drive back to Haditha last week, trying to get a reaction to the dismissals and the one acquittal regarding this case of 24 people being killed on November 19, 2005. And the ultimate feeling I came away with: people felt betrayed. They felt betrayed that journalists told them if they told their story, somebody would be held accountable. They felt betrayed investigators told them that U.S. justice--that they could depend on that, and nobody is being held accountable. Many of them said, 'How many bodies does there have to be for someone to be punished for this?'" This as Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports a US military raid in Karbala today resulted in 1 civilian being killed. On the heels of three bank employees being shot to death by the US military while on their way to work and a family air bombed by the US military. Earlier this week at Inside Iraq, an Iraqi correspondent remembered "Yasser Salihee, a physician and a father of one lovely girl" who had worked for McClatchy until being shot dead by a US soldier "Friday June 24, 2005". "Your friends and colleagues never forgot you and will not," writes the correspondent, "[. . .] I've been in so many places Yasser, I saw many die. I saw children, women and men were killed by terrorists or troops and we will keep trying to tell their stories. If we die my friend we will be dying telling the truth, telling the people what really happens here." Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province roadside bombing last night that claimed the life of 1 shepherd and left two more wounded. Reuters notes a Shirqat roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 "Awakening" Council members and left three more wounded. Shootings? Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports 1 "senior city appeals judge" was shot dead in Baghdad Thursday. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) identifies the judge of "Kamil al-Swaili, Head of Appeal Court" and quotes a High Judiciary Council spokesperson explaining over "40 judges have been assassinated since March 2003". Reuters explains, "Assailants using two vehicles blocked the judge's way, a police source said. They shot the judge, who was alone in his vehicle, before driving away, he said." Iran's Press TV states, "The assassination of al-Shewaili -- head of one of Baghdad's two appeals courts -- is the latest in a series of judges, academics and other professionals to be targeted by militants." Reuters notes a police officer was injured in a Jurf al-Sakhar shooting. Corpses? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mahaweel. Meanwhile at the same the US military calls back service members who have been discharged, they kick out those who want to serve. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network explains: Decorated Army Sergeant Darren Manzella has been discharged under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law banning lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans from military service, effective June 10. The Iraq war veteran was one of the first openly gay active duty service members to speak with the media while serving inside a war zone. In December 2007, Manzella was profiled by the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes. He told correspondent Lesley Stahl that he served openly during much of his time in the Army, with the full support of his colleagues and command. "The discharge of battle-tested, talented service members like Sergeant Manzella weakens our military in a time of war. National security requires that Congress lift the ban on gays in the military and allow commanders to judge troops on their qualifications, not their sexuality," said Adam Ebbin, Communications Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). SLDN reports that a growing number of service members are also serving openly without incident. The organization is aware of more than 500 troops who are 'out' to their colleagues and, in some cases, their commands. Sergeant Manzella said, "My sexual orientation certainly didn't make a difference when I treated injuries and saved lives in the streets of Baghdad. It shouldn't be a factor in allowing me to continue to serve." Manzella, 30, enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2002 and was twice deployed to the Middle East in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. While under fire on the streets of Baghdad, he provided medical care to his fellow soldiers, Iraqi National Guardsmen and civilians. He was awarded the Combat Medical Badge, and also received several other awards recognizing his courage and service.
In December of last year, Leslie Stahl spoke with Manzella for CBS' 60 Minutes (link has video and text)
Turning to the US political race for president, Josie Swindler (Radar) reports MTV had decided to take political advertising. Wait? Madonna, naked with the flag around her wasn't political speech? (Well, it sure wasn't art.) But, Swindler reports, there's a catch. They will allow the GOP and the Democratic nominees -- whomever they might be -- to buy ads. And other candidates? MTV v.p. of communion (I'm being sarcastic) Jeannie Kedas states, "We would consider and accept third-party advertisements on a case by case basis." Which is a good time to note that Bill Coleman shares his thoughts on the presidential race in a letter to the Bennington Banner:
The candidates you are allowed to see . . . To MTV, according to today's news, or not to MTV.
Two upcoming events for the Nader campaign: (1) "Private Conversation and Fresh Summer Buffet on the River" fundraiser in Litchfield, Conn. Sunday at 2:00 pm and (2) a Honolulu Nader for President 2008 Rally Thursday (July 3) at 8:00 pm at the Univeristy of Hawiaii. For more information on the events, click here. Team Nader notes:
Ralph Nader will be a guest on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Sunday June 29, 2008. (Check here for broadcast times in your area). By the way, there are many definitions of "talking white." Here's our definition, from the Nader/Gonzalez dictionary: Talking white means telling the white corporate power structure what they want to hear, rather than calling them out and telling them what they need to hear. Onward
And please note, whether George Steph plays it straight or goes into attack mode, don't turn off your television after -- you'll miss out on the unintentionally hilarious roundtable to follow featuring two Punches and two Judys. In other TV news, US Senator Barbara Boxer will be among the guests on this week's Bill Moyers Journal. Moyers broadcasts Friday nights on most PBS stations (and may repeat in some markets so check local listings). The Journal features online transcripts, online audio, online video and a blog to leave comments. In addition, Bill Moyers and Michael Winship often post commentaries there, either a Moyers commentary or a Winship commentary, or this week, a commentary by both. From the opening of "It Was Oil, All Along:"
Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction. But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire, and ashes. And now the bottom line turns out to be....the bottom line. It is about oil.
as does NOW on PBS which asks, "Is there a way to keep desperate homeowners in their houses? One enterprising entrepreneur has come up with a creative and self-sustaining way to prevent foreclosures and protect individuals from predatory subprime lenders, but not everyone agrees with his approach. Is this another cautionary tale in the making?" PBS' Washington Week will find Gwyn speaking with the New York Times' Linda Greenhouse and NBC's Pete Williams about the Court's latest rulings; Peter Baker (New York Times) and Shailagh Murray (Washington Post) will round out the roundtable. And independent journalist and artist David Bacon continues to cover the immigration experiences and his latest photos from Mixteca are amazing. Click here for his photos of documenting the experiences of immigrants. This fall (September) Bacon's Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants us released by Beacon Press.
mcclatchy newspapers
|
washington week
pbs
now on pbs
Other Items
May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Corey Glass is an Iraq War veteran and a US war resister. He went to Canada seeking asylum -- the kind of welcoming Canada provided to war resisters ("draft dodgers" and "deserters") during Vietnam. After being told he was being deported, he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. Douglas Glynn's "On borrowed time: U. S. war resister hopes to stay in area MIDLAND"(The Barrie Examiner) reports that a petition in Ottawa is being passed around to allow Glass and other war resisters to remain in Canada by following the House of Commons motion. Corey is quoted explaining, "The motion is not legally binding, though the majority of Parliament voted for it. I realized innocent people were being killed. I tried to quit the military while in Iraq," he said, "but my commander told me I was just stressed out and needed some R and R (rest and relaxation), because I was doing a job I was not trained to do. I went home on leave and said I was not coming back."
"I'm refusing to kill innocent people and I'm the one waiting to go to prison and they're the ones setting us up to commit war crimes and they go free," Ryan Johnson explains to Bill Kaufmann in "Writing on wall for deserters" (The Calgary Sun). Johnson and his wife Jenna went to Canada in 2006 and, as he tells Kaufmann, if Corey is deported, he's probably right behind him. The article concludes:
Johnson says he's aware of some resisters in the Calgary area but they won't go public.
And for a prime minister who argues Canadians are fighting for democracy, Johnson wonders why he's dismissing a June 3 Parliamentary vote renouncing the deportations.
"He ran on a platform of democratic reform -- he should take some advice of his own," says Johnson.
Until Americans come to their senses and try their leaders for war crimes, Canada shouldn't be forcing the return of people principled enough to oppose them.
But with a U.S. preparing for a permanent colonization of Iraq and a Canada mired in its own misbegotten military occupation slavish to its neighbour, it's a long shot.
Turning to the US, "Sgt. Matthis Chiroux was to report the Individual Ready Reserve last Sunday at Fort Jackson, but he refused. It's a decision that has made headlines around the world, and a decision that has sparked the opinions of many of his fellow soldiers," is part of Trey Paul's "Opinions mixed about soldier's refusal to report" (South Carolina's WIS10, link has text and video). Iraq Veterans Against the War Matthis Chiroux announced June 15th that he would not report to duty (as he'd stated he wouldn't on May 15th). Chiroux served his time and was honorably discharged. Then the army decided to 'recall' him and to send to Iraq. Chiroux knows the Iraq War is an illegal war and will not take part in that. On the 15th of this month, he explained, "Today I stand in resistance to the occupation of Iraq because I believe in our nation, its military and her people. I resist because I swoare an oath to this nation that I would not allow it to fall into decay when I may be serving on the side of right. . . . I stand here to make it known that my duty as a soldier is first to the higher ideals and guiding principles of this country which our leaders have failed to uphold. I stand here today in defense of the US Constitution which has known no greater enemy, foreign or domestic, than those highest in this land who are sworn to be governed by its word." The below is from IVAW:
Independent journalist and artist David Bacon continues to cover the immigration experiences and his photos from Mixteca are amazing. His photos are always amazing but the colors, shades and depth in these . . . Click here for his photos of documenting the experiences of immigrants. This fall (September) Bacon's Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants us released by Beacon Press.
Miguel notes this from Team Nader:
And Bill Coleman shares his thoughts on the presidential race in a letter to the Bennington Banner:
In reality, candidates such as Ralph Nader are disregarded from the outset because the election of someone such as Mr. Nader would bring about a true day of reckoning for American corporations.
As long as these corporations are permitted to on the one hand have the same or greater rights than individual citizens, and on the other hand to never face the death penalty or anything more than self regulation or slap on the wrist fines, they can continue to wreak havoc everywhere they go and drain average people of every last cent of economic vitality they can muster.
Yes, Ralph Nader supports an end to corporate personhood, in contrast to Barack Obama or John McCain, whose campaigns are awash in contributions from corporate America.
The differences between Mr. Nader and the candidates that you are permitted to read about or see on television each day are very far reaching and vast.
In other TV news, US Senator Barbara Boxer will be among the guests on this week's Bill Moyers Journal. Moyers broadcasts Friday nights on most PBS stations (and may repeat in some markets so check local listings) as does NOW on PBS:
This week NOW on PBS takes a look at the non-profit organization Just Price Solutions and the man behind it, Brian Cosgrove. Cosgrove identified a problem: many low or moderate income borrowers were getting steered into subprime scams because they had low credit scores. But these scores were often low because the home buyers simply didn't take out enough loans or credit cards. Cosgrove's goal was to help the millions of Americans with lower incomes purchase a home without being caught in a "subprime" nightmare.
So Cosgrove and his team created an online software application to measure creditworthiness differently: their track record of paying regular bills, like rent and utilities. By making it cheaper and easier to analyze creditworthiness, Just Price Solutions helps banks offer affordable mortgages to people who would otherwise be forced to pay high interest rates.
The organization has received financial backing from Fannie Mae, Citibank and State Farm Insurance, and has developed a related innovation to assist people facing foreclosure in their homes.
Cosgrove says their success is due in part to their community-focused approach. "We're connected with them. We have people back in the neighborhoods that know them. We've involved municipalities in the solutions, we've involved the non-profits, sometimes we've involved the employers. It just produces a community," Cosgrove tells NOW.
But not everyone's a fan of pushing homeownership so widely. Economist Dean Baker says homeownership is just too costly for many families these days. "When we're talking about low, moderate income people, they don't have a lot of money to throw around. So if we're talking about spending more money on housing costs than necessary, that's coming at the expense of health care for their kids, of getting good food, of child care."
But the way Brian Cosgrove see it, America needs new homebuyers now more than ever. "When a community breaks, it's just as important for those of us who are lending in there to step in and say, look, I don't want all the capital to come flying out of here. Let me find another borrower and bring them into the community."
This is part of NOW's continuing segment on social entrepreneurs and their life-sustaining innovations called Enterprising Ideas.
PBS' Washington Week will find Gwyn speaking with the New York Times' Linda Greenhouse and NBC's Pete Williams about the Court's latest rulings; Peter Baker (New York Times) and Shailagh Murray (Washington Post) will round out the roundtable.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
douglas glynn
corey glass
ryan johnson
matthis chiroux
bill kaufmann
trey paul
the new york times
bill moyers journal
linda greenhouse
david bacon
peter baker
shailagh murray
the washington post
"I'm refusing to kill innocent people and I'm the one waiting to go to prison and they're the ones setting us up to commit war crimes and they go free," Ryan Johnson explains to Bill Kaufmann in "Writing on wall for deserters" (The Calgary Sun). Johnson and his wife Jenna went to Canada in 2006 and, as he tells Kaufmann, if Corey is deported, he's probably right behind him. The article concludes:
Johnson says he's aware of some resisters in the Calgary area but they won't go public.
And for a prime minister who argues Canadians are fighting for democracy, Johnson wonders why he's dismissing a June 3 Parliamentary vote renouncing the deportations.
"He ran on a platform of democratic reform -- he should take some advice of his own," says Johnson.
Until Americans come to their senses and try their leaders for war crimes, Canada shouldn't be forcing the return of people principled enough to oppose them.
But with a U.S. preparing for a permanent colonization of Iraq and a Canada mired in its own misbegotten military occupation slavish to its neighbour, it's a long shot.
Turning to the US, "Sgt. Matthis Chiroux was to report the Individual Ready Reserve last Sunday at Fort Jackson, but he refused. It's a decision that has made headlines around the world, and a decision that has sparked the opinions of many of his fellow soldiers," is part of Trey Paul's "Opinions mixed about soldier's refusal to report" (South Carolina's WIS10, link has text and video). Iraq Veterans Against the War Matthis Chiroux announced June 15th that he would not report to duty (as he'd stated he wouldn't on May 15th). Chiroux served his time and was honorably discharged. Then the army decided to 'recall' him and to send to Iraq. Chiroux knows the Iraq War is an illegal war and will not take part in that. On the 15th of this month, he explained, "Today I stand in resistance to the occupation of Iraq because I believe in our nation, its military and her people. I resist because I swoare an oath to this nation that I would not allow it to fall into decay when I may be serving on the side of right. . . . I stand here to make it known that my duty as a soldier is first to the higher ideals and guiding principles of this country which our leaders have failed to uphold. I stand here today in defense of the US Constitution which has known no greater enemy, foreign or domestic, than those highest in this land who are sworn to be governed by its word." The below is from IVAW:
IVAW members Matthis Chiroux and Kris Goldsmith have been pounding the pavement in Washington DC, with the help of IVAW's DC chapter, to get members of Congress to support Matthis in his refusal to deploy to Iraq. Matthis was honorably discharged from the Army in 2007 after five years of service, but he received orders in February 2008 to return to active duty from the IRR for deployment to Iraq.
On Sunday, June 15th, the day he was due to report for active duty, Matthis stood with his father and supporters in DC and reaffirmed that he is refusing his orders on the grounds that the Iraq war is illegal and unconstitutional.
How you can help:
- Contact your congressional representatives and ask them to publicly support Matthis.
- Contribute to IVAW's legal defense fund to help Matthis and other resisters.
- Send a message of support to Sgt Matthis Chiroux at thankyoumatthis@ivaw.org.
Find out more about Matthis Chiroux.
Independent journalist and artist David Bacon continues to cover the immigration experiences and his photos from Mixteca are amazing. His photos are always amazing but the colors, shades and depth in these . . . Click here for his photos of documenting the experiences of immigrants. This fall (September) Bacon's Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants us released by Beacon Press.
Miguel notes this from Team Nader:
Nader on ABC’s This Week Sunday
Ralph Nader will be a guest on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Sunday June 29, 2008. (Check here for broadcast times in your area).
By the way, there are many definitions of "talking white."
Here's our definition, from the Nader/Gonzalez dictionary:
Talking white means telling the white corporate power structure what they want to hear, rather than calling them out and telling them what they need to hear.
Onward
And Bill Coleman shares his thoughts on the presidential race in a letter to the Bennington Banner:
In reality, candidates such as Ralph Nader are disregarded from the outset because the election of someone such as Mr. Nader would bring about a true day of reckoning for American corporations.
As long as these corporations are permitted to on the one hand have the same or greater rights than individual citizens, and on the other hand to never face the death penalty or anything more than self regulation or slap on the wrist fines, they can continue to wreak havoc everywhere they go and drain average people of every last cent of economic vitality they can muster.
Yes, Ralph Nader supports an end to corporate personhood, in contrast to Barack Obama or John McCain, whose campaigns are awash in contributions from corporate America.
The differences between Mr. Nader and the candidates that you are permitted to read about or see on television each day are very far reaching and vast.
In other TV news, US Senator Barbara Boxer will be among the guests on this week's Bill Moyers Journal. Moyers broadcasts Friday nights on most PBS stations (and may repeat in some markets so check local listings) as does NOW on PBS:
This week NOW on PBS takes a look at the non-profit organization Just Price Solutions and the man behind it, Brian Cosgrove. Cosgrove identified a problem: many low or moderate income borrowers were getting steered into subprime scams because they had low credit scores. But these scores were often low because the home buyers simply didn't take out enough loans or credit cards. Cosgrove's goal was to help the millions of Americans with lower incomes purchase a home without being caught in a "subprime" nightmare.
So Cosgrove and his team created an online software application to measure creditworthiness differently: their track record of paying regular bills, like rent and utilities. By making it cheaper and easier to analyze creditworthiness, Just Price Solutions helps banks offer affordable mortgages to people who would otherwise be forced to pay high interest rates.
The organization has received financial backing from Fannie Mae, Citibank and State Farm Insurance, and has developed a related innovation to assist people facing foreclosure in their homes.
Cosgrove says their success is due in part to their community-focused approach. "We're connected with them. We have people back in the neighborhoods that know them. We've involved municipalities in the solutions, we've involved the non-profits, sometimes we've involved the employers. It just produces a community," Cosgrove tells NOW.
But not everyone's a fan of pushing homeownership so widely. Economist Dean Baker says homeownership is just too costly for many families these days. "When we're talking about low, moderate income people, they don't have a lot of money to throw around. So if we're talking about spending more money on housing costs than necessary, that's coming at the expense of health care for their kids, of getting good food, of child care."
But the way Brian Cosgrove see it, America needs new homebuyers now more than ever. "When a community breaks, it's just as important for those of us who are lending in there to step in and say, look, I don't want all the capital to come flying out of here. Let me find another borrower and bring them into the community."
This is part of NOW's continuing segment on social entrepreneurs and their life-sustaining innovations called Enterprising Ideas.
PBS' Washington Week will find Gwyn speaking with the New York Times' Linda Greenhouse and NBC's Pete Williams about the Court's latest rulings; Peter Baker (New York Times) and Shailagh Murray (Washington Post) will round out the roundtable.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraqdouglas glynncorey glassryan johnsonmatthis chirouxbill kaufmanntrey paulthe new york timesbill moyers journallinda greenhousedavid baconpeter bakershailagh murraythe washington post
'Awaken' and 'Spin'
Yesterday's violence in Iraq included the bombings in Al Anbar Province that claimed the lives of 3 US service members and left many Iraqis dead and wounded. Doug Smith and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) put the death toll at close to forty and the wounded at approximately one-hundred and they note:
The breach of security Thursday by a bomber wearing a police uniform convinced some local leaders that the transfer of authority in Anbar would be premature.
The head of the Sons of Iraq groups that helped the Marines turn the tide against the insurgency in Fallouja, one of the province's major cities, said he recommended a six-month postponement.
And Alissa J. Rubin's "3 U.S. Marines and More than 30 Iraqis Die in 2 Bomb Attacks" (New York Times) notes:
Although many of these people joined the Awakening movement and were paid by the Americans to help fight Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, few have been put on the government's payroll.
"The government didn't support the Awakening Councils enough," said Omar Abdul Sattar, a member of Parliament from Ramadi who belongs to the Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading Sunni group.
"The Awakening lacks information, political advisers, arms and security advisers," said Adnan al-Dulaimi, a leader of Tawafiq, the largest Sunni bloc in Parliament.
There are also allegations that the initial vetting process for the Awakening was flawed and that some people who still backed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia disguised their views and became part of the security forces or the Awakening groups.
By government, Rubin means the Iraqi government. The US government is still paying the thugs of the "Awakening" Council and they are doing so, as US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker explained repeatedly to Congress in April, because if they didn't pay them off, the thugs would attack the US military.
Now if you think back to yesterday, you'll remember the nonsense attack on a dead priest that presented he was 'supporting' 'terrorism' by paying off thugs threatening him. Ryan Crocker told Congress April 8th: "These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved -- have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts." Who is paying off 'terrorists'?
From the snapshot on April 8th, where Barbara Boxer breaks down the basics about the thugs in the "Awakening" Council and who is paying for them:
She then turned to the issue of monies and the militias, "You are asking us for millions more to pay off the militias and, by the way, I have an article here that says Maliki recently told a London paper that he was concerned about half of them" and wouldn't put them into the forces because he doubts their loyalty. She noted that $182 million a year was being paid, $18 million a month, to these "Awakening" Council members and "why don't you ask the Iraqis to pay the entire cost of that progam" because as Senator Lugar pointed out, "It could be an opportunity" for the Iraqi government "to turn it into something more long term." This is a point, she declared, that she intends to bring up when it's time to vote on the next spending supplamental. Crocker tried to split hairs.
Boxer: I asked you why they couldn't pay for it. . . . I don't want to argue a point. . . I'm just asking you why we would object to asking them to pay for that entire program giving all that we are giving them in blood and everything else?
Crocker declared that he'd take that point back to Iraq when he returned.
Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports 1 "senior city appeals judge" was shot dead in Baghdad Thursday.
Terrance notes this from Team Nader:
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
doug smith
saif hameed
the los angeles times
alissa j. rubin
the new york times
mohammed tawfeeq
The breach of security Thursday by a bomber wearing a police uniform convinced some local leaders that the transfer of authority in Anbar would be premature.
The head of the Sons of Iraq groups that helped the Marines turn the tide against the insurgency in Fallouja, one of the province's major cities, said he recommended a six-month postponement.
And Alissa J. Rubin's "3 U.S. Marines and More than 30 Iraqis Die in 2 Bomb Attacks" (New York Times) notes:
Although many of these people joined the Awakening movement and were paid by the Americans to help fight Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, few have been put on the government's payroll.
"The government didn't support the Awakening Councils enough," said Omar Abdul Sattar, a member of Parliament from Ramadi who belongs to the Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading Sunni group.
"The Awakening lacks information, political advisers, arms and security advisers," said Adnan al-Dulaimi, a leader of Tawafiq, the largest Sunni bloc in Parliament.
There are also allegations that the initial vetting process for the Awakening was flawed and that some people who still backed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia disguised their views and became part of the security forces or the Awakening groups.
By government, Rubin means the Iraqi government. The US government is still paying the thugs of the "Awakening" Council and they are doing so, as US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker explained repeatedly to Congress in April, because if they didn't pay them off, the thugs would attack the US military.
Now if you think back to yesterday, you'll remember the nonsense attack on a dead priest that presented he was 'supporting' 'terrorism' by paying off thugs threatening him. Ryan Crocker told Congress April 8th: "These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved -- have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts." Who is paying off 'terrorists'?
From the snapshot on April 8th, where Barbara Boxer breaks down the basics about the thugs in the "Awakening" Council and who is paying for them:
She then turned to the issue of monies and the militias, "You are asking us for millions more to pay off the militias and, by the way, I have an article here that says Maliki recently told a London paper that he was concerned about half of them" and wouldn't put them into the forces because he doubts their loyalty. She noted that $182 million a year was being paid, $18 million a month, to these "Awakening" Council members and "why don't you ask the Iraqis to pay the entire cost of that progam" because as Senator Lugar pointed out, "It could be an opportunity" for the Iraqi government "to turn it into something more long term." This is a point, she declared, that she intends to bring up when it's time to vote on the next spending supplamental. Crocker tried to split hairs.
Boxer: I asked you why they couldn't pay for it. . . . I don't want to argue a point. . . I'm just asking you why we would object to asking them to pay for that entire program giving all that we are giving them in blood and everything else?
Crocker declared that he'd take that point back to Iraq when he returned.
Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports 1 "senior city appeals judge" was shot dead in Baghdad Thursday.
Terrance notes this from Team Nader:
Riding the Rails
With the rapid expansion of federal spending responding to the perceived national security requirements after 9/11, passenger railroad supporters looked forward to a tripleheader.
First passenger railroad service would have to be upgraded and expanded to facilitate mass population evacuations from cities during attack emergencies.
Second, by embarking on a “national defense” passenger rail program, there would be less consumption of gasoline and less gridlock on congested highways.
Third, the energy efficiency of transporting people by intercity rail and commuter rail would diminish some of the buildup of greenhouse gases.
Right after 9/11, the airlines descended on Washington, D.C. and got a package of loans, guarantees and other federal assistance amounting to $15 billion.
That is continued at the link. I'm seeing it as a column and not sure about fair use, et al. So that's the opening and you can use the link to continue reading.The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraqdoug smithsaif hameedthe los angeles timesalissa j. rubinthe new york timesmohammed tawfeeq
Thursday, June 26, 2008
I Hate The War
As Mike points out tonight, Eugene Kane is not a journalist, he is a fabricator and it's worth examing because this is what The Cult of Saint Barack has done all along. They've acted enraged by remarks by distorting them, by cutting sentences in half and by flat-out lying.
Here's what Ralph said about Barack:
Ralph Nader: No. I mean, he's deceiving people. He takes, he takes -- in this very building he would take money from corporate lawyers who are not registered lobbyists but whose desks are across the aisle from corporate lawyers who are register lobbyists in the same law firm -- that's been reported more than once in the mainstream press. Six out of seven industrties as of a month ago have given more money to Obama than they have to McCain. Only transportation industry was more equal opportunity corruption . Look at the health care industry which has poured money into his campaign. The Secuirty industry. Defense industry. No. There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comees to being a Democratic presidential candidate he's half African-American. Wheter that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk White? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards. I think his main problem is that he censors himself he knows exactly who has power, who has too much, who has too little what needs to be done right down the community level but he has bought the advice that if you want to win the election you better take it easy on the coproation abuses and do XYZ and when I hear that I say Oh I see. So he's doing all this to win the eleciton and then he'll be diferent? Well let's see if it worked. Did it work for Mondale? Did it work for Dukakis? Did it work for Clinton? Yes, but only because of Perot? Did it work for Gore? Did it work for Kerry?
M.E. Sprengelmeyer: Do you think he's trying to, what was your term, 'talk white'?
Ralph Nader: Of course. I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a Black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law. Haven't heard a thing. I mean, the amount of economic exploitation in the ghettos is shocking. You'd think he'd propose a task force to at least study it. I mean, these people are eroded every day. The kids, bodies are asbestos and lead, municipal services discriminate against them because it's the poor area, including fire and police protection and building code enforcement. And then the lenders, the loan sharks get at them, and the dirty food ends up in the ghettos, like the contaminated meat. It's a dumping ground for shoddy merchandise. You don't see many credit unions there. You don't see many libraries there. You dont's ee many health clinics there. This is, we're talking 40-50 million Americans who are predominatly African-Americans and Latinos. Anybody see that kind of campaigning? Have yous ee him campaign in real poor areas of the city very frequently? No, he doesn't campaign there.
M.E. Sprengelmeyer: What do you think the purpose of that is?
Ralph Nader: He wants to show that he is not a threatening, a political threatening, another politically-threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to White guilt. You appeal to White guilt not by coming on as a Black is beautiful, Black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the White power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.
You're not allowed to lie about what Nader said. But The Cult took the blogs yesterday and flat out lied. They played dumb and rewrote it into Nader saying Barack was using 'proper English'. They lied.
That's how it works in The Cult. You lie. You take a critique and lie about what it said. You lie and then you lie some more. You ignore the critique, ignore what was said, find one phrase you can leap on, distort it and then add 'details' to it to work up some faux outrage that will lead to high passion and everyone will fall in line.
Eugene Kane is supposed to be a journalist. Somehow he's ignored the critique offered, somehow he's turned it (like a good Cult member) into 'Nader's mocking Barack for using so-called proper English.' That wasn't Nader's critique, that wasn't stated by Nader. Nader was noting Barack was talking to the White power structure in this country and demonstrating that he would ignore issue like poverty. Anyone who saw how John Edwards was marginalized by the press -- Big and Small -- is fully aware that poverty isn't an issue they want to address. Equally true is that bi-racial Barack has been presented as the first "Black" presidential candidate with a shot at the White House ("with a . . ." sometimes gets left out the equation, a slap in the face to Jesse Jackson who had two amazing runs). So if Barack's a 'first,' that would mean the power structure in this country was something other than what Barack is.
Ralph Nader critiqued Barack for his refusal to address the issues that effect poor people in this country. It's not a new critique. Nader's not the first one to make it. Where Rev. Jackson challenged, Barack strokes. That is the criticism. But notice how the lies come marching out in order to ensure that this conversation never take place.
Tavis Smiley is among the many who have tried to have this conversation. His thanks for that was to be attacked by Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professional liar, who would later reference attacks on Tavis while appearing on Charlie Rose and act surprised by them and leave out the fact that she launched the attacks with her blog post "Who Died and Made Tavis King?"
Many people have attempted to have this conversation and every time they do, it's really important that the Cult prevent it from taking place. They do that by lying. They're now distorting what Ralph Nader said and insisting he said Barack has a right to speak 'proper English.' Nader never said he didn't or he did. That wasn't the critique. But twisting it is how the Cult works. They try to inflame and they try to enrage.
And if they can get people outraged enough, they know no discussion will ever take place. They're demonizing Ralph Nader and they're doing so for a reason: they don't want the conversation to be started.
So you get Eugene Kane's trash in "Talking White:"
That's pretty silly. In the American vernacular, all that means is a black person is using so-called proper English. Imagine a major African-American political candidate who didn't 'talk white'.
Can you imagine the criticism he or she would get?
Many educated black folks speak two languages; the voice they use when talking with family and friends along with a professional voice that is essentially regarded as 'talking white'.
Kane's distorting and lying. That was never Nader's point, that was never raised by Nader. Nader's talking about the power structure in this country and how Barack signals to it that poverty will not be a concern. Poverty wasn't dealt with any better as the late sixties closed (chronological sixties, not 'the sixties') then it is today but at least journalists pretended to give a damn. Kane's creating a straw man to rail against because that's so much easier than having the discussion that's needed, that's been needed. And no one's being helped by that. Maybe Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box is 'helped' by it. The same way she's helped by no one ever asking questions about that absurd, now ended marriage where she used gay-porn to get pregnant. That's off-limits, she insists, but she shows no such concern for other people, now does she? Want to trash mentally challenged kids? She's happy to post that crap in her Cat Litter Box. Want to lie about Hillary? Go for it, she'll waive you through. She'll even add to it.
It's the story of a cheap, social climber who set her sights on a gay man with money, married him, stay married him to him and would still be married to him if he didn't get tired of living a lie. Cobble together "Fame Is A Girl's Best Friend," and you've got her life story. Now she wants to be considered part of the left and wants us to all forget how much she lied over and over throughout the nineties. And we're supposed to forget that as she allows one lie after another about Hillary to be posted at her Cat Litter Box. She had no concern about Chelsea Clinton's feelings during the nineties (or this decade) but you must never press her to talk about her sham of a marriage because it might upset her own children. That's a non-standard there. And standards is the issue because she's lied 'from the left' the same way she did from the right and it's past time that people stopped stepping into the sewer to converse with her.
David Brock came over from the right. He wrote a book where he ripped himself apart and owned his misdeeds and lies. And today he practices standards and plays fair. (There are some people on the right who can do that regardless but Brock was a self-identified hit man for the right wing.) Someone like that should be warmly welcomed. But Newt's best pal deciding there was money to be made by shifting to the left, never taking accountability for her host of lies and smears, setting up shop on the left and continuing her lies? No.
And the left, the real left, should grasp that she stayed married to her meal ticket as long as it was handy. The same way she'll stayed married to the left as long as it's handy. Goes to pattern. In 2008, she demonstrated that she had not changed at all. She was a laugh to the left in the nineties . . . for the same methods she employs today. And maybe when she 'created' the interview with George Clooney we all should have caught on? Or maybe her advocating for the recall of the Democratic governor should have been a clue? But today, there's no denying that, while a David Brock truly can have a transformation, the Aging Socialite went to where the money was and where she wouldn't be asked questions about her ridiculous marriage. The right wing would make a huge deal out of that because she had burned a ton of bridges on the right (over ego, not politics). From the 'left,' there was the hope that she could 'draw the veil.' Not when she's prying into everyone else's lives.
She wasn't a journalist on the right and she's not on the left -- no matter how much she spends for people to compile the information she pastes together in those clip-jobs passing themselves off as 'books.' What left position has she taken? People should have noticed a long time ago that she's no different from the play left on TV crowd that pushes the conversation to the right. It's not just Barack that's not being held to a standard, it's not just the MSM, it's these self-constructed 'heroes' of the 'left' who have nothing to offer because they're from right.
This is not going to be a pretty period for writers (real ones) to look back on as they attempt to explain how the left got derailed repeatedly and how the illegal war continued over and over. It's going to be the decade of wasted possibilities, wasted potential as the left ran after quick-fixes and picked up the worst standards of the extreme right-wing in order to 'win.' How The Left Lost could be the title of such a book. Whether Barack gets into the White House or not, the left has lost. It has lost the way, it has lost the standards and it has given up the high ground. It has stayed silent while Barack's used homophobia to scare up voters in South Carolina. It has utilized sexism to destroy a candidate (Hillary). It has distorted and lied to turn valid critiques of Barack's position into false charges of 'racism.'
How do you recover from that? How does the left repair itself?
Whether Barack gets into the White House or not, it will not have been worth it.
Quick fixes and lies do not bring about change. Quick fixes and lies do not elevate left positions. Embracing and teaching cowardice (staying silent is being a coward) does not result in any advancement. It doesn't even allow for a healthy exchange.
In five years, a lot of mirrors are going to be held up to this time period and a lot of people are going to have to cover their faces, shield their eyes, because they can't stomach what they see reflected.
They will have no one to blame but themselves. They were so desperate to 'win' that they would betray every standard they have. After the 1988 election, some political scientists didn't think Democrats could win the White House again. They thought the Democrats would be 'left' with Congress from now on. That wouldn't be a bad thing if Democratic control resulted in actual change. But two decades later -- and two terms seeing a Democratic president elected and take office -- wasn't good enough. They want it all (elected office wise) and they want it now and don't give a damn what it takes to get there.
With very few exceptions, our 'left' 'leaders' stand for nothing today. They have compromised themselves, they have betrayed the left. And, no, it is not worth it. Fads and hula-hoops never bring about change. And it's real hard to decry the horse racing nature of Big Media's campaign coverage when that's all the left has to offer today. It's hard to call yourself a media 'critic' when you stay silent on a candidate using homophobia, when you ignore the rampant sexism.
We have seen David Corn betray his standards. He was factual to the point of being anal about it. Whether you liked him or not, admired his work or not, you were aware he did more than gas bag. What did we see this year? He betrayed himself. He insisted Bill Clinton had 'pardoned' two members of the Weather Underground -- for being Weather Underground was the implication Corn made. That was a lie on every level. Clinton didn't pardon and that's such a basic fact that it's hard to believe David Corn (of all people) would make that error. And the old David Corn would have looked into the two women's cases and discovered that one was considered a political prisoner by some on the left and it had nothing to do with Weather Underground. But instead it was rush in with a piece to mitigate Barack's long relationship with Bill Ayers (and Bernardine Dohrn -- sexism allows her to be stripped out of the equation even though she led Weather).
Or you get the extreme lies that allows people to defend Jeremaih Wright stating that AIDS was a government conspiracy to kill off African-Americans. When did Corn call that out? Corn who felt the need to call into KPFK and be put on air immediately because he wasn't about to let any 'conspiracy talk' take place had nothing to say about Wright's crackpot science?
Or The Nation which was trashing the new SDS for being close to Bernardine and giving her a warm reception to a speech she gave. Bernardine's a wonderful speaker. She's always been one. But there was their SDS cover story just ripping apart the new SDS for their refusing to wall of Dohrn and others. Less than two years later, it's time for them to drop their opposition to Weather? It's time for the very same magazine that attacked Dohrn to now defend Weather?
I don't attack Weather Underground. I lived through that time period, I was a poli sci major. It is not shocking that a violent government -- Tricky Dick's administration -- would lead to violence as a response. (Especially -- take note -- coming on the heels of LBJ's non-responsive government on the issue of Vietnam.) I also don't deny that violence creates victims. But didn't the same Nation magazine that wanted to crucify Dohrn in their new SDS cover story suddenly rush to minimize the very real actions of Weather Underground.
And they want people to believe they have standards? You don't have to agree with their attack on Dohrn. You can or you can reject it. You can even not care. But when, less than two years later, Weather's suddenly a non-issue, you have to notice the extreme flip-flop. And it's been that way throughout the push Barack campaign.
And what does that campaign have to offer? "We want to end the war!" Applause. Cheers. He's going to end the illegal war! He's the anti-war candidate! He's promised to end the illegal war! Only that's not reality and everyone knew it all along. They certainly knew it by June 5th when he was repeating on CNN what Samantha Power had already told the BBC months ago. So Barack, you got a plan to end the illegal war, tell us about that.
Barack Obama: Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind. Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq. And our troops, and Gen. Petraeus, deserve enormous credit for that. I have to look at this issue from a broader perspective, though.
He may or may not get into the White House. He may or may not get the Democratic Party nomination. Four years for some, two years for others, of building up a War Hawk as the person who would end the illegal war. And what does anyone have to show for it? Not a damn thing.
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 4101. Tonight? 4113. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,225,898 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War up from . . . well they haven't updated. Like last week, it still reads 1,225,898 last week. Maybe that's where the White House is getting their 'violence is down' talking point?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
mikey likes it
Here's what Ralph said about Barack:
Ralph Nader: No. I mean, he's deceiving people. He takes, he takes -- in this very building he would take money from corporate lawyers who are not registered lobbyists but whose desks are across the aisle from corporate lawyers who are register lobbyists in the same law firm -- that's been reported more than once in the mainstream press. Six out of seven industrties as of a month ago have given more money to Obama than they have to McCain. Only transportation industry was more equal opportunity corruption . Look at the health care industry which has poured money into his campaign. The Secuirty industry. Defense industry. No. There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comees to being a Democratic presidential candidate he's half African-American. Wheter that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk White? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards. I think his main problem is that he censors himself he knows exactly who has power, who has too much, who has too little what needs to be done right down the community level but he has bought the advice that if you want to win the election you better take it easy on the coproation abuses and do XYZ and when I hear that I say Oh I see. So he's doing all this to win the eleciton and then he'll be diferent? Well let's see if it worked. Did it work for Mondale? Did it work for Dukakis? Did it work for Clinton? Yes, but only because of Perot? Did it work for Gore? Did it work for Kerry?
M.E. Sprengelmeyer: Do you think he's trying to, what was your term, 'talk white'?
Ralph Nader: Of course. I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a Black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law. Haven't heard a thing. I mean, the amount of economic exploitation in the ghettos is shocking. You'd think he'd propose a task force to at least study it. I mean, these people are eroded every day. The kids, bodies are asbestos and lead, municipal services discriminate against them because it's the poor area, including fire and police protection and building code enforcement. And then the lenders, the loan sharks get at them, and the dirty food ends up in the ghettos, like the contaminated meat. It's a dumping ground for shoddy merchandise. You don't see many credit unions there. You don't see many libraries there. You dont's ee many health clinics there. This is, we're talking 40-50 million Americans who are predominatly African-Americans and Latinos. Anybody see that kind of campaigning? Have yous ee him campaign in real poor areas of the city very frequently? No, he doesn't campaign there.
M.E. Sprengelmeyer: What do you think the purpose of that is?
Ralph Nader: He wants to show that he is not a threatening, a political threatening, another politically-threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to White guilt. You appeal to White guilt not by coming on as a Black is beautiful, Black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the White power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.
You're not allowed to lie about what Nader said. But The Cult took the blogs yesterday and flat out lied. They played dumb and rewrote it into Nader saying Barack was using 'proper English'. They lied.
That's how it works in The Cult. You lie. You take a critique and lie about what it said. You lie and then you lie some more. You ignore the critique, ignore what was said, find one phrase you can leap on, distort it and then add 'details' to it to work up some faux outrage that will lead to high passion and everyone will fall in line.
Eugene Kane is supposed to be a journalist. Somehow he's ignored the critique offered, somehow he's turned it (like a good Cult member) into 'Nader's mocking Barack for using so-called proper English.' That wasn't Nader's critique, that wasn't stated by Nader. Nader was noting Barack was talking to the White power structure in this country and demonstrating that he would ignore issue like poverty. Anyone who saw how John Edwards was marginalized by the press -- Big and Small -- is fully aware that poverty isn't an issue they want to address. Equally true is that bi-racial Barack has been presented as the first "Black" presidential candidate with a shot at the White House ("with a . . ." sometimes gets left out the equation, a slap in the face to Jesse Jackson who had two amazing runs). So if Barack's a 'first,' that would mean the power structure in this country was something other than what Barack is.
Ralph Nader critiqued Barack for his refusal to address the issues that effect poor people in this country. It's not a new critique. Nader's not the first one to make it. Where Rev. Jackson challenged, Barack strokes. That is the criticism. But notice how the lies come marching out in order to ensure that this conversation never take place.
Tavis Smiley is among the many who have tried to have this conversation. His thanks for that was to be attacked by Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professional liar, who would later reference attacks on Tavis while appearing on Charlie Rose and act surprised by them and leave out the fact that she launched the attacks with her blog post "Who Died and Made Tavis King?"
Many people have attempted to have this conversation and every time they do, it's really important that the Cult prevent it from taking place. They do that by lying. They're now distorting what Ralph Nader said and insisting he said Barack has a right to speak 'proper English.' Nader never said he didn't or he did. That wasn't the critique. But twisting it is how the Cult works. They try to inflame and they try to enrage.
And if they can get people outraged enough, they know no discussion will ever take place. They're demonizing Ralph Nader and they're doing so for a reason: they don't want the conversation to be started.
So you get Eugene Kane's trash in "Talking White:"
That's pretty silly. In the American vernacular, all that means is a black person is using so-called proper English. Imagine a major African-American political candidate who didn't 'talk white'.
Can you imagine the criticism he or she would get?
Many educated black folks speak two languages; the voice they use when talking with family and friends along with a professional voice that is essentially regarded as 'talking white'.
Kane's distorting and lying. That was never Nader's point, that was never raised by Nader. Nader's talking about the power structure in this country and how Barack signals to it that poverty will not be a concern. Poverty wasn't dealt with any better as the late sixties closed (chronological sixties, not 'the sixties') then it is today but at least journalists pretended to give a damn. Kane's creating a straw man to rail against because that's so much easier than having the discussion that's needed, that's been needed. And no one's being helped by that. Maybe Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box is 'helped' by it. The same way she's helped by no one ever asking questions about that absurd, now ended marriage where she used gay-porn to get pregnant. That's off-limits, she insists, but she shows no such concern for other people, now does she? Want to trash mentally challenged kids? She's happy to post that crap in her Cat Litter Box. Want to lie about Hillary? Go for it, she'll waive you through. She'll even add to it.
It's the story of a cheap, social climber who set her sights on a gay man with money, married him, stay married him to him and would still be married to him if he didn't get tired of living a lie. Cobble together "Fame Is A Girl's Best Friend," and you've got her life story. Now she wants to be considered part of the left and wants us to all forget how much she lied over and over throughout the nineties. And we're supposed to forget that as she allows one lie after another about Hillary to be posted at her Cat Litter Box. She had no concern about Chelsea Clinton's feelings during the nineties (or this decade) but you must never press her to talk about her sham of a marriage because it might upset her own children. That's a non-standard there. And standards is the issue because she's lied 'from the left' the same way she did from the right and it's past time that people stopped stepping into the sewer to converse with her.
David Brock came over from the right. He wrote a book where he ripped himself apart and owned his misdeeds and lies. And today he practices standards and plays fair. (There are some people on the right who can do that regardless but Brock was a self-identified hit man for the right wing.) Someone like that should be warmly welcomed. But Newt's best pal deciding there was money to be made by shifting to the left, never taking accountability for her host of lies and smears, setting up shop on the left and continuing her lies? No.
And the left, the real left, should grasp that she stayed married to her meal ticket as long as it was handy. The same way she'll stayed married to the left as long as it's handy. Goes to pattern. In 2008, she demonstrated that she had not changed at all. She was a laugh to the left in the nineties . . . for the same methods she employs today. And maybe when she 'created' the interview with George Clooney we all should have caught on? Or maybe her advocating for the recall of the Democratic governor should have been a clue? But today, there's no denying that, while a David Brock truly can have a transformation, the Aging Socialite went to where the money was and where she wouldn't be asked questions about her ridiculous marriage. The right wing would make a huge deal out of that because she had burned a ton of bridges on the right (over ego, not politics). From the 'left,' there was the hope that she could 'draw the veil.' Not when she's prying into everyone else's lives.
She wasn't a journalist on the right and she's not on the left -- no matter how much she spends for people to compile the information she pastes together in those clip-jobs passing themselves off as 'books.' What left position has she taken? People should have noticed a long time ago that she's no different from the play left on TV crowd that pushes the conversation to the right. It's not just Barack that's not being held to a standard, it's not just the MSM, it's these self-constructed 'heroes' of the 'left' who have nothing to offer because they're from right.
This is not going to be a pretty period for writers (real ones) to look back on as they attempt to explain how the left got derailed repeatedly and how the illegal war continued over and over. It's going to be the decade of wasted possibilities, wasted potential as the left ran after quick-fixes and picked up the worst standards of the extreme right-wing in order to 'win.' How The Left Lost could be the title of such a book. Whether Barack gets into the White House or not, the left has lost. It has lost the way, it has lost the standards and it has given up the high ground. It has stayed silent while Barack's used homophobia to scare up voters in South Carolina. It has utilized sexism to destroy a candidate (Hillary). It has distorted and lied to turn valid critiques of Barack's position into false charges of 'racism.'
How do you recover from that? How does the left repair itself?
Whether Barack gets into the White House or not, it will not have been worth it.
Quick fixes and lies do not bring about change. Quick fixes and lies do not elevate left positions. Embracing and teaching cowardice (staying silent is being a coward) does not result in any advancement. It doesn't even allow for a healthy exchange.
In five years, a lot of mirrors are going to be held up to this time period and a lot of people are going to have to cover their faces, shield their eyes, because they can't stomach what they see reflected.
They will have no one to blame but themselves. They were so desperate to 'win' that they would betray every standard they have. After the 1988 election, some political scientists didn't think Democrats could win the White House again. They thought the Democrats would be 'left' with Congress from now on. That wouldn't be a bad thing if Democratic control resulted in actual change. But two decades later -- and two terms seeing a Democratic president elected and take office -- wasn't good enough. They want it all (elected office wise) and they want it now and don't give a damn what it takes to get there.
With very few exceptions, our 'left' 'leaders' stand for nothing today. They have compromised themselves, they have betrayed the left. And, no, it is not worth it. Fads and hula-hoops never bring about change. And it's real hard to decry the horse racing nature of Big Media's campaign coverage when that's all the left has to offer today. It's hard to call yourself a media 'critic' when you stay silent on a candidate using homophobia, when you ignore the rampant sexism.
We have seen David Corn betray his standards. He was factual to the point of being anal about it. Whether you liked him or not, admired his work or not, you were aware he did more than gas bag. What did we see this year? He betrayed himself. He insisted Bill Clinton had 'pardoned' two members of the Weather Underground -- for being Weather Underground was the implication Corn made. That was a lie on every level. Clinton didn't pardon and that's such a basic fact that it's hard to believe David Corn (of all people) would make that error. And the old David Corn would have looked into the two women's cases and discovered that one was considered a political prisoner by some on the left and it had nothing to do with Weather Underground. But instead it was rush in with a piece to mitigate Barack's long relationship with Bill Ayers (and Bernardine Dohrn -- sexism allows her to be stripped out of the equation even though she led Weather).
Or you get the extreme lies that allows people to defend Jeremaih Wright stating that AIDS was a government conspiracy to kill off African-Americans. When did Corn call that out? Corn who felt the need to call into KPFK and be put on air immediately because he wasn't about to let any 'conspiracy talk' take place had nothing to say about Wright's crackpot science?
Or The Nation which was trashing the new SDS for being close to Bernardine and giving her a warm reception to a speech she gave. Bernardine's a wonderful speaker. She's always been one. But there was their SDS cover story just ripping apart the new SDS for their refusing to wall of Dohrn and others. Less than two years later, it's time for them to drop their opposition to Weather? It's time for the very same magazine that attacked Dohrn to now defend Weather?
I don't attack Weather Underground. I lived through that time period, I was a poli sci major. It is not shocking that a violent government -- Tricky Dick's administration -- would lead to violence as a response. (Especially -- take note -- coming on the heels of LBJ's non-responsive government on the issue of Vietnam.) I also don't deny that violence creates victims. But didn't the same Nation magazine that wanted to crucify Dohrn in their new SDS cover story suddenly rush to minimize the very real actions of Weather Underground.
And they want people to believe they have standards? You don't have to agree with their attack on Dohrn. You can or you can reject it. You can even not care. But when, less than two years later, Weather's suddenly a non-issue, you have to notice the extreme flip-flop. And it's been that way throughout the push Barack campaign.
And what does that campaign have to offer? "We want to end the war!" Applause. Cheers. He's going to end the illegal war! He's the anti-war candidate! He's promised to end the illegal war! Only that's not reality and everyone knew it all along. They certainly knew it by June 5th when he was repeating on CNN what Samantha Power had already told the BBC months ago. So Barack, you got a plan to end the illegal war, tell us about that.
Barack Obama: Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind. Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq. And our troops, and Gen. Petraeus, deserve enormous credit for that. I have to look at this issue from a broader perspective, though.
He may or may not get into the White House. He may or may not get the Democratic Party nomination. Four years for some, two years for others, of building up a War Hawk as the person who would end the illegal war. And what does anyone have to show for it? Not a damn thing.
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 4101. Tonight? 4113. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,225,898 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War up from . . . well they haven't updated. Like last week, it still reads 1,225,898 last week. Maybe that's where the White House is getting their 'violence is down' talking point?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
mikey likes it
Iraq snapshot
Thursday, June 26, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces multiple deaths, the treaty the White House wants encounters more public Republican opposition, withdrawal and play-withdrawal are discussed, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Corey Glass held a press conference yesterday. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Corey Glass is an Iraq War veteran and a US war resister. He went to Canada seeking asylum -- the kind of welcoming Canada provided to war resisters ("draft dodgers" and "deserters") during Vietnam. After being told he was being deported, he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. Brett Clarkson (Toronto Sun) explains Olivia Chow (NDP MP), Maurizio Bevilacqua (Liberal Party MP), Michelle Robidoux (War Resisters Support Campaign) and Gloria Nafziger (Amnesty International) joined the press conference and Glass is quoted declaring of the Iraq War, "It's blatantly illegal. I don't care, they can give me a death sentence. I'd rather be put to death than have to do that war. It's wrong."
Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign will hold a "Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass" July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008. Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this motion." To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes 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, 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).
Jean Fievet (ABC News) reports, "Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling, commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, sounds very upbeat these days about the future of Iraq." Mark your calendars, that and the following statement (by Hertling) are the kinds of things that haunt you, "The people who had at one time oposed Maliki suddenly said, 'Hey, this guy's getting it done,' Hertling said. 'So I think he's turned a lot of the Iraqi people'." Of course, we may not need to mark anything down to remember that claim (which goes against James Warden's Stars and Stripes article published Tuesday, by the way). For example, yesterday the US military announced: "Three Multi-National Division – North Soldiers and an interpreter were killed in an improvised explosive device attack in Ninewah Province at 10:45 p.m., June 24." Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) observes, "US forces are now coming under regular attack in Shia as well as Sunni areas of Iraq with wide differences within the US government about the extent to which Iraqi security forces can operate without American assistance." Cockburn points out that the 'success' "at the end of the fighting with the Medhi Army came largely because neither Mr Sadr nor the Iranian government wanted a confrontation at this time."
Meanwhile the White House continues to hammer out a treaty with puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki. The Toledo Blade notes that US Senator George Voinovich (Republican) has sent a letter to the White House requesting that Bully Boy shelve any longterm plans and instead focus on a stop-gap measure that would not bind anyone's hands: "Top Democrats and Republicans also have been complaining that the President is rushing the negotiations - senior U.S. officials insist the talks be completed by July 31 - to seal a strategic framework for protecting Iraq that could make it difficult for the next president to withdraw U.S. forces from the country." Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports that yesterday's meeting between Iraqi President Jalil Talibani and the Bully Boy was in part to talk about the "agreement for the stationing of US forces in Iraq." Really? Briefing the press yesterday afternoon White House flack Dana Perino was asked if Talabani and Bully Boy got "into the details of it" and she responded, "No, I don't think -- no, I don't -- the negotiators are getting into the details." Today Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports, "Crucial differences remain between Iraq and the U.S. over a security pact, known as a Status of Forces Agreement, which will determine the scope of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq for the coming years. Because a comprehensive deal may not come in time for a July 31 deadline, both sides are now considering temporary measures for the U.S. military's operation in Iraq as they continue to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement." Meanwhile David Lerman (Daily Press) reports that US House Rep J. Randy Forbes (Republican) is aruging that if something is not worked out that provides "security and legal protections for American forces," US troops should be withdrawn "by year''s end". Fouad Ajami (US News & World Reports) explains, "As it stands, the American occupation now rests on a United Nations mandate under Chapter 7 of its charter that sanctions Iraq as a threat to peace and abridges its sovereignty. That mandate expires by the end of the year, and the Bush administration is keen to give the American presence the status of a bilateral security arrangement." Seumas Milne (Guardian of London) asserts, "The last thing on anyone's mind, we were told when the tanks rolled in, was permanent US control, let alone the recolonisation of Iraq. This was about the Iraqis finally getting a chance to run their own affairs in freedom. But five years on, George Bush and Dick Cheney are putting the screws on their Green Zone government to sign a secret deal for indefinite military occupation, which would effectively reduce Iraq to a long-term vassal state." This as James Rainey (Los Angeles Times) presents allegedly informed people but somehow they missed Barack Obama's CNN interview with Candy Crowley June 5th, the one where he explained his 'position'(s) on Iraq:
Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind." Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq. And our troops, and Gen. Petraeus, deserve enormous credit for that. I have to look at this issue from a broader perspective, though.
If it sounds familiar, you're probably think of what Obama advisor Samantha Power told the BBC last spring:
Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?
Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.
Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?
Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.
And Council on/of/for Foreign Relations Lionel Beehner takes to Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box to provide Barack with even more cover by offering five ways Barack "Can Fix Iraq, Short of Withdrawing U.S. Forces." The popping noise you hear is millions of Americans sticking their fingers in their ears, unable to face the reality that the Christ-child has no intention to leave Iraq and more than willing to provide cover for the War Hawk Barack.
The Project on Defense Alternatives released [PDF format warning] "Quickly, Carefully, and Generously: The Necessary Steps for a Responsible Withdrawl from Iraq". In the preface to the report, US House Rep Jim McGovern writes, "I have long thought the United States needs to withdraw its military forces and presence from Iraq. During many debates in the US Congress, I put forward and supported proposals for a withdrawl of our forces that would take place in a safe and orderly manner. The 23-page report (not counting preface, acknowledgements, etc.) is built around this premise:
The President has announced that a complete military withdrawal from Iraq will take place over the next 12-18 months. What concrete policy steps can the US government take, immediately and during the withdrawal, to encourage peace and stability in Iraq?
So, apparently, the Project on Defense Alternatives is expecting the next president to be Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader since those are the only ones promising to end the illegal war. A variety of proposals are offered as they attempt "to specify what can and should be done to minimize violence in Iraq and soothe regional tensions as the United States leaves." The report undercuts itself throughout and the reason is probably best summed up on page 9: "The departure of US troops does not -- and must not -- mean the United States abandons its responsibility to Iraq. National interest and morality demand that the United States do everything in its power to contribute to the alleviation of suffering and the advancement of stability and peace in the country. The idea that an open-ended, military deployment can bring progess in Iraq is an illusion." So is the idea that an open-ended 'diplomatic' deployment could bring progress in Iraq. Only Iraqis can bring progress to Iraq. The US has no "responsilibility" to Iraq. There are financial debts owed (and the report acknowledges this) but the very idea of using "responsibility" as though the US - Iraq relationship was that of a parent - child is the same "We know best" patronizing attitude that allowed so many (including left 'interventionists' like Samantha Power) to jump on board with the illegal war before it started. By the same token, 'morality'? Unless you're in church or wear a collar, try sticking to ethics. The report laments that a US departure will mean less US impact (". . . the ability of the United States to affect what happens in Iraq will diminish upon withdrawal. Yet withdrawal also opens up possiblities . . ."). The strong aspects of the report largely revolve around realizing the financial debts to be paid. The weak aspects of the report are in the arrogance that wafts off each page. An illegal war of choice taught no humility. The message seems to be, "We can still be overbearing! Only this time, will smother them with kindness!" How about the US just leaves. How about they leave, grasp that Iraqis are adults and let Iraqis sort out their own country? The arrogance to be found on page after page (not surprising considering some of the ones participating in this report) would lead to armed conflict in a peaceful region.
If McCain wins the White House, he's not going to give a damn about this report. I can't imagine that Nader or McKinney would be impressed either (for different reasons than McCain). Barack? He'd love this report. His public promise (already revealed to be a lie) is to remove "combat" troops. But even when he was pushing that lie hard, it wasn't convincing. "Combat" troops will be classified -- as will all troops -- by the US president. Meaning you can leave "combat" troops in Iraq but call thems something else. Second, as he revealed to the New York Times before the primaries started, if things began to crumble in Iraq, he'd send troops back in.
So this nonsense report that ties the future of Iraq to America (the US goes from Mommy to Nanny) is a recipe for disaster and does nothing to guarantee the end of the illegal war. If the Iraqi people are listened to right now (or at any time over the last few years), they want US troops out of their country. Where is that acknowledged in the report? Where is it acknowledged that Iraq becomes an independent country? Independent means the US stops pulling strings. Independent means the US pays the debts its incurred for this illegal war, it does not mean it gets to determine what course Iraq decides to steer. The report frets about other countries. Those would be Iraq's immediate neighbors and, Bremer Walls or not, Iraq will have to get along with its neighbors. The US is not an immediate neighbor and has no business butting in like some overzealous nanny on a playground.
But that's the sort of crap ("Play nice! Play nice or I'm going to separate you!") this report offers. For example: "Support the establishment, as part of the existing International Compact with Iraq, of an International Support Group comprising the five permanent Security Council members, Iraq's six neighbors, and a represenative fo the UN Secretary General." Oh, how sweet: a playdate! First off, there is never equality in any group that includes permanent members of the UN Security Council (they have veto power on the Security Council and that would shape any group they served with -- the threat). Second off, it takes a lot of nerve for the same government that destroyed Iraq (the US government) to now decide who will be on the group ensuring Iraq's future. Does no one get how damn patronizing this report is? The lame report is nothing but cover for Barack (produced when they thought he would need it -- published long after it's clear he won't need it). It's supposed to read, "See, it's not 'just withdrawal,' it's a plan!" No, it's an insult. The US needs to leave Iraq. And it doesn't need to tie Iraq into groups and interactions that Iraqis do not choose for themselves. The report's an embarrassment.
In other news, the War Resisters League releases a new report entitled "Listening Process" and the contents are below (those with links have excerpts).
Conclusions: Where to From Here?
IVAW's co-founder Kelly Dougherty explains, "IVAW's three goals are: immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from Iraq, full veterans benefits, and reparations for the Iraqi people. Our strategy to end the war is to withdraw military support from the war." It's a real shame the Project on Defense Alternatives couldn't have had the sense to adopt a policy that is both simple and shows the acknowledgement that Iraq is its own country and demonstrates respect for Iraq. The report sales for four dollars a copy (not including postage) and can be ordered online or for orders of ten copies or more, you can call (212) 228-0450. More information can be found here.
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier was killed as a result of an explosively formed projectile attack at approximately 9 a.m., June 25, in eastern Baghdad." And they announced: "Three Multi-National Force -- West Marines and two interpreters were killed in action against an enemy force in Anbar Province June 26." Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the bombing took place "at a meeting of tribal sheiks in Anbar province" and that, "The attack came just days before the United States was to turn Anbar security over to Iraqis. That plan is now on hold, American officials said." CBS and AP add, "Two policemen said the bomber was able to penetrate security because he was a wearing camouflage uniform of the Iraqi police commandos. Both policemen spoke on condition of anonymity for security reasons." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) explains, "U.S. officials were meeting with sheiks, or local leaders, when a suicide bomber detonated a vest packed with explosives. One of the sheiks who survived the attack said at least 20 people were killed." AFP reports a Mosul car bombing that claimed the lives of 17 Iraqis and left eighty more injured. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) explains it appears to have been the latest in an attempt to target officials -- in this instance the Govenor Laith Kashmula and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) notes that the death count reached 18 (but has the wounded at sixty-one). Issa and Allem note that witnesses and police state first came the roadside bombing (apparently targeting the governor) which was then followed by a car bombing (also apparently targeting the governor). The govenor survived both explosions. The roadside bombing wounded some security detail; however the car bombing took place next to a market and accounted for deaths and many more injured.
In other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province roadside bombing that wounded three shepherds, and a Falluja mortar attack that claimed 1 life and left a police officer wounded.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports three students were wounded when fired on by Iraqi 'security' at Baghdad's Saba Abkar center for exams. Reuters notes a woman shot dead in her Mosul home and 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in an armed clash in Tuz Khurmato.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Dropping back to yesterday and the topic of Iraqi civilians killed by the US military. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) noted the 4 family members killed in the US air assault Wednesday and quotes police captain Ahmed al-Azwawi explaining this took place at night, that the man "sold propane gas for a living" and "was afraid thieves were in the vicinity." Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Riyadh Muhammad (New York Times) explain that the man, Afar Ahmed Zidan, heard prowlers and fired at them in the dark -- turned out it was the US military and an airstrike on the man's home was called killing "Zidan, his wife and three children, all under 10 years old". Yesterday, 3 bank employees on the way to their jobs drove past the Baghdad International Airport (which is near the bank) and were shot dead by the US military. Oppel and Muhammad name the three: Hafed Abudl Mahdi, Surur Shadid Ahmed and Maha Adnan Yunis.
Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) was on Democracy Now! today. We'll try to note it tomorrow. Instead of hearing that program, most Pacifica listeners heard the embarrassing Congressional hearing. The House Judiciary Committee made a complete ass out of themselves. Keith Ellison and Debbie Wasserman Schultz yelled and snarled which would have been great if they'd had anything backing them up. David Addington was far from the only offensive witness but one moment early on captured the nonsense (and Congress being willing to tolerate it as well as unprepared). A Washington Post article was quoted to him and he was asked "is that correct?" He responded by asking, "That the Washington Post reported that?" No, the part about him. To which, pay attention, Addington replied, "Could you repeat that? I'd have to listen closely."
And he got away with that. That is one of the most insulting moments in the US Congress this year. A member of Congress is asking him a question and he admits, after the question was asked, that he wasn't listening closely. The disdain was shown by the refusal to provide prepared opening statements. Staying on Addington, he worked hard on his opening statement -- he pulled a series of quotes he wanted to read and -- get this -- he thought he could quote himself. The vanity. But the point is, he prepared a statement. He just didn't submit it to Congress. It was one more way to spit on them as well as make sure they wouldn't be able to examine anything he might say. He stalled. John Yoo stalled (and his behind legal wording and classified status). It was a joke, it was an embarrassment. Addington and Yoo should be ashmed of themselves for the disrespect they showed Congress -- which does represent "We the People" -- and members of the Judiciary Committee should be ashamed that (a) they weren't prepared and (b) they let the witnesses make a mockery of them.
Turning to the US race for president, Betty's "Barack's 'catty girl' problems," Ty's "Bonus," Wally's "THIS JUST IN! BARACK -- IT RHYMES WITH 'WITCH'" and Cedric's "Barack the Witchy Worm" (joint-post); Marcia's "Barack smears an Arab-American," Mike's "LAT needs to fire biased polictical 'reporters'," Ruth's "Barack steals from Hillary and also tries to smear," Rebecca's "want ad: nation mag seeks new p.r. director," Kat's "Is there room for Arab-Americans under the bus?" and Elaine's "Barack (falsely) screams racism (again)" all covered The Cult of Saint Barack's attacks on Ralph Nader yesterday. Ralph Nader responded to Barack's nonsense last night:
Senator Obama said earlier today that I haven't been paying attention to his campaign.
Actually, I have.
And it's clear from Senator Obama's campaign that he is not willing to tackle the white power structure - whether in the form of the corporate power structure or many of the super-rich - who are taking advantage of 100 million low income Americans who are suffering in poverty or near poverty.
Senator Obama is opposed to single payer national health insurance.
Why?
Because he favors the health insurance giants over the millions of Americans in poverty or near poverty who are uninsured or under-insured. Eighteen thousand Americans die every year because they cannot afford health insurance, according to the Institute of Medicine.
Senator Obama wants to expand the military budget which is loaded with waste, fraud and abuse - instead of cutting it and investing the long ignored peace dividend in the inner cities with good jobs and public works - including schools, clinics, and libraries.
Why?
Because he fears and favors those thousands of lobbyists in charge of enlarging the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against.
Senator Obama says he favors a living wage. But he doesn't say he would immediately increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour, which is the equivalent of the 1968 minimum wage adjusted for inflation - because by doing so he would offend the big corporations who exploit labor in places like Wal-Mart and fast food chains. (The minimum wage needs to be increased immediately, not phased in over a number of years, as Senator Obama would have it.)
So Senator Obama, let's get specific.
We're looking for deeds, not, as Shakespeare put it, words, words, mere words.
Your public career, which I have also been paying attention to, is long on words, and short on action when it comes to consumer protection, cracking down on corporate crime, curbing the violence of toxic environmental racism, and extending clean, affordable public transit, among other issues.
For the purposes of the here and now, three things:
One, why don't you support single payer national health insurance, which is supported by a majority of doctors and the American people?
Two, why do you favor expanding the military budget which is replete with waste, fraud and abuse?
And three, why don't you come out and support an immediate increase of the minimum wage to $10 an hour?
When can we expect the authenticity of hope and change?
brett clarkson
james rainey
ernesto londono
riyadh muhammad
richard a. oppel jr.
mcclatchy newspapers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)