Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Center Soldier died of non-combat related injuries in Baghdad Sept. 5." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4155.
In today's New York Times, Stephen Farrell offers "U.S. Spied On Maliki, Book Says, Upsetting Iraq" (A8) which is about the advance publicity for Bob Woodward's new book (released this coming Monday) and the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, pretending to be surprised and outraged. Though not the US asset Chalabi was, al-Maliki is hardly clean and it's hilarious to watch his surrogates feign shock over this. Farrell quotes a number of them. The audience they are aiming for is not the US, they're trying to create an outrage in Iraq that will transfer into support for the puppet. Their weak ass statements thus far indicate the puppet doesn't even know how to handle that correctly. Farrell ignores Robert Wood's statement at the US State Dept yesterday and instead goes with Dana Perino's comments at the White House press briefing. That's an interesting choice.
We went with Wood's comments in yesterday's snapshot. Both press briefings are online now click here for text of Wood at the State Dept, here for video of the briefing, and here for Perino at the White House. And note that if you're going to quote Perino, you need to include the only real news in her comments (pay attention to her second sentence in the quote): "Okay. I haven't -- I don't have a copy of the book yet. We did receive one or two at the White House late yesterday evening, and they are working through it. So all I know is the coverage of the book that I've seen, and that I've read in news reports of it. " Did you catch it? The book comes out on Monday. Someone's decided to give the White House advance copies.
Really interesting when consider the attacks on The Price of Loyalty and how Woodward's book is allegedly critical of the White House. That's the only news in Perino's press briefing and Farrell, quoting from that briefing, can't even find it.
The paper also can't find the space to even note the assassination attempt on Chalabi yesterday. It's a curious form of 'reporting.' Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on some of today's violence 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad, a Baghdad mortar attack that left two people wounded, a Nineveh Province car bombing that claimed the lives of 6 bystanders and left thirty-two more wounded and a Baghdad assassination attempt on Lt Col Fasieh Ziboun (Ministry of Justice "commander") via car bombing that left Ziboun wounded.
No reduction in US forces in Iraq expected for the remainder of the year. Ann Scott Tyson and Karen DeYoung report in "Compromise Led to Iraq Troop Plan" (Washington Post) that Bully Boy is expected to announce the news on Tuesday and they report:
Senior military officials said the "consensus" proposal incorporated the final recommendation of Petraeus. He called for withdrawing 7,500 to 8,000 troops from Iraq by the end of January, including an 1,100-man Marine Corps battalion and a Marine aviation squadron of several hundred strong to depart this fall, an Army combat brigade of up to 4,000 soldiers to depart in mid-January, and more than 1,000 support troops, such as logisticians and forces, assigned to handle detainees.
The Pentagon plan also calls for bolstering the U.S. force in Afghanistan to counter a growing insurgency, deploying a Marine battalion there in November to replace one that is departing, and sending an Army brigade of 3,500 to 4,000 troops there early next year.
The following community sites have updated since Friday morning:
Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty's Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
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
An e-mail to the public account asks . . . I don't know what. The heading is about Steve Featherstone's article in Harper's this month. The e-mail text didn't go through. If I can figure out where that issue is (we quoted it from it about three weeks ago for another article), I'll try to note something from the article. I will not be going online and reading the article online. Harper's really isn't online. They have blogs and that's it unless you're a subscriber. If you're a subscriber you can log in and read anything in the current issue or in past issues going back to the start of the magazine. There is no cost for their archives -- you subscribe, you can go through them and read. The way it goes here is the either Jess grabs it when it arrives in the mail or Ava and I do in which case we take it on the road and read it with Kat. When we get back, if Jess hasn't seen it already, we pass it over to him. If he has seen it, it may be passed on while we're on the road. I don't remember what happened with that issue (whether we got it first or second). Jess isn't remembering the article and I know I didn't read it. I did fax a copy to Elaine because it's the sort of topic she would cover at her site. If the person wants to e-mail an excerpt, we'll note it here. Otherwise, you're dependent upon my finding the issue and I've already looked everywhere I could think of. (And did find Kat's stash she hid in one of my backpacks last month. I'm not joking but, to clarify, Kat's stash is Hostess Ding Dongs. She was having sugar cravings as she was about to get her period and bought enough Ding Dongs for a first grade class. That's noted with Kat's permission and at her request because when she got here tonight I handed her the boxes and boxes of Ding Dongs. I carry two backpacks on the road and rotate out between ten backpacks and I'm not seeing the issue. It's not in the library and Jess doesn't have it so I have no idea where it was but it could have hit the recycle pile by accident. If that happened, it's gone. Jim does read online and he may read the article and find a section to note but I never read articles online at Harper's because I'm not big on staring at a screen when I've got paper. The articles are scanned in, by the way, so they are on PDF form. That's my plug for Harper's.) [I don't have it. Elaine was faxed a copy. That's because of the article on Jewish writers. We had mentioned it in one group we were speaking to and a student wanted to read the article. I went to the photo copier and copied Featherstone's article, handed the magazine to the student and had the hotel fax the copy to Elaine later that night. The issue was passed on. So the person e-mailing either needs to provide an excerpt to note or you're hoping Jim will go on at some point and read the article online.) [Added: Beau e-mailed to note the article is here. He's going to read it and pull a quote. We'll note it in tomorrow's "And the war drags on . . ."]
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the washington post
ann scott tyson
karen deyoung
mcclatchy newspapers
mohammed al dulaimy
the new york times
stephen farrell
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Chris Floyd explores realities
Barack Obama has now declared -- on Fox News, no less -- that George W. Bush's escalation of the flagrant war crime in Iraq has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." He also proclaimed his "absolute" belief in the "War on Terror," and pledged, once again, "never to take a military option off the table" (not even the nuclear option) against the "major threat" of Iran.
In short, he continued his relentless campaign to purge himself of any of that weak-sister "anti-war" taint that got attached to him in the early days of his campaign -- which was, of course, responsible for his phenomenal rise in the first place. He rode that wave to national prominence -- trading on the desperate hopes of millions of Americans that the ungodly criminal nightmare in Iraq might finally end -- but it was obvious long ago that he was never going to dance with the ones that brung him. Once it was clear that he might really make it all the way to the top of the greasy pole, he began a dogged campaign to prove to our ruling elite that he would be a "safe pair of hands" for the imperial enterprise.
We've seen this in, among other things, the shameful FISA vote, the bellicose threats to launch incursions into Pakistan (a policy which the Bush Administration is already implementing, with the usual deadly results for civilians), the ritual and repeated assertions of his willingness to attack Iran, and the foolhardy promise to shepherd Georgia's entry into NATO -- a mirror-image of Dick Cheney's stance, and a policy guaranteed to ratchet up tensions with Russia and quite possibly spark not only a new Cold War but a hot war of horrendous proportions if Georgia pulls its future NATO treaty partners into another conflict with Moscow.
But it is Obama's surrender on the Iraq War front -- or rather, the anti-Iraq War front -- that is most striking, and most disheartening. On the very night that John McCain was putting the "success" of the surge at the center of his campaign, Obama was openly, cravenly laying down one of his chief weapons at the feet of Bill O'Reilly. Obama's cheerleading for the surge -- "beyond our wildest dreams!" -- surpassed anything that McCain himself has claimed for the escalation.
That's the opening of Chris Floyd's "Surge Protectors: Obama Embraces Bush-McCain Spin on Iraq" (Baltimore Chronicle) and it's a strong column but a few points.
Barack didn't just declare the "surge" a success. He did that while on his attention-seeking world tour. He did that with Katie Couric. That's what the questions by Couric were getting at and what Barack refused to say flat out. His Cult is so deluded that if the words don't fall out of his mouth in simple, declarative statements, no one notices.
It's why he said, when running from the illegal war on July 4th, that people aren't listening to him. He was very clear in the interview with Couric where he stood on the "surge." Couric's questions were an attempt to get him to state directly what he was implying. He refused to do so. It's why Charlie Gibson and George Steph were attempting to pin down his answers in the debate they were called out for. Barack uses legal-ese and avoids direct answers. It's how many in this country have been able to write whatever they wanted onto him. (A point he was making publicly as early as late 2005.) He wanted that Fox interview, he met privately to get it (and to lay down concerns about it and parameters).
With Couric he refused to say directly what his comments added up to (support for the "surge"). She was attacked by the Cult for that interview. O'Reilly has no concerns about the Cult and Barack couldn't weasel out.
When Barack said people hadn't been listening to him (July 4th) he was correct. He is not left. He is not anti-war or even anti-Iraq War. He refuses to call the illegal war "illegal." A lot of people have 'listened' to him adding what they wanted to what he said and never grasping that reality.
You cannot be against the illegal war and shore up, as he did several times in 2004, the Iraq War. You cannot claim credit for a 2002 speech and say (as he has repeatedly until he started running for the Democratic nomination) that, had he been in the Senate in 2002, he doesn't know how he would have voted.
Barack told O'Reilly specifically that he believed the "surge" worked. He'd already said that on CBS but wouldn't do so specifically.
For all the complaints about Bill Clinton using legaleze during the _____ (let's not even put her name in) while he was president, the 'left' has been very happy to swallow legalese and even to add to it to justify Barack.
Allegedly, lessons were learned from 2004. Allegedly, the 'left' was never going to again set the illegal war aside to try to elect a candidate on the hopes of what he might do. Tongues were held when John Kerry was running. Sure he was making war noises, but didn't we all know John as the man who spoke out against Vietnam?
Whether he would have ended the illegal war or not will never be known. People can have their own opinions. (I believe Kerry would have and that may be my own delusion.) But two dangers were known from that process.
One was that you can't bury the peace movement and then, following an election, immediately dig it back up. You put ending the illegal war on hold, you're starting from scratch when you pick the issue back up again.
Another was that elections aren't decided by polling, aren't decided by wishes. Elections are decided by votes (and sometimes by the Supreme Court). And no one knows how people will vote (or if they will -- including if they will be allowed to). The lesson there is that anyone can win and that you don't put all your eggs in one candidate's basket.
John Kerry lost. He didn't make it into the White House. You can point to very real voter disenfranschisement to argue Kerry should have won (and you even invent very non-real suppression). But the reality is Kerry didn't end up in the White House and made no effort to question the results. So he lost.
Despite lies to the contrary, no one knows who will be elected in November. Anyone running -- including Ralph and Cynthia -- could have a push in their direction in the final days and end up the president. It's a crowded field and only one person will be declared president.
To make like Tom Hayden and insist that if Barack loses it is the end of the anti-war movement is to utter not just a lie but a lie that courts disaster.
Whatever does or does not happen to Barack, the movement to end the illegal war (like the illegal war itself) goes on. Barack has never been a part of the movement to end the illegal war. He was invited to the January 2007 DC rally. As with all other rallies to end the illegal war, he declined. It wasn't a fear of rallies, as we all know from watching his myth-making campaign.
He is not a part of the movement to end the illegal war. He did not show up -- even for a second -- at the House hearing where they took the testimonies of Iraq Veterans Against the War. He has done nothing.
He is neither a participant in the movement to end the illegal war nor its leader.
Tom Hayden's pathetic life is so small that he has nothing else to do but be a groupie for Barack. You get the feeling that, if invited, he would pack up everything to go on the road with Barack. (If invited? Barack has famously said that he has no fondness for "Tom Hayden Democrats.")
Tom-Tom is not about ending the illegal war, he is not about empowering anyone. He is about electing Democratic men. That's really all he's ever been about.
He got some credit (and dserved some) for getting honest about how he tailored his own votes (in his monor legislative career) to the Israel lobby. He did that in the summer of 2006. How long after he left office? How long did it take him to get honest?
Honesty doesn't come naturally to Tom-Tom.
So when he scribbles (he may have already) his latest defense of Barack, people need to remember that it takes Tom-Tom at least six years to get even a little honest.
You can be frustrated every hour of the day by all the liars for Barack. Or you can look at it as a gift in that you now know who is incapable of honesty and who has so little respect for themselves and for you that they will lie over and over.
Along with being liars, they're very dumb. Barack needs the left right now. When he gets into office, like most past presidents, he's going to be courting Big Business exclusively until its time to run again. The only limited influence the left has on a candidate is when he or she needs them. With Barack in a dead heat right now with McCain, withdrawing support for Barack could panic him, could force some action on his part.
I wouldn't believe it because he revealed himself as a liar when running for the US Senate. (I'm referring to when Elaine and I spoke with him.) But if pleasing words is enough for the 'left,' they should be forcing him to make some right now. The only way to do that is to let him know that they know the race is close. It's an abdication of their power. They've already abdicated their role, now they're scared of their own power.
Pull support for him. Not tentatively. Pull it. Make it clear why.
Maybe he'll respond with some pleasing words as a result and the little kids can go back to fooling himself that he represents some sort of change. Instead they continue to support him no matter what -- a clear indication that, if elected, he would not be held accountable.
This isn't the only entry for today. But Floyd's written an important piece and I'll use that as my excuse to make this the only entry for today for many hours. I'm honestly going back to bed as soon as this posts. I'm really tired and it's been a long week. I'd planned to do both of today's entries but then saw Floyd's column in the e-mails (Mia, Brad and Kayla have noted it -- others may have as well, but those were the first ones I saw noting it -- I started at the most recent e-mails and have only read a little over fifty).
So focus on Floyd's article and think about it. Try to give it the attention it deserves. I'll post later today and that may be this evening.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
chris floyd
In short, he continued his relentless campaign to purge himself of any of that weak-sister "anti-war" taint that got attached to him in the early days of his campaign -- which was, of course, responsible for his phenomenal rise in the first place. He rode that wave to national prominence -- trading on the desperate hopes of millions of Americans that the ungodly criminal nightmare in Iraq might finally end -- but it was obvious long ago that he was never going to dance with the ones that brung him. Once it was clear that he might really make it all the way to the top of the greasy pole, he began a dogged campaign to prove to our ruling elite that he would be a "safe pair of hands" for the imperial enterprise.
We've seen this in, among other things, the shameful FISA vote, the bellicose threats to launch incursions into Pakistan (a policy which the Bush Administration is already implementing, with the usual deadly results for civilians), the ritual and repeated assertions of his willingness to attack Iran, and the foolhardy promise to shepherd Georgia's entry into NATO -- a mirror-image of Dick Cheney's stance, and a policy guaranteed to ratchet up tensions with Russia and quite possibly spark not only a new Cold War but a hot war of horrendous proportions if Georgia pulls its future NATO treaty partners into another conflict with Moscow.
But it is Obama's surrender on the Iraq War front -- or rather, the anti-Iraq War front -- that is most striking, and most disheartening. On the very night that John McCain was putting the "success" of the surge at the center of his campaign, Obama was openly, cravenly laying down one of his chief weapons at the feet of Bill O'Reilly. Obama's cheerleading for the surge -- "beyond our wildest dreams!" -- surpassed anything that McCain himself has claimed for the escalation.
That's the opening of Chris Floyd's "Surge Protectors: Obama Embraces Bush-McCain Spin on Iraq" (Baltimore Chronicle) and it's a strong column but a few points.
Barack didn't just declare the "surge" a success. He did that while on his attention-seeking world tour. He did that with Katie Couric. That's what the questions by Couric were getting at and what Barack refused to say flat out. His Cult is so deluded that if the words don't fall out of his mouth in simple, declarative statements, no one notices.
It's why he said, when running from the illegal war on July 4th, that people aren't listening to him. He was very clear in the interview with Couric where he stood on the "surge." Couric's questions were an attempt to get him to state directly what he was implying. He refused to do so. It's why Charlie Gibson and George Steph were attempting to pin down his answers in the debate they were called out for. Barack uses legal-ese and avoids direct answers. It's how many in this country have been able to write whatever they wanted onto him. (A point he was making publicly as early as late 2005.) He wanted that Fox interview, he met privately to get it (and to lay down concerns about it and parameters).
With Couric he refused to say directly what his comments added up to (support for the "surge"). She was attacked by the Cult for that interview. O'Reilly has no concerns about the Cult and Barack couldn't weasel out.
When Barack said people hadn't been listening to him (July 4th) he was correct. He is not left. He is not anti-war or even anti-Iraq War. He refuses to call the illegal war "illegal." A lot of people have 'listened' to him adding what they wanted to what he said and never grasping that reality.
You cannot be against the illegal war and shore up, as he did several times in 2004, the Iraq War. You cannot claim credit for a 2002 speech and say (as he has repeatedly until he started running for the Democratic nomination) that, had he been in the Senate in 2002, he doesn't know how he would have voted.
Barack told O'Reilly specifically that he believed the "surge" worked. He'd already said that on CBS but wouldn't do so specifically.
For all the complaints about Bill Clinton using legaleze during the _____ (let's not even put her name in) while he was president, the 'left' has been very happy to swallow legalese and even to add to it to justify Barack.
Allegedly, lessons were learned from 2004. Allegedly, the 'left' was never going to again set the illegal war aside to try to elect a candidate on the hopes of what he might do. Tongues were held when John Kerry was running. Sure he was making war noises, but didn't we all know John as the man who spoke out against Vietnam?
Whether he would have ended the illegal war or not will never be known. People can have their own opinions. (I believe Kerry would have and that may be my own delusion.) But two dangers were known from that process.
One was that you can't bury the peace movement and then, following an election, immediately dig it back up. You put ending the illegal war on hold, you're starting from scratch when you pick the issue back up again.
Another was that elections aren't decided by polling, aren't decided by wishes. Elections are decided by votes (and sometimes by the Supreme Court). And no one knows how people will vote (or if they will -- including if they will be allowed to). The lesson there is that anyone can win and that you don't put all your eggs in one candidate's basket.
John Kerry lost. He didn't make it into the White House. You can point to very real voter disenfranschisement to argue Kerry should have won (and you even invent very non-real suppression). But the reality is Kerry didn't end up in the White House and made no effort to question the results. So he lost.
Despite lies to the contrary, no one knows who will be elected in November. Anyone running -- including Ralph and Cynthia -- could have a push in their direction in the final days and end up the president. It's a crowded field and only one person will be declared president.
To make like Tom Hayden and insist that if Barack loses it is the end of the anti-war movement is to utter not just a lie but a lie that courts disaster.
Whatever does or does not happen to Barack, the movement to end the illegal war (like the illegal war itself) goes on. Barack has never been a part of the movement to end the illegal war. He was invited to the January 2007 DC rally. As with all other rallies to end the illegal war, he declined. It wasn't a fear of rallies, as we all know from watching his myth-making campaign.
He is not a part of the movement to end the illegal war. He did not show up -- even for a second -- at the House hearing where they took the testimonies of Iraq Veterans Against the War. He has done nothing.
He is neither a participant in the movement to end the illegal war nor its leader.
Tom Hayden's pathetic life is so small that he has nothing else to do but be a groupie for Barack. You get the feeling that, if invited, he would pack up everything to go on the road with Barack. (If invited? Barack has famously said that he has no fondness for "Tom Hayden Democrats.")
Tom-Tom is not about ending the illegal war, he is not about empowering anyone. He is about electing Democratic men. That's really all he's ever been about.
He got some credit (and dserved some) for getting honest about how he tailored his own votes (in his monor legislative career) to the Israel lobby. He did that in the summer of 2006. How long after he left office? How long did it take him to get honest?
Honesty doesn't come naturally to Tom-Tom.
So when he scribbles (he may have already) his latest defense of Barack, people need to remember that it takes Tom-Tom at least six years to get even a little honest.
You can be frustrated every hour of the day by all the liars for Barack. Or you can look at it as a gift in that you now know who is incapable of honesty and who has so little respect for themselves and for you that they will lie over and over.
Along with being liars, they're very dumb. Barack needs the left right now. When he gets into office, like most past presidents, he's going to be courting Big Business exclusively until its time to run again. The only limited influence the left has on a candidate is when he or she needs them. With Barack in a dead heat right now with McCain, withdrawing support for Barack could panic him, could force some action on his part.
I wouldn't believe it because he revealed himself as a liar when running for the US Senate. (I'm referring to when Elaine and I spoke with him.) But if pleasing words is enough for the 'left,' they should be forcing him to make some right now. The only way to do that is to let him know that they know the race is close. It's an abdication of their power. They've already abdicated their role, now they're scared of their own power.
Pull support for him. Not tentatively. Pull it. Make it clear why.
Maybe he'll respond with some pleasing words as a result and the little kids can go back to fooling himself that he represents some sort of change. Instead they continue to support him no matter what -- a clear indication that, if elected, he would not be held accountable.
This isn't the only entry for today. But Floyd's written an important piece and I'll use that as my excuse to make this the only entry for today for many hours. I'm honestly going back to bed as soon as this posts. I'm really tired and it's been a long week. I'd planned to do both of today's entries but then saw Floyd's column in the e-mails (Mia, Brad and Kayla have noted it -- others may have as well, but those were the first ones I saw noting it -- I started at the most recent e-mails and have only read a little over fifty).
So focus on Floyd's article and think about it. Try to give it the attention it deserves. I'll post later today and that may be this evening.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
chris floyd
Friday, September 05, 2008
Iraq snapshot
Friday, September 5, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, no cutbacks (let alone withdrawals) is the word, al-Maliki pretends his feelings are hurt, Adam Kokesh shares his thoughts at a rally in Minn., and more. Starting with the news of no 'cutback' (forget withdrawal). Tony Capaccio (Bloomberg News) explains, "Top U.S. military advisers have recommended that President George W. Bush delay futher combat-troop withdrawals from Iraq until early next year, according to two administration officials." Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reveals, "Under the recommendation, the current level of about 140,000 troops would remain in Iraq through the end of Bush's presidency in January. Then a combat brigade of about 3,500 troops would be removed by February a senior Pentagon official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the recommendation has not been made public." Al Jazeera adds: "The recommendation that George Bush withdraw one combat brigade, or up to 5,000 soldiers, from Iraq only early next year was contrary to expectations that improved security in Iraq would allow for quicker cuts." At the White House today, Dana Perino declared, "I don't recall in the last few times when President Bush has worked with, or has gotten recommendations from General Petraeus, that we have gone too far outside. Of course we -- the President gets an update, as he did on Wednesday evening from Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates. They took Secretary -- I'm sorry -- General Petraeus' recommendation and ran that through the chain of command. And then they presented it to the President. He's obviously talking to his national security team, and we'll be consulting with members of Congress before we move forward." US forces aren't leaving. Two presidential candidates (Barack Obama and John McCain) have no intention of withdrawing US troops. At what point does the Iraqi puppet face the wrath of the Iraqi people (many of whom have already figured out that Obama and McCain are the same on Iraq)? UPI reports on yesterday's press conference held by Iraq's Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashimi. The press conference focused on the proposed treaties between the puppet government and the White House and al-Hashimi declared, "I think that we are not in need of an agreement that does not guarantee sovereignty and brings Iraq out from under Chapter VII, and also guarantees Iraqi law as a whole." Which would seem to put al-Hashimi in a better position with the Iraqi people than the puppet Nouri al-Maliki. However, al-Maliki was handed a gift today with advance publicity for Bob Woodward's latest book due out Monday. The book asserts that the White House spied on the puppet. Not a shocking or surprising claim. (A) He is there puppet and they don't trust him (as well as see him as inept). (B) This is the same White House that spied on the United Nations in the lead up to the illegal war. But al-Maliki's trying to turn it into a national pride issue. BBC reports that the puppet government is making noises about being shocked and how, gosh darn it, they think they maybe plan to ask the White House if this is true! Maybe. At the US State Dept today, Robert Wood (Deputy Spokesperson) handled the press briefing and was asked about the charges made in Woodward's forthcoming book. He stated originally, "I don't have anything to say other than, you know, I read books, but I don't do book reviews, basically." Pressed later, he would state he hadn't read the book and "I'm not going to give you a review of it." The most Wood would offer was, "Well, again, I'm not going to get into the substance of this book and, you know, our characterization of it, except to say that, look, we have a good working relationship, a strong working relationship, with the Government of Iraq. We've worked very closely with Prime Minister Maliki. We'll continue to do so and -- in our efforts to strengthen Iraq's democracy." Wood was more expansive on the issue of the "Awakening" Council members, stating, ". . . we believe transitioning some members of the Sons of Iraq into the Iraqi security forces, while providing the others with vocational training and other employment opportunities, will be key to sustaining the security gains that have been realized in Anbar and elsewhere in 2007. But I don't have anything beyond that." In other words, "Thank goodness the puppet government might soon start paying the thugs so we don't have to. Liability concerns, you understand." They certainly have the money to pay it since al-Maliki sits on millions and millions while Iraqis suffer. At Inside Iraq, one of McClatchy's Iraqi correspondents contributes "Why Does Iraq Need This Loan" which notes the central government in Baghdad issued a press release Wednesday proclaiming the Italian ambassador and Iraq's Minister of Finance addressed the topic of the "400 million euro" loan: Until now, everything seems normal and logical. A third world country takes loan money from an industrial country. That would be completely acceptable if this third world country is a poor country but is it acceptable for a country that gained 32 billions dollars only as supplementary budget from the increasing of oil prices? Why does Iraq need this loan? Our government wastes millions of dollar everyday in putting more blast walls, renewing pavements and of course in buying new armored vehicles for the enormous and increasing number of Iraqi officials. We can buy thousands of agricultural machines with the millions that have been wasted for the faked projects. Of course I'm not talking about the millions that had been stolen by the former ministers or even by the contractors. Puppet al-Maliki better hope he can get some traction with his mock outrage of "The White House Spied On Me! Who Could Have Guessed!" James Denselow (Guardian of London) contemplates al-Maliki, "So how has this situation come to pass and how are things likely to develop? Is Maliki going to detach from his perceived political masters in Washington and be allowed to show independence? Or will such posturing result in Maliki suffering a similar fate to his predecessor, who was replaced when he became too independent?" Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Reuters notes Ahmed Chalabi was the target of an assassination in Baghdad today via a car bombing that claimed the lives of 2 and left seventeen injured (Chalabi was not among the dead or injured). Shootings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Dbdulameer Hasen Abbas ("Advisor to the Ministry of Defence") was assassinated in Baghdad. Corpses? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse was discovered in Nineveh Province today (a police officer who was kidnapped yesterday). Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Center Soldier died of non-combat related injuries in Baghdad Sept. 5." The announcement brought to 4154 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. This as Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reports, "Suicides among active-duty soldiers this year are on pace to exceed both last year's all-time record and, for the first time since the Vietnam War, the rate among the general U.S. population, Army officials said yesterday. Ninety-three active-duty soldiers had killed themselves through the end of August, the latest data show. A third of those cases are under investigation by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's Office. In 2007, 115 soldiers committed suicide." Pauline Jelinek (AP) adds, "As officials have said before, [Brig. Gen. Rhonda L.] Cornum said the main factors in soldier suicides continues to be problems with their personal relationships, legal and financial issues, work problems and the repeated deployments and longer tour lengths prompted by an Afghan war entering its eighth year and Iraq campaign in its sixth." While the military does keep saying the same thing over and over, it really doesn't hold up. Take the case of Dustin Mark Tucker whom Mary Callahan (The Press Democrat) reported on Thursday. The doctors can't explain the death (kidney failure is suspected -- the cause, no one knows) and his family can't either: "He has no family history or personal history of any kind of medical issues," said his mother, Cindy Tucker. "He didn't complain of not feeling well . . . He was happy. He was busy. He was excited for his vacation. He was on top of the world." Tucker, 22, was home for an 18-day leave, his first since his March deployment as a gunner with the Army's 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas. He was thrilled to be home, where his family had planned plenty of free time for golf, fishing and other activities. He was fatigued and jet-lagged after days of traveling from Baghdad to Kuwait, then Ireland, Atlanta and Los Angeles before finally flying into San Francisco and the embrace of his family. Despite the lengthy trip, he seemed ready for some fun, they said. Since arriving home Aug. 25, he had visited family and friends, played golf, bought a motorcycle and was looking forward to a family fishing trip at Clear Lake this week. He complained of no pain, discomfort or illness, but did mention being tired Aug. 27 when he decided to hang out with his two brothers rather than go out with friends, Cindy Tucker said. Dustin Mark Tucker, apparently healthy, got on the couch and died there. And there are no answers. And there doesn't appear to be a great deal of interest in finding out what happened -- the same way they're not all that interested in the suicides. It's a pattern of pass-the-buck that hasn't been deal with despite the scandals of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Turning to the US presidential race. Yesterday's financial goal for the Ralph Nader campaign was to reach $100,000 in the donations for the Nader Media Fund which led to some mocking in the press. Not only did they reach $100,000, the campaign surpassed it, hitting $104,500 via donaors from around the country -- Texas, Wisconsin, Arizona, California, Oregon, Illinois, Colorado, Hawaii and elsewhere. Meanwhile Richard Winger's Ballot Access News reports Ralph Nader is currently on the ballot in 38 states (the Green Party in 31, the Constitution Party in 33 and the Libertarian Party in 42 -- see chart at the top of the page). Hamza Shaban (The Cavalier Daily) observes, "What Democrats have failed to realize is this: Nader is most dangerous when he is ignored. As a politician on the fringe, he does not seek the broadest coalition but makes new ones. If his platform is not integrated into the Democratic party's, then he will relentlessly go after the disaffected and carve out his own demographic. What loyal Democrats call "spoiling," Nader calls a systemic and deliberate boycott." Team Nader notes: The Invisible Man, song by 98 Degrees - Justin Jeffre and Jeff Timmons. The revolution will not be televised - but thanks to your help, it will be on youtube. We passed our media fund goal of $100,000 and brought in over $20,000 yesterday alone! This video is our highlight reel from the "Open the Debates" super rally in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The rally took place on September 4, at the same time as the Republican National Convention in neighboring St. Paul. I flew to Minnesota to shoot video of this exciting event, then stayed up all night editing - I hope you enjoy the result. Also, because of your generous support, you will see much more coverage of future events. Please forward this video to your friends & family. Also please help us - subscribe to our youtube channel and rate our videos and comments! Haven't had a chance to help our media fund grow? There's still time...contribute to our campaign today. Onward The RNC wrapped up their convention last night. John McCain is the Republican nominee. Governor Sarah Palin will be his running mate. CBS Evening News' Cynthia Bowers reported on Palin (link has video and text) today. CBS Evening News with Katie Couric found the anchor interviewing Cindy McCain on Wednesday (link has text and video). Barack supporter Hillary Rosen (CNN) shows a stronger grasp of feminism than a number of leaders when she compiles her reasons for not supporting the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket but first calls out rank sexism, "I am a woman who someone took a chance on several years ago when they gave me a job that had only previously been done by old white guys. Experience? How do you get any if no one takes a chance on you? And the decision to take a chance can be instinctive, as John McCain said. And what about the argument that she is a negligent mother who will be distracted from her important role? I am a mother who constantly feels the pressure from others about whether I am fit to be a parent, whether I put my kids first often enough and whether my children get enough of my attention. Who has the right to judge my family? My grandmother always said, 'You can't tell time on someone else's clock.' Judgments about people's personal lives are better left unsaid and unrealized." Tuesday night in Minneapolis, IVAW's Adam Kokesh participated in the Rally For The Republic. Kokesh has posted a video of his speech at his website and below is transcription of the remarks he delivered: Adam Kokesh: Thanks to a few neocon, chicken-hawk draft dodgers I was sent to Falluja in 2004 with the Marine Corps Civil Affairs Team and I found out the hard way that the greatest enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America are not to be found in the sands of some far off land but rather right here at home. It's not enough to understand that the war in Iraq is simply unjust, illegal, unconstitutional, costing us a horrendous amount of money and destroying our military. The issues before us today are a matter of life and death. I continue to serve my country today as a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and the Campaign for Liberty. It is through the Campaign for Liberty that we will take Ron Paul's message, we will take the torch of freedom that he has borne so well for us, we will take it back to our communities and set brushfires of freedom in the mind of every liberty loving man, woman and child in this great country. I'd like to take a second to recognize the veterans in the room -- if you would please stand -- and any active duty service members please stand. These are the brave men and women who swore an oath with their lives to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And while it is our responsibility now to resist tyranny civily while we still can, there may come a time when we will say to the powers that be "With your blood or ours, we have come to water the tree of liberty." And it is those veterans and myself, we will be on the frontlines. Who will stand with us? Thank you for taking that stand. To all of you loyal soldiers in this new revolutionary army, it is an honor to count myself among your ranks and I salute you. You want a revolution? You better be ready to fight for it. Now I want you all to get back on your feet, take that stance for liberty with me, with all the veterans in this room, make for yourself the same committment with your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor to our cause and make that pledge from your hearts where the fire of liberty burns that we will not rest 'till we achieve our goals and we get this new revolution in America. Now I want you to stay on your feet for just for just another minute -- you're going to want to stay on your feet for this -- because now I have the great pleaure of introducing on behalf of the Campaign for Liberty, someone you have all been waiting to see, Aimee Allen. Note, Adam is co-chair of IVAW. He was speaking for himself at the Ron Paul rally as do all IVAW members participating in political campaigns for candidates. IVAW does not endorse any single candidate, they do not belong to or serve one party. IVAW is a diverse group in all ways including politically. Their shared beliefs include an end to the illegal war, reperations for the Iraqi people and that US veterans' service is honored (and promises kept) by the US government. Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney has held multiple events in Wisconsin today and has more planned for tomorrow: Today she held a lunch (10:30 a.m.), a town hall (Walden III School, Racine) at one p.m., and a Park Six meet and greet starting at 4:30. Saturday she will be speaking at the Fighting Bob Festival (Baraboo, Wisconsin at 10:20 in the morning and will be hosting another meet and greet this time at High Noon Salloon in Madison beginning at 5:30 p.m.). NOW on PBS begins airing tonight in most markets. (Check local listings.) On the program this weekend (the above is a web exclusive and not a part of the show), Brancaccio interviews Christine Todd Whitman (billed as a moderate Republican) about the state of the GOP. Bill Moyers Journal brings back Dr. Kathy -- no doubt because America doesn't have enough worthless gas bagging on TV. The program moves into reality with a look at the National Guard members serving in Iraq. Gwen and the gas bags reteam to scare America on the latest installment of Washington Week. The Washington Post's David Broder and Vanity Fair's Todd S. Purdum are the two names that can be mentioned with minimal shudders. The others would produce screaming. In terms of radio, The Next Hour airs on WBAI Sunday (eleven to noon EST) and this week Janet Coleman and David Dozer "appear with yarrow sticks and The Book of Changes." Bill Moyers Journal tackles protests (and, some would say attention getting) so we'll include this section: Perhaps the most prominent arrest was that of journalist Amy Goodman, anchor of the daily television and radio news program, "Democracy Now!" Police had taken two of her producers into custody as they were trying to cover the news. Goodman went out looking for them, but didn't get very far. She was stopped, slapped into handcuffs, and hauled into a detention center, along with almost 200 hundred other people. They had come to demonstrate, she had come to report on them. Goodman was released a few hours later and back on the job anchoring her daily radio and TV show, a favorite of listeners and viewers who go to her for news they won't find in the mainstream or rightwing press. Winship is very kind to attention seeking Goody and what she actually offers. The essay is available in full online at Bill Moyers Journal. |
iraq veterans against the war
Other Items
Suicides among active-duty soldiers this year are on pace to exceed both last year's all-time record and, for the first time since the Vietnam War, the rate among the general U.S. population, Army officials said yesterday.
Ninety-three active-duty soldiers had killed themselves through the end of August, the latest data show. A third of those cases are under investigation by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's Office. In 2007, 115 soldiers committed suicide.
Failed relationships, legal and financial troubles, and the high stress of wartime operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are the leading factors linked to the suicides, Army officials said.
The above is from Ann Scott Tyson's "Soldiers' Suicide Rate On Pace to Set Record" (Washington Post) and Pauline Jelinek covers the topic for the AP here. From that article:
As officials have said before, [Brig. Gen. Rhonda L.] Cornum said the main factors in soldier suicides continues to be problems with their personal relationships, legal and financial issues, work problems and the repeated deployments and longer tour lengths prompted by an Afghan war entering its eighth year and Iraq campaign in its sixth.
Yeah, the military does keep saying the same thing over and over. Whether it makes any sense or not. Their claims make little sense when it comes to Dustin Mark Tucker. From Mary Callahan's "Family, doctors mystified by Kenwood soldier's death" (The Press Democrat):
"He has no family history or personal history of any kind of medical issues," said his mother, Cindy Tucker. "He didn't complain of not feeling well . . . He was happy. He was busy. He was excited for his vacation. He was on top of the world."
Tucker, 22, was home for an 18-day leave, his first since his March deployment as a gunner with the Army's 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas.
He was thrilled to be home, where his family had planned plenty of free time for golf, fishing and other activities.
He was fatigued and jet-lagged after days of traveling from Baghdad to Kuwait, then Ireland, Atlanta and Los Angeles before finally flying into San Francisco and the embrace of his family. Despite the lengthy trip, he seemed ready for some fun, they said.
Since arriving home Aug. 25, he had visited family and friends, played golf, bought a motorcycle and was looking forward to a family fishing trip at Clear Lake this week.
He complained of no pain, discomfort or illness, but did mention being tired Aug. 27 when he decided to hang out with his two brothers rather than go out with friends, Cindy Tucker said.
The US military is not the only one attempting to spin another wave of Operation Happy Talk. AP wants the world to know, got to let it show, 520 Iraqis are coming, are coming, are coming BACK! From Jordan. And that number might mean something if it were even 10% of the number of Iraqi refugees in Jordan. 700,000 was the number the International Red Cross utilized in 2007. The Jordanian government sometimes uses the number one million. Meanwhile China's Xinhau reports that the US goal of 12,000 Iraqi refugees accepted in the US will only be met if 1,002 refugees are accepted between now and September 30th (end of the fiscal year). The US has never met its goal. 12,000 is an embarrassing number to begin with and, obviously, the US State Dept isn't interested in exceeding the goal.
Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and he and his running mate Matt Gonzalez have two scheduled news conferences today. The first we noted in the previous entry (Eau Claire) and the second is in Madison:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org (national);
Justin Richardson, 608-215-1342, justin@votenader.org (local)
NADER AND GONZALEZ TO HOLD NEWS CONFERENCE AND RALLY IN MADISON, WISCONSIN, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5
On Friday, September 5, at 7 p.m., Ralph Nader and his VP running mate, Matt Gonzalez, will host a news conference at the Orpheum Theatre in Madison, Wis. Following the news conference, at 7:30 p.m., Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez will hold a rally at the same location. In addition to speeches by Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez, special guest David Rovics, "the musical voice of the progressive movement," will perform at the rally. The theatre is located at: 216 State St., Madison, Wis., 53703. For more information, call Justin Richardson at 608-215-1342, or email: events@votenader.org.
Wisconsin residents confront a growing list of crisis-level difficulties that include a tanking economy, increasing environmental pollution and a health care system broken beyond repair. The latest Census Bureau figures reveal a falling median household income and a rise in the poverty rate from 8.8 to 12 percent between 2000 and 2007--and that does not reflect the impact of the current economic downturn.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, as of 2004, Wisconsin was among the 10 states whose total employment was hardest hit by NAFTA-related job losses, with a net loss of 25,403 jobs. Nader/Gonzalez would withdraw and renegotiate NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
On August 19 the Environmental Protection Agency designated six counties -- Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine, Dane, Columbia and Brown -- as violating federal standards for fine-particle pollution. Coal-fired power plants (along with automobiles) are a primary source of fine-particle pollution. As of 2005, 54 percent of Wisconsin electric utility power came from coal, according to Wisconsin State Energy Statistics.
"Wisconsin faces a triple crisis in health care: the skyrocketing cost of health insurance, increasing numbers of uninsured, and a severe deficit in the state's Medicaid program," warns the Wisconsin Council of Churches on its health care web page. The council adds that "employers now spend an average of 15 percent of payroll for employees' health care premiums, and health care costs are rising 9 percent per year, which hurts wages, profits, job creation and new investment in Wisconsin. Over a half million Wisconsinites - fully 10 percent of our population have no health insurance coverage at some point during the year. Lack of insurance is a significant factor in premature death and bankruptcy."
While Obama and McCain offer health care plans that would enrich private insurance companies at the expense of tax payers, the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign favors a Canadian-style public health insurance system with private delivery and free choice of hospital and doctor.
The Nader/Gonzalez team would fix Wisconsin's drastic air pollution problem and create many new jobs with its crash program to switch the nation to a non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel, solar-based economy—which is "off the table" for Obama/McCain. Enormous improvements in proven energy efficiencies from consumer, home and building technologies can become the norm if Washington overcomes the energy companies' lobbies that do not want to see their sales diminish.
Also "off the table" for Obama/McCain but on the table for Nader/Gonzalez is a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild and repair the nation's crumbling schools, clinics, roads, bridges and other vital public infrastructure, with funds coming from cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget that devours 50 percent of the federal government's operating expenditures.
Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez will address these and many other critical issues the major party candidates have taken "off the table" that the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign has put on the table, including:
- a comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq;
- a living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act;
- a carbon tax to deter global warming;
- an end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax dollars; and,
- more direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with "we the people," and not "we the corporations."
About Ralph Nader
Attorney, author, and consumer advocate Ralph Nader has been named by Time Magazine one of the "100 Most Influential Americans in the 20th Century." For more than four decades he has exposed problems and organized millions of citizens into more than 100 public interest groups advocating solutions. He led the movement to establish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and was instrumental in enacting the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and countless other pieces of important consumer legislation. Because of Ralph Nader we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water, and work in safer environments. Nader graduated from Princeton University and received an LL.B from Harvard Law School.
About Matt Gonzalez
Matt Gonzalez was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2000 representing San Francisco's fifth council district. From 2003 to 2005, he served as Board of Supervisors President. A former public defender, Gonzalez is managing partner of Gonzalez & Leigh, a 7-attorney practice in San Francisco that represents individuals and organizations in mediation, arbitration, and administrative proceedings before state and federal regulatory bodies. Gonzalez graduated from Columbia University and received a JD from Stanford Law School.
About the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign
The Nader/Gonzalez independent presidential candidacy will be on the ballot in 45 states, is polling at 5-6 percent nationally, and a new Time/CNN poll shows Ralph Nader polling 8 percent in New Mexico, 7 percent in Colorado, 7 percent in Pennsylvania, and 6 percent in Nevada -- all key battleground states.
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
###
NOW on PBS has a web exclusive on the presidential race:
NOW on PBS Host David Brancaccio sits down with RedState's ErickErickson in a web-exclusive interview shown only at NOW Online. The two talk about Obama's bounce, Palin rumors, and whether or not political blogging really counts as journalism. I think you and your audiences will find it very intriguing.
NOW on PBS begins airing tonight in most markets. (Check local listings.) On the program this weekend (the above is a web exclusive and not a part of the show), Brancaccio interviews Christine Todd Whitman (billed as a moderate Republican) about the state of the GOP. Bill Moyers Journal brings back Dr. Kathy -- no doubt because America doesn't have enough worthless gas bagging on TV. The program moves into reality with a look at the National Guard members serving in Iraq. Gwen and the gas bags reteam to scare America on the latest installment of Washington Week. The Washington Post's David Broder and Vanity Fair's Todd S. Purdum are the two names that can be mentioned with minimal shudders. The others would produce screaming. In terms of radio, The Next Hour airs on WBAI Sunday (eleven to noon EST) and this week Janet Coleman and David Dozer "appear with yarrow sticks and The Book of Changes." (To be clear, Coleman and Dozer are not gas bags. The program is listed after Washington Weak because we've move to radio. Coleman and Dozer are public radio's longest running comedy team.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the washington post
ann scott tyson
mary callahan
the next hour
janet coleman
david dozer
wbai
washington week
bill moyers journal
pbs
now on pbs
Ninety-three active-duty soldiers had killed themselves through the end of August, the latest data show. A third of those cases are under investigation by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's Office. In 2007, 115 soldiers committed suicide.
Failed relationships, legal and financial troubles, and the high stress of wartime operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are the leading factors linked to the suicides, Army officials said.
The above is from Ann Scott Tyson's "Soldiers' Suicide Rate On Pace to Set Record" (Washington Post) and Pauline Jelinek covers the topic for the AP here. From that article:
As officials have said before, [Brig. Gen. Rhonda L.] Cornum said the main factors in soldier suicides continues to be problems with their personal relationships, legal and financial issues, work problems and the repeated deployments and longer tour lengths prompted by an Afghan war entering its eighth year and Iraq campaign in its sixth.
Yeah, the military does keep saying the same thing over and over. Whether it makes any sense or not. Their claims make little sense when it comes to Dustin Mark Tucker. From Mary Callahan's "Family, doctors mystified by Kenwood soldier's death" (The Press Democrat):
"He has no family history or personal history of any kind of medical issues," said his mother, Cindy Tucker. "He didn't complain of not feeling well . . . He was happy. He was busy. He was excited for his vacation. He was on top of the world."
Tucker, 22, was home for an 18-day leave, his first since his March deployment as a gunner with the Army's 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas.
He was thrilled to be home, where his family had planned plenty of free time for golf, fishing and other activities.
He was fatigued and jet-lagged after days of traveling from Baghdad to Kuwait, then Ireland, Atlanta and Los Angeles before finally flying into San Francisco and the embrace of his family. Despite the lengthy trip, he seemed ready for some fun, they said.
Since arriving home Aug. 25, he had visited family and friends, played golf, bought a motorcycle and was looking forward to a family fishing trip at Clear Lake this week.
He complained of no pain, discomfort or illness, but did mention being tired Aug. 27 when he decided to hang out with his two brothers rather than go out with friends, Cindy Tucker said.
The US military is not the only one attempting to spin another wave of Operation Happy Talk. AP wants the world to know, got to let it show, 520 Iraqis are coming, are coming, are coming BACK! From Jordan. And that number might mean something if it were even 10% of the number of Iraqi refugees in Jordan. 700,000 was the number the International Red Cross utilized in 2007. The Jordanian government sometimes uses the number one million. Meanwhile China's Xinhau reports that the US goal of 12,000 Iraqi refugees accepted in the US will only be met if 1,002 refugees are accepted between now and September 30th (end of the fiscal year). The US has never met its goal. 12,000 is an embarrassing number to begin with and, obviously, the US State Dept isn't interested in exceeding the goal.
Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and he and his running mate Matt Gonzalez have two scheduled news conferences today. The first we noted in the previous entry (Eau Claire) and the second is in Madison:
Nader and Gonzalez to Hold News Conference and Rally in Madison, Wisconsin, Friday September 5
Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM
News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org (national);
Justin Richardson, 608-215-1342, justin@votenader.org (local)
NADER AND GONZALEZ TO HOLD NEWS CONFERENCE AND RALLY IN MADISON, WISCONSIN, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5
On Friday, September 5, at 7 p.m., Ralph Nader and his VP running mate, Matt Gonzalez, will host a news conference at the Orpheum Theatre in Madison, Wis. Following the news conference, at 7:30 p.m., Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez will hold a rally at the same location. In addition to speeches by Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez, special guest David Rovics, "the musical voice of the progressive movement," will perform at the rally. The theatre is located at: 216 State St., Madison, Wis., 53703. For more information, call Justin Richardson at 608-215-1342, or email: events@votenader.org.
Wisconsin residents confront a growing list of crisis-level difficulties that include a tanking economy, increasing environmental pollution and a health care system broken beyond repair. The latest Census Bureau figures reveal a falling median household income and a rise in the poverty rate from 8.8 to 12 percent between 2000 and 2007--and that does not reflect the impact of the current economic downturn.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, as of 2004, Wisconsin was among the 10 states whose total employment was hardest hit by NAFTA-related job losses, with a net loss of 25,403 jobs. Nader/Gonzalez would withdraw and renegotiate NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
On August 19 the Environmental Protection Agency designated six counties -- Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine, Dane, Columbia and Brown -- as violating federal standards for fine-particle pollution. Coal-fired power plants (along with automobiles) are a primary source of fine-particle pollution. As of 2005, 54 percent of Wisconsin electric utility power came from coal, according to Wisconsin State Energy Statistics.
"Wisconsin faces a triple crisis in health care: the skyrocketing cost of health insurance, increasing numbers of uninsured, and a severe deficit in the state's Medicaid program," warns the Wisconsin Council of Churches on its health care web page. The council adds that "employers now spend an average of 15 percent of payroll for employees' health care premiums, and health care costs are rising 9 percent per year, which hurts wages, profits, job creation and new investment in Wisconsin. Over a half million Wisconsinites - fully 10 percent of our population have no health insurance coverage at some point during the year. Lack of insurance is a significant factor in premature death and bankruptcy."
While Obama and McCain offer health care plans that would enrich private insurance companies at the expense of tax payers, the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign favors a Canadian-style public health insurance system with private delivery and free choice of hospital and doctor.
The Nader/Gonzalez team would fix Wisconsin's drastic air pollution problem and create many new jobs with its crash program to switch the nation to a non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel, solar-based economy—which is "off the table" for Obama/McCain. Enormous improvements in proven energy efficiencies from consumer, home and building technologies can become the norm if Washington overcomes the energy companies' lobbies that do not want to see their sales diminish.
Also "off the table" for Obama/McCain but on the table for Nader/Gonzalez is a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild and repair the nation's crumbling schools, clinics, roads, bridges and other vital public infrastructure, with funds coming from cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget that devours 50 percent of the federal government's operating expenditures.
Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez will address these and many other critical issues the major party candidates have taken "off the table" that the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign has put on the table, including:
- a comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq;
- a living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act;
- a carbon tax to deter global warming;
- an end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax dollars; and,
- more direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with "we the people," and not "we the corporations."
About Ralph Nader
Attorney, author, and consumer advocate Ralph Nader has been named by Time Magazine one of the "100 Most Influential Americans in the 20th Century." For more than four decades he has exposed problems and organized millions of citizens into more than 100 public interest groups advocating solutions. He led the movement to establish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and was instrumental in enacting the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and countless other pieces of important consumer legislation. Because of Ralph Nader we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water, and work in safer environments. Nader graduated from Princeton University and received an LL.B from Harvard Law School.
About Matt Gonzalez
Matt Gonzalez was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2000 representing San Francisco's fifth council district. From 2003 to 2005, he served as Board of Supervisors President. A former public defender, Gonzalez is managing partner of Gonzalez & Leigh, a 7-attorney practice in San Francisco that represents individuals and organizations in mediation, arbitration, and administrative proceedings before state and federal regulatory bodies. Gonzalez graduated from Columbia University and received a JD from Stanford Law School.
About the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign
The Nader/Gonzalez independent presidential candidacy will be on the ballot in 45 states, is polling at 5-6 percent nationally, and a new Time/CNN poll shows Ralph Nader polling 8 percent in New Mexico, 7 percent in Colorado, 7 percent in Pennsylvania, and 6 percent in Nevada -- all key battleground states.
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential nominee. She has numerous events today and tomorrow.
| September 05, 2008 - October 05, 2008 | » | |
|---|---|---|
09 / 5 Start: 10:30 End: 12:00 Cynthia Stumps Wisconsin, including Speaking to Fighting Bob Fest! Cynthia McKinney brings campaign to Wisconsin Sept. 5-6 Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will bring her Power to the People Campaign to Wisconsin Friday September 5 and Saturday September 6, including speaking on the Main Stage at Fighting Bob Fest. Start: 13:00 End: 15:00 Cynthia McKinney brings campaign to Wisconsin Sept. 5-6 Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will bring her Power to the People Campaign to Wisconsin Friday September 5 and Saturday September 6, including speaking on the Main Stage at Fighting Bob Fest. She will be in Milwaukee, Racine, Madison, & Baraboo over the two days. Friday 9/5 - 1 p.m. - Racine, WI - Town Hall Forum at Walden III school Start: 16:30 End: 18:00 Cynthia McKinney brings campaign to Wisconsin Sept. 5-6 Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will bring her Power to the People Campaign to Wisconsin Friday September 5 and Saturday September 6, including speaking on the Main Stage at Fighting Bob Fest. She will be in Milwaukee, Racine, Madison, & Baraboo over the two days. Friday 9/5 - 4:30-6:00 p.m. - Racine, WI - Meet & Greet Fund raiser at Park Six (corner of Park & 6th St.) PUBLIC WELCOME! | ||
09 / 6 Start: 00:00 End: 17:00 Cynthia McKinney brings campaign to Wisconsin Sept. 5-6 Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will bring her Power to the People Campaign to Wisconsin Friday September 5 and Saturday September 6, including speaking on the Main Stage at Fighting Bob Fest. Baraboo, WI - Fighting Bob Fest - Cynthia McKinney is scheduled to take the stage at 10:20 a.m Start: 17:30 End: 20:00 Cynthia McKinney brings campaign to Wisconsin Sept. 5-6 Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will bring her Power to the People Campaign to Wisconsin Friday September 5 and Saturday September 6, including speaking on the Main Stage at Fighting Bob Fest. She will be in Milwaukee, Racine, Madison, & Baraboo over the two days. Saturday 9/6 - 5:30-8:00 p.m. - Madison, WI - Meet & Greet fund raiser at High Noon Saloon, with special guest David Rovics. PUBLIC WELCOME! | ||
NOW on PBS has a web exclusive on the presidential race:
NOW on PBS Host David Brancaccio sits down with RedState's ErickErickson in a web-exclusive interview shown only at NOW Online. The two talk about Obama's bounce, Palin rumors, and whether or not political blogging really counts as journalism. I think you and your audiences will find it very intriguing.
NOW on PBS begins airing tonight in most markets. (Check local listings.) On the program this weekend (the above is a web exclusive and not a part of the show), Brancaccio interviews Christine Todd Whitman (billed as a moderate Republican) about the state of the GOP. Bill Moyers Journal brings back Dr. Kathy -- no doubt because America doesn't have enough worthless gas bagging on TV. The program moves into reality with a look at the National Guard members serving in Iraq. Gwen and the gas bags reteam to scare America on the latest installment of Washington Week. The Washington Post's David Broder and Vanity Fair's Todd S. Purdum are the two names that can be mentioned with minimal shudders. The others would produce screaming. In terms of radio, The Next Hour airs on WBAI Sunday (eleven to noon EST) and this week Janet Coleman and David Dozer "appear with yarrow sticks and The Book of Changes." (To be clear, Coleman and Dozer are not gas bags. The program is listed after Washington Weak because we've move to radio. Coleman and Dozer are public radio's longest running comedy team.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the washington postann scott tysonmary callahanthe next hourjanet colemandavid dozerwbaiwashington weekbill moyers journalpbs
now on pbs
Iraq
At Inside Iraq, one of McClatchy's Iraqi correspondents contributes "Why Does Iraq Need This Loan" which notes the central government in Baghdad issued a press release Wednesday proclaiming the Italian ambassador and Iraq's Minister of Finance addressed the topic of the "400 million euro" loan:
Until now, everything seems normal and logical. A third world country takes loan money from an industrial country. That would be completely acceptable if this third world country is a poor country but is it acceptable for a country that gained 32 billions dollars only as supplementary budget from the increasing of oil prices?
Why does Iraq need this loan? Our government wastes millions of dollar everyday in putting more blast walls, renewing pavements and of course in buying new armored vehicles for the enormous and increasing number of Iraqi officials. We can buy thousands of agricultural machines with the millions that have been wasted for the faked projects. Of course I'm not talking about the millions that had been stolen by the former ministers or even by the contractors.
The New York Times offers NO article filed from Iraq. For those keeping track of the last few days:
Saturday: None
Sunday: None
Monday: None
Tuesday: Two
Wednesday: None
Thursday: One
Friday: None
Julian E. Barnes offers "Gen. Petraeus recommends delay in Iraq troop cuts" in the Los Angeles Times which includes the following:
Under the recommendation, the current level of about 140,000 troops would remain in Iraq through the end of Bush's presidency in January. Then, a combat brigade of about 3,500 troops would be removed by February, a senior Pentagon official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the recommendation has not been made public.
On the same topic, Al Jazeera adds: "The recommendation that George Bush withdraw one combat brigade, or up to 5,000 soldiers, from Iraq only early next year was contrary to expectations that improved security in Iraq would allow for quicker cuts."
Meanwhile UPI reports on yesterday's press conference held by Iraq's Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashimi. The press conference focused on the proposed treaties between the puppet government and the White House and al-Hashimi declared, "I think that we are not in need of an agreement that does not guarantee sovereignty and brings Iraq out from under Chapter VII, and also guarantees Iraqi law as a whole."
Ralph Nader is the independent candidate for president. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Eddie notes this from Team Nader:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org (national); Aaron Brewster, 715-703-0353, brewstaj@uwec.edu (local)
RALPH NADER AND MATT GONZALEZ TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE AND RALLY IN EAU CLAIRE, WI, FRI. SEPT. 5
On Friday September 5, at 12:30 p.m., Ralph Nader and running mate Matt Gonzalez will host a news conference in the Alumni Room of the W.R. Davies Center, at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Following the news conference, at 1 p.m., Nader will hold a rally in the Council Fire Room of the W.R. Davies Center. The university is located at: 105 Garfield Ave., Eau Claire, WI. For more information, call Aaron Brewster at 715-703-0353, or email: events@votenader.org.
The theme of the rally, "Open the Debates," reflects the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign's call for inclusive, democratic Presidential debates. Right now, they are limited to the candidates from the two corporate parties. The debates are controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation which was created by the Democratic and Republican Parties in 1987, which Walter Cronkite called an "unconscionable fraud" because the CPD format "defies meaningful discourse."
In addition, the candidates will speak about the growing, multifarious crisis Wisconsin residents confront, starting with a tanking economy, increasing environmental pollution and a health care system broken beyond repair. The latest Census Bureau figures for Wisconsin reveal a falling median household income and a rise in the poverty rate from 8.8 to 12 percent between 2000 and 2007--and that does not include the impact of the current economic downturn.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, as of 2004, Wisconsin was among the 10 states whose total employment was hardest hit by NAFTA-related job losses, with a net loss of 25,403 jobs. Nader/Gonzalez would withdraw and renegotiate NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
On August 19 the Environmental Protection Agency designated six counties -- Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine, Dane, Columbia and Brown -- as violating federal standards for fine-particle pollution. Coal-fired power plants (along with automobiles) are a primary source of fine-particle pollution. As of 2005, 54 percent of Wisconsin electric utility power came from coal, according to Wisconsin State Energy Statistics.
"Wisconsin faces a triple crisis in health care: the skyrocketing cost of health insurance, increasing numbers of uninsured, and a severe deficit in the state's Medicaid program," warns the Wisconsin Council of Churches on its health care web page. The council adds that "employers now spend an average of 15 percent of payroll for employees' health care premiums, and health care costs are rising 9 percent per year, which hurts wages, profits, job creation and new investment in Wisconsin. Over a half million Wisconsinites--fully 10 percent of our population have no health insurance coverage at some point during the year. Lack of insurance is a significant factor in premature death and bankruptcy."
While Obama and McCain offer health care plans that would enrich private insurance companies at the expense of tax payers, the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign favors a Canadian-style public health insurance system with private delivery and free choice of hospital and doctor.
The Nader/Gonzalez team would fix Wisconsin's drastic air pollution problem and create many new jobs with its crash program to switch the nation to a non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel, solar-based economy--which is "off the table" for Obama/McCain. Enormous improvements in proven energy efficiencies from consumer, home and building technologies can become the norm if Washington overcomes the energy companies' lobbies that do not want to see their sales diminish.
Also "off the table" for Obama/McCain but on the table for Nader/Gonzalez is a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild and repair the Nation's crumbling schools, clinics, roads, bridges and other vital public infrastructure, with funds coming from cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget that devours 50 percent of the federal government's operating expenditures.
Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez will address these and many other critical issues the major party candidates have taken "off the table" that the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign has put on the table, including:
- a comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq;
- a single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, free-choice public health insurance system for all;
- a living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act;
- a no-nuke, solar-based energy policy supported by renewable, sustainable, energy-efficient sources;
- a carbon tax to deter global warming;
- an end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax dollars; and,
- more direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with "we the people," and not "we the corporations."
WHO: Independent Presidential Candidates Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez
WHAT: News Conference and Rally
WHEN: 12:30 p.m., Friday, September 5, 2008
WHERE: W.R. Davies Center at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 105 Garfield Ave., Eau Claire, WI
About Ralph Nader
Attorney, author, and consumer advocate Ralph Nader has been named by Time Magazine one of the "100 Most Influential Americans in the 20th Century." For more than four decades he has exposed problems and organized millions of citizens into more than 100 public interest groups advocating solutions. He led the movement to establish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and was instrumental in enacting the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and countless other pieces of important consumer legislation. Because of Ralph Nader we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water, and work in safer environments. Nader graduated from Princeton University and received an LL.B from Harvard Law School.
About Matt Gonzalez
Matt Gonzalez was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2000 representing San Francisco's fifth council district. From 2003 to 2005, he served as Board of Supervisors President. A former public defender, Gonzalez is managing partner of Gonzalez & Leigh, a 7-attorney practice in San Francisco that represents individuals and organizations in mediation, arbitration, and administrative proceedings before state and federal regulatory bodies. Gonzalez graduated from Columbia University and received a JD from Stanford Law School.
About the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign
According to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted from July 27-29, Ralph Nader is at 6 percent nationally (equivalent to about 10 million eligible voters), higher than his highest major poll numbers during the same time period in 2000 and approaching the 10 percent threshold required for eligibility to participate in "America's Presidential Debate in New Orleans," a Google-sponsored event scheduled for September 18. In the key swing state of Michigan -- whose Democratic voters were partially disenfranchised by the Democratic National Committee -- an EPIC-MRA poll found Nader at 8-10 percent.
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
-End-
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles times
julian e. barnes
Until now, everything seems normal and logical. A third world country takes loan money from an industrial country. That would be completely acceptable if this third world country is a poor country but is it acceptable for a country that gained 32 billions dollars only as supplementary budget from the increasing of oil prices?
Why does Iraq need this loan? Our government wastes millions of dollar everyday in putting more blast walls, renewing pavements and of course in buying new armored vehicles for the enormous and increasing number of Iraqi officials. We can buy thousands of agricultural machines with the millions that have been wasted for the faked projects. Of course I'm not talking about the millions that had been stolen by the former ministers or even by the contractors.
The New York Times offers NO article filed from Iraq. For those keeping track of the last few days:
Saturday: None
Sunday: None
Monday: None
Tuesday: Two
Wednesday: None
Thursday: One
Friday: None
Julian E. Barnes offers "Gen. Petraeus recommends delay in Iraq troop cuts" in the Los Angeles Times which includes the following:
Under the recommendation, the current level of about 140,000 troops would remain in Iraq through the end of Bush's presidency in January. Then, a combat brigade of about 3,500 troops would be removed by February, a senior Pentagon official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the recommendation has not been made public.
On the same topic, Al Jazeera adds: "The recommendation that George Bush withdraw one combat brigade, or up to 5,000 soldiers, from Iraq only early next year was contrary to expectations that improved security in Iraq would allow for quicker cuts."
Meanwhile UPI reports on yesterday's press conference held by Iraq's Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashimi. The press conference focused on the proposed treaties between the puppet government and the White House and al-Hashimi declared, "I think that we are not in need of an agreement that does not guarantee sovereignty and brings Iraq out from under Chapter VII, and also guarantees Iraqi law as a whole."
Ralph Nader is the independent candidate for president. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Eddie notes this from Team Nader:
Nader Brings Campaign to Eau Claire
Friday, September 5, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM
News Advisory
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org (national); Aaron Brewster, 715-703-0353, brewstaj@uwec.edu (local)
RALPH NADER AND MATT GONZALEZ TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE AND RALLY IN EAU CLAIRE, WI, FRI. SEPT. 5
On Friday September 5, at 12:30 p.m., Ralph Nader and running mate Matt Gonzalez will host a news conference in the Alumni Room of the W.R. Davies Center, at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Following the news conference, at 1 p.m., Nader will hold a rally in the Council Fire Room of the W.R. Davies Center. The university is located at: 105 Garfield Ave., Eau Claire, WI. For more information, call Aaron Brewster at 715-703-0353, or email: events@votenader.org.
The theme of the rally, "Open the Debates," reflects the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign's call for inclusive, democratic Presidential debates. Right now, they are limited to the candidates from the two corporate parties. The debates are controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation which was created by the Democratic and Republican Parties in 1987, which Walter Cronkite called an "unconscionable fraud" because the CPD format "defies meaningful discourse."
In addition, the candidates will speak about the growing, multifarious crisis Wisconsin residents confront, starting with a tanking economy, increasing environmental pollution and a health care system broken beyond repair. The latest Census Bureau figures for Wisconsin reveal a falling median household income and a rise in the poverty rate from 8.8 to 12 percent between 2000 and 2007--and that does not include the impact of the current economic downturn.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, as of 2004, Wisconsin was among the 10 states whose total employment was hardest hit by NAFTA-related job losses, with a net loss of 25,403 jobs. Nader/Gonzalez would withdraw and renegotiate NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
On August 19 the Environmental Protection Agency designated six counties -- Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine, Dane, Columbia and Brown -- as violating federal standards for fine-particle pollution. Coal-fired power plants (along with automobiles) are a primary source of fine-particle pollution. As of 2005, 54 percent of Wisconsin electric utility power came from coal, according to Wisconsin State Energy Statistics.
"Wisconsin faces a triple crisis in health care: the skyrocketing cost of health insurance, increasing numbers of uninsured, and a severe deficit in the state's Medicaid program," warns the Wisconsin Council of Churches on its health care web page. The council adds that "employers now spend an average of 15 percent of payroll for employees' health care premiums, and health care costs are rising 9 percent per year, which hurts wages, profits, job creation and new investment in Wisconsin. Over a half million Wisconsinites--fully 10 percent of our population have no health insurance coverage at some point during the year. Lack of insurance is a significant factor in premature death and bankruptcy."
While Obama and McCain offer health care plans that would enrich private insurance companies at the expense of tax payers, the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign favors a Canadian-style public health insurance system with private delivery and free choice of hospital and doctor.
The Nader/Gonzalez team would fix Wisconsin's drastic air pollution problem and create many new jobs with its crash program to switch the nation to a non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel, solar-based economy--which is "off the table" for Obama/McCain. Enormous improvements in proven energy efficiencies from consumer, home and building technologies can become the norm if Washington overcomes the energy companies' lobbies that do not want to see their sales diminish.
Also "off the table" for Obama/McCain but on the table for Nader/Gonzalez is a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild and repair the Nation's crumbling schools, clinics, roads, bridges and other vital public infrastructure, with funds coming from cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget that devours 50 percent of the federal government's operating expenditures.
Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez will address these and many other critical issues the major party candidates have taken "off the table" that the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign has put on the table, including:
- a comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq;
- a single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, free-choice public health insurance system for all;
- a living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act;
- a no-nuke, solar-based energy policy supported by renewable, sustainable, energy-efficient sources;
- a carbon tax to deter global warming;
- an end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax dollars; and,
- more direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with "we the people," and not "we the corporations."
WHO: Independent Presidential Candidates Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez
WHAT: News Conference and Rally
WHEN: 12:30 p.m., Friday, September 5, 2008
WHERE: W.R. Davies Center at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 105 Garfield Ave., Eau Claire, WI
About Ralph Nader
Attorney, author, and consumer advocate Ralph Nader has been named by Time Magazine one of the "100 Most Influential Americans in the 20th Century." For more than four decades he has exposed problems and organized millions of citizens into more than 100 public interest groups advocating solutions. He led the movement to establish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and was instrumental in enacting the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and countless other pieces of important consumer legislation. Because of Ralph Nader we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water, and work in safer environments. Nader graduated from Princeton University and received an LL.B from Harvard Law School.
About Matt Gonzalez
Matt Gonzalez was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2000 representing San Francisco's fifth council district. From 2003 to 2005, he served as Board of Supervisors President. A former public defender, Gonzalez is managing partner of Gonzalez & Leigh, a 7-attorney practice in San Francisco that represents individuals and organizations in mediation, arbitration, and administrative proceedings before state and federal regulatory bodies. Gonzalez graduated from Columbia University and received a JD from Stanford Law School.
About the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign
According to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted from July 27-29, Ralph Nader is at 6 percent nationally (equivalent to about 10 million eligible voters), higher than his highest major poll numbers during the same time period in 2000 and approaching the 10 percent threshold required for eligibility to participate in "America's Presidential Debate in New Orleans," a Google-sponsored event scheduled for September 18. In the key swing state of Michigan -- whose Democratic voters were partially disenfranchised by the Democratic National Committee -- an EPIC-MRA poll found Nader at 8-10 percent.
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
mcclatchy newspapersthe los angeles timesjulian e. barnes
Thursday, September 04, 2008
I Hate The War
Who knew "woman" was a category like felon and that any "woman" was immediately suspect?
As we continue to see, Gov Sarah Palin, GOP vice presidential nominee, is attacked for who she is.
It's not like she has positions you can't question. She supports the illegal war.
But better to focus on the real 'crime,' that she is, of course, a "she."
Instead of dealing with her issues, sexist pigs (of both genders) think they can smear her.
Where there are piggies, there is Matthew Rotschild -- non-Democrat, non-believer . . . What does he stand for? Sexism. That's really all he has left to believe in and he grips it tightly at The Progressive.
Governor Sarah Palin closed the GOP convention last night. Rothschild decides "Palin can do long derision" is a headline. See, it's a slap at Sarah's performance and it's a slap at all women because, HA HA, women aren't supposed to be good at math.
That's the stereotype and what does a tired, flacid Matthew Rothschild have to offer but tired stereotypes? Strip him of those and . . . well he'd have nothing to offer.
"Palin piled on" is a thread popping up and it popped up last night. Palin didn't pile on. But it is amazing that so many see any woman doing the job of a vice presidential nominee to be threatening, isn't it?
Matty's threatened by strong women and, probably, by strength period.
That's why he could air non-stop sexism at Hillary including recommending The Weekly Standard. If it's a ha-ha on Hillary, yes, The Progressive and and did recommend the right-wing Weekly Standard.
Matthew believes he can drop principles and pick them back up later. No, like his hair floating in the shower drain, when they're gone, they're gone.
"Sneered" is what Sarah did. Or that's what Matty insists. And to really pile on, guess who he says she sneered like? You guessed it, Hillary.
No woman will be left standing if Matty has his way. Matt lies for his man crush Barack (you sort of picture Matthew having endless wet dreams night after night, don't you?) insisting "HAS TOO!" to questions of Barack's qualifications. (Barack has no qualifications. Keep fighting that losing battle, Rothschild.) He insists that "this line of attack raises the obvious question: What have you done, governor, that qualifies you to be vice president or president?" Uh, Pig Matt, I believe the "governor" in your question is also partly an answer.
It's amazing that he wants to defend Barack for president by going after Sarah's qualifications for vice president. Yes, Matthew is that stupid. He will gladly play the game the GOP wants played. He will smear and rip apart Sarah, insisting that this woman is not qualified when everyone watching from the outside will be thinking, "Uh, actually, she's more qualified than the guy at the top of the Democratic ticket." All Matthew has to offer is more sexism and more flacid writing.
"The women of The Nation," Katrina vanden Heuvel once intoned.
What about those sexist, worthless, Queen Bees? They're in a tizzy and it's time to send out the fembots! First up, or maybe she just always crowds her way to the front, Katty-van-van. Katrina writes endlessly and the only reason to read it is to laugh at the Immature School Girl who still thinks that by citing males over and over, she's got a paper teacher will love. Patrica J. Williams proves how deep into the gutter she can go with her first sentence. The woman has no ethics -- which should have been obvious by her going on KPFA early in 2007 and LYING that Barack voted against the illegal war (only to then attack a MidEastern woman who called in pointing out the obvious fact that Barack was not in the US Senate in 2002) if not before that in 2004 when she was inventing mythical young boys in France with whom she conversed about the state of the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Professor Patti's been useless because she's made herself that way. Then we turn to self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders. Barack's got homophobes on stage in South Caroline and Laura choses to pen a column begging him to . . . break with torture. If you won't stand up for yourself, Laura, why should anyone else? In her post, Laura trots out Katherine Harris because what could be more pro-woman than that? It's not pro-woman. Neither's Laura.
And because those women have made repeatedly clear that The Nation is about spitting on women (tip-off: publishing 149 female bylines in 2007 to 491 males), they attract their 'base.' Which is how "leftofcenter" is able to comfortable post to Flanders' nonsense, "Palin is a smirking cheerleader with a background that prepares her more for a neighborhood back sale than a heartbeat from the POTUS." And Barack's background prepapers him for what, leftofcenter? "Guanabana" contributes this sexist comment, "Lady Sarah needs a nickname and I'm here to give it to her: The Luv Guv."
And if you're not getting how anti-woman The Nation is, just check out their poll. "What previous VP nominee will Sarah Palin most resemble this fall?" they ask.
Eagleton. More scandals from her past will be revealed, leading to an ugly resignation.
Quayle. Her inexperience will be a major drag on the ticket but won't prevent victory.
LBJ. Untapped party regulars will rally behind her, turning out in huge numbers for McCain.
You may be thinking, so what? There's a positive choice in there, she can be LBJ! (Does anyone other than Bill Moyers see LBJ as a positive?)
I pulled the second choice from the list so you could really absorb it. Here it is: "Ferraro. She will briefly inject energy into the campaign, but will not hold up under scrutiny."
That's a decription of Geraldine Ferraro? Who wrote that choice, Elizabeth Holtzman? Ferraro didn't "briefly inject energy," she was the only energy in the Mondale-Ferraro ticket. Tell it to the kiddies, Nation magazine, lie to them and know they'll never call you on your garbage because they don't know better.
Hillary would not have been the victim of so much sexism if people had called it out. When a woman who has been a mayor and a governor is running for the vice-presidency any woman who says "Palin's inexperienced" is an idiot and, yes, I read the papers today. That woman made herself an idiot today. I'm sorry that she did. But who the hell is she to declare Palin is "unqualified"? She needs to check herself.
This is how the attacks on Hillary started. If a governor isn't qualified, what woman is? That's what real feminists need to be asking themselves today. Before they go to town on Palin, they need to realize it's not Palin.
It wasn't Hillary.
It is about women.
Palin walks on the stage at a time when all the garbage about Hillary still hasn't been cleared off. You see the same men going after her and you see women even more eager to join in.
Guess what 'leaders' in the feminist movement, it's not about you. It wasn't about you because the bulk of you were too useless to stand up. Bill Moyers is chuckling at Hillary Clinton on Bill Moyers Journal, "moisty". And where are the feminist leaders? He wants to examine that moment, he says. Only instead of playing that moment in New Hampshire, he chooses to play Jesse Jackson Jr. sexist attack on Hillary. How were viewers at home supposed to determine what happened? Someone needs to ask Bill Moyers about that. And they need to ask the useless Dr. Kathy (Hall Jamieson) about it as well because she never objected to it. But what woman does?
What feminist 'leader' has called Bill Moyers out all damn year? Step up, ladies. Don't be so reluctant. Claim your prize, girls.
Oh, that's right. You didn't say a DAMN word. You made yourself useless. Over and over.
Oh, we can't call out Bill and we can't call out ___ or we can't call out him or him or him or . . .
How useless, how pathetic.
The feminist movement used to be about women and had leaders who understood that.
CounterSpin is FAIR's weekly half-hour program. How many times did it note sexism in the Democratic Party primary throughout 2008? Did you guess once? It was only once. For one damn sentence. And they didn't even name the CNN's gas bags participating in the discussion of whether or not Hillary could be considered a "bitch."
Now every damn week, CounterSpin found racism -- even when they had to invent it. But sexism? Never. They stayed silent. When loudly called out -- and, no, not from their advisory board, not from feminist 'leaders' -- they finally rushed in on May 23rd, as the primaries were ending, to declare "CNN viewers were treated to one pundit explanation that people might call Hillary Clinton a bitch because well isn't that just what some women are" -- and so began and ended CounterSpin's entire 'coverage' of the sexism in the 2008 primary.
When did a feminist 'leader' lodge a complaint? When did a feminist 'leader' complain? When did a feminist 'leader' insist, "Take my name off your advisory board"? The answer to all three questions is: Never.
The grassroots never fails feminism. The grassroots live it. It is their daily life. It's not something to pick up and drop in between cocktail parties. How did Katha Pollit put it when she finally decided to call out a little, tiny bit of the sexism aimed at Hillary? Oh, yeah: "I want to do my bit for Obama, so I vowed I would give up attacking Obama-supporting progressives for the duration of the presidential campaign." Well that's great Katha. Feminism is a faucet you turn on and off!
It doesn't work that way and 'leaders' (Katha's no leader) better grasp just how quickly the rage against the media can turn against themselves. The grassroots are damn well aware of what went down during the Democratic Party primary. And they're damn well aware of how many got passes and how those passes came from 'leaders' who made the decision not to call various people out. That's not your decision to make if you're attempting to represent the movement to the press.
And it is not your right to call any governor "unqualified" to be president. That crap doesn't just hurt Sarah Palin. It hurts Ruth Ann Minner, Jennifer Granholm, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Kathleen Blanco, Christine Gregoire and countless other women who will become governors in the next years. It is not your right to make the playing field even less level for women in order to advance a men. It's not your right and it is not feminism.
Allison Stevens and Alison Bowen (Women's eNews) do something especially amazing considering all the garbage feminist 'leadership' is currently offering -- the two speak to Republican women. Republican Majority for Choice's Jennifer Blei Stockman calls Palin being McCain's running mate "a risky choice." Pro-choice Nancy Johnson (US House of Rep 1983 - 2007) calls the choice "refersshing." Republicans for Choice's Ann Stone declares, "We're happy about her. It shows the boys . . . that history will not end if a woman is in that office." And their article points out what 'leadership' won't, there are Republican feminists. It's an election year so apparently all those women can be tossed on a pyre by feminist 'leadership.' Lots of luck working with those women in the future when you need their help. And way to disrespect their choices. Hate to break it to the 'leaders' but while they might be able to convince young feminists otherwise, there was never a partisan litmus test for movement membership. Had there been, Republicans could have kept Democrats (and others) out of the feminist movement because Republican women were leaders early on. What was Margaret Chase Smith's political party? Republican. She was the first woman of a major party to run for president.
Not all, but some, of the leaders trashing Palin today elected not to have children. That is their choice. However, maybe that explains why they fail to acknowledge the power of last night. Maybe if they'd had children, they could have pictured themselves at the TV with their daughters and sons, pointing to Sarah Palin, explaining she is running for the vice presidency? If they had pictured that, they would have grasped how powerful the moment was. As Elaine observed last night, "Here's the reality feminist 'leaders' are ignoring: An eight-year-old girl just knows a woman got to do something. She doesn't know the woman's life story. Abortion? I'd be surprised if she had an opinion, let alone knew what anyone else thought." That is reality.
Tearing down Palin doesn't help any woman. Tearing down Palin doesn't help a woman who runs for office. Tearing down Palin, after the trashing Hillary already endured, may well discourage some young girls and women from running for office. Feminist 'leaders' need to grasp they don't own the movement. They need to grasp that the movement's first duty is and always has been to women. It's not the "man's movement." It's not the "masculinist movement." It's the feminist movement and it's past time 'leaders' indicated they grasped that.
No woman 'owes' Sarah Palin her vote. Some may feel she's the best choice and that is their right. Some will not. You can make a case for or against Sarah without resorting to sexism, without fostering sexism and without making the world a little more difficult for all women. The feminist movement's first concern is supposed to be women and there's been little indication that's the case in the Sarah 'coverage.'
This community is against the illegal war. There's not one member that's planning to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. That's not the issue. The issue is that sexism isn't acceptable. That the same feminist 'leaders' who were calling for the destruction of an edition of The New Yorker now think they can use sexism to go after Sarah Palin is a sign of just how crazy things have gotten and how sad a candidate Barack Obama makes. Here's another reality, Barack's not promised to end the illegal war either.
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!)
August 21st, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4145. Tonight? 4154. That's seven more and, yes, M-NF only released four death announcements (they let DoD 'make the announcements' for the others). Just Foreign Policy lists 1,252,595 as the number of Iraqis killed -- the same as last Thursday.
NOW on PBS has a web exclusive on the presidential race:
NOW on PBS Host David Brancaccio sits down with RedState's ErickErickson in a web-exclusive interview shown only at NOW Online. The two talk about Obama's bounce, Palin rumors, and whether or not political blogging really counts as journalism. I think you and your audiences will find it very intriguing.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
sarah palin
pbs
now on pbs
allison stevens
alison bowen
like maria said paz
As we continue to see, Gov Sarah Palin, GOP vice presidential nominee, is attacked for who she is.
It's not like she has positions you can't question. She supports the illegal war.
But better to focus on the real 'crime,' that she is, of course, a "she."
Instead of dealing with her issues, sexist pigs (of both genders) think they can smear her.
Where there are piggies, there is Matthew Rotschild -- non-Democrat, non-believer . . . What does he stand for? Sexism. That's really all he has left to believe in and he grips it tightly at The Progressive.
Governor Sarah Palin closed the GOP convention last night. Rothschild decides "Palin can do long derision" is a headline. See, it's a slap at Sarah's performance and it's a slap at all women because, HA HA, women aren't supposed to be good at math.
That's the stereotype and what does a tired, flacid Matthew Rothschild have to offer but tired stereotypes? Strip him of those and . . . well he'd have nothing to offer.
"Palin piled on" is a thread popping up and it popped up last night. Palin didn't pile on. But it is amazing that so many see any woman doing the job of a vice presidential nominee to be threatening, isn't it?
Matty's threatened by strong women and, probably, by strength period.
That's why he could air non-stop sexism at Hillary including recommending The Weekly Standard. If it's a ha-ha on Hillary, yes, The Progressive and and did recommend the right-wing Weekly Standard.
Matthew believes he can drop principles and pick them back up later. No, like his hair floating in the shower drain, when they're gone, they're gone.
"Sneered" is what Sarah did. Or that's what Matty insists. And to really pile on, guess who he says she sneered like? You guessed it, Hillary.
No woman will be left standing if Matty has his way. Matt lies for his man crush Barack (you sort of picture Matthew having endless wet dreams night after night, don't you?) insisting "HAS TOO!" to questions of Barack's qualifications. (Barack has no qualifications. Keep fighting that losing battle, Rothschild.) He insists that "this line of attack raises the obvious question: What have you done, governor, that qualifies you to be vice president or president?" Uh, Pig Matt, I believe the "governor" in your question is also partly an answer.
It's amazing that he wants to defend Barack for president by going after Sarah's qualifications for vice president. Yes, Matthew is that stupid. He will gladly play the game the GOP wants played. He will smear and rip apart Sarah, insisting that this woman is not qualified when everyone watching from the outside will be thinking, "Uh, actually, she's more qualified than the guy at the top of the Democratic ticket." All Matthew has to offer is more sexism and more flacid writing.
"The women of The Nation," Katrina vanden Heuvel once intoned.
What about those sexist, worthless, Queen Bees? They're in a tizzy and it's time to send out the fembots! First up, or maybe she just always crowds her way to the front, Katty-van-van. Katrina writes endlessly and the only reason to read it is to laugh at the Immature School Girl who still thinks that by citing males over and over, she's got a paper teacher will love. Patrica J. Williams proves how deep into the gutter she can go with her first sentence. The woman has no ethics -- which should have been obvious by her going on KPFA early in 2007 and LYING that Barack voted against the illegal war (only to then attack a MidEastern woman who called in pointing out the obvious fact that Barack was not in the US Senate in 2002) if not before that in 2004 when she was inventing mythical young boys in France with whom she conversed about the state of the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Professor Patti's been useless because she's made herself that way. Then we turn to self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders. Barack's got homophobes on stage in South Caroline and Laura choses to pen a column begging him to . . . break with torture. If you won't stand up for yourself, Laura, why should anyone else? In her post, Laura trots out Katherine Harris because what could be more pro-woman than that? It's not pro-woman. Neither's Laura.
And because those women have made repeatedly clear that The Nation is about spitting on women (tip-off: publishing 149 female bylines in 2007 to 491 males), they attract their 'base.' Which is how "leftofcenter" is able to comfortable post to Flanders' nonsense, "Palin is a smirking cheerleader with a background that prepares her more for a neighborhood back sale than a heartbeat from the POTUS." And Barack's background prepapers him for what, leftofcenter? "Guanabana" contributes this sexist comment, "Lady Sarah needs a nickname and I'm here to give it to her: The Luv Guv."
And if you're not getting how anti-woman The Nation is, just check out their poll. "What previous VP nominee will Sarah Palin most resemble this fall?" they ask.
Eagleton. More scandals from her past will be revealed, leading to an ugly resignation.
Quayle. Her inexperience will be a major drag on the ticket but won't prevent victory.
LBJ. Untapped party regulars will rally behind her, turning out in huge numbers for McCain.
You may be thinking, so what? There's a positive choice in there, she can be LBJ! (Does anyone other than Bill Moyers see LBJ as a positive?)
I pulled the second choice from the list so you could really absorb it. Here it is: "Ferraro. She will briefly inject energy into the campaign, but will not hold up under scrutiny."
That's a decription of Geraldine Ferraro? Who wrote that choice, Elizabeth Holtzman? Ferraro didn't "briefly inject energy," she was the only energy in the Mondale-Ferraro ticket. Tell it to the kiddies, Nation magazine, lie to them and know they'll never call you on your garbage because they don't know better.
Hillary would not have been the victim of so much sexism if people had called it out. When a woman who has been a mayor and a governor is running for the vice-presidency any woman who says "Palin's inexperienced" is an idiot and, yes, I read the papers today. That woman made herself an idiot today. I'm sorry that she did. But who the hell is she to declare Palin is "unqualified"? She needs to check herself.
This is how the attacks on Hillary started. If a governor isn't qualified, what woman is? That's what real feminists need to be asking themselves today. Before they go to town on Palin, they need to realize it's not Palin.
It wasn't Hillary.
It is about women.
Palin walks on the stage at a time when all the garbage about Hillary still hasn't been cleared off. You see the same men going after her and you see women even more eager to join in.
Guess what 'leaders' in the feminist movement, it's not about you. It wasn't about you because the bulk of you were too useless to stand up. Bill Moyers is chuckling at Hillary Clinton on Bill Moyers Journal, "moisty". And where are the feminist leaders? He wants to examine that moment, he says. Only instead of playing that moment in New Hampshire, he chooses to play Jesse Jackson Jr. sexist attack on Hillary. How were viewers at home supposed to determine what happened? Someone needs to ask Bill Moyers about that. And they need to ask the useless Dr. Kathy (Hall Jamieson) about it as well because she never objected to it. But what woman does?
What feminist 'leader' has called Bill Moyers out all damn year? Step up, ladies. Don't be so reluctant. Claim your prize, girls.
Oh, that's right. You didn't say a DAMN word. You made yourself useless. Over and over.
Oh, we can't call out Bill and we can't call out ___ or we can't call out him or him or him or . . .
How useless, how pathetic.
The feminist movement used to be about women and had leaders who understood that.
CounterSpin is FAIR's weekly half-hour program. How many times did it note sexism in the Democratic Party primary throughout 2008? Did you guess once? It was only once. For one damn sentence. And they didn't even name the CNN's gas bags participating in the discussion of whether or not Hillary could be considered a "bitch."
Now every damn week, CounterSpin found racism -- even when they had to invent it. But sexism? Never. They stayed silent. When loudly called out -- and, no, not from their advisory board, not from feminist 'leaders' -- they finally rushed in on May 23rd, as the primaries were ending, to declare "CNN viewers were treated to one pundit explanation that people might call Hillary Clinton a bitch because well isn't that just what some women are" -- and so began and ended CounterSpin's entire 'coverage' of the sexism in the 2008 primary.
When did a feminist 'leader' lodge a complaint? When did a feminist 'leader' complain? When did a feminist 'leader' insist, "Take my name off your advisory board"? The answer to all three questions is: Never.
The grassroots never fails feminism. The grassroots live it. It is their daily life. It's not something to pick up and drop in between cocktail parties. How did Katha Pollit put it when she finally decided to call out a little, tiny bit of the sexism aimed at Hillary? Oh, yeah: "I want to do my bit for Obama, so I vowed I would give up attacking Obama-supporting progressives for the duration of the presidential campaign." Well that's great Katha. Feminism is a faucet you turn on and off!
It doesn't work that way and 'leaders' (Katha's no leader) better grasp just how quickly the rage against the media can turn against themselves. The grassroots are damn well aware of what went down during the Democratic Party primary. And they're damn well aware of how many got passes and how those passes came from 'leaders' who made the decision not to call various people out. That's not your decision to make if you're attempting to represent the movement to the press.
And it is not your right to call any governor "unqualified" to be president. That crap doesn't just hurt Sarah Palin. It hurts Ruth Ann Minner, Jennifer Granholm, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Kathleen Blanco, Christine Gregoire and countless other women who will become governors in the next years. It is not your right to make the playing field even less level for women in order to advance a men. It's not your right and it is not feminism.
Allison Stevens and Alison Bowen (Women's eNews) do something especially amazing considering all the garbage feminist 'leadership' is currently offering -- the two speak to Republican women. Republican Majority for Choice's Jennifer Blei Stockman calls Palin being McCain's running mate "a risky choice." Pro-choice Nancy Johnson (US House of Rep 1983 - 2007) calls the choice "refersshing." Republicans for Choice's Ann Stone declares, "We're happy about her. It shows the boys . . . that history will not end if a woman is in that office." And their article points out what 'leadership' won't, there are Republican feminists. It's an election year so apparently all those women can be tossed on a pyre by feminist 'leadership.' Lots of luck working with those women in the future when you need their help. And way to disrespect their choices. Hate to break it to the 'leaders' but while they might be able to convince young feminists otherwise, there was never a partisan litmus test for movement membership. Had there been, Republicans could have kept Democrats (and others) out of the feminist movement because Republican women were leaders early on. What was Margaret Chase Smith's political party? Republican. She was the first woman of a major party to run for president.
Not all, but some, of the leaders trashing Palin today elected not to have children. That is their choice. However, maybe that explains why they fail to acknowledge the power of last night. Maybe if they'd had children, they could have pictured themselves at the TV with their daughters and sons, pointing to Sarah Palin, explaining she is running for the vice presidency? If they had pictured that, they would have grasped how powerful the moment was. As Elaine observed last night, "Here's the reality feminist 'leaders' are ignoring: An eight-year-old girl just knows a woman got to do something. She doesn't know the woman's life story. Abortion? I'd be surprised if she had an opinion, let alone knew what anyone else thought." That is reality.
Tearing down Palin doesn't help any woman. Tearing down Palin doesn't help a woman who runs for office. Tearing down Palin, after the trashing Hillary already endured, may well discourage some young girls and women from running for office. Feminist 'leaders' need to grasp they don't own the movement. They need to grasp that the movement's first duty is and always has been to women. It's not the "man's movement." It's not the "masculinist movement." It's the feminist movement and it's past time 'leaders' indicated they grasped that.
No woman 'owes' Sarah Palin her vote. Some may feel she's the best choice and that is their right. Some will not. You can make a case for or against Sarah without resorting to sexism, without fostering sexism and without making the world a little more difficult for all women. The feminist movement's first concern is supposed to be women and there's been little indication that's the case in the Sarah 'coverage.'
This community is against the illegal war. There's not one member that's planning to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. That's not the issue. The issue is that sexism isn't acceptable. That the same feminist 'leaders' who were calling for the destruction of an edition of The New Yorker now think they can use sexism to go after Sarah Palin is a sign of just how crazy things have gotten and how sad a candidate Barack Obama makes. Here's another reality, Barack's not promised to end the illegal war either.
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!)
August 21st, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4145. Tonight? 4154. That's seven more and, yes, M-NF only released four death announcements (they let DoD 'make the announcements' for the others). Just Foreign Policy lists 1,252,595 as the number of Iraqis killed -- the same as last Thursday.
NOW on PBS has a web exclusive on the presidential race:
NOW on PBS Host David Brancaccio sits down with RedState's ErickErickson in a web-exclusive interview shown only at NOW Online. The two talk about Obama's bounce, Palin rumors, and whether or not political blogging really counts as journalism. I think you and your audiences will find it very intriguing.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
sarah palin
pbs
now on pbs
allison stevens
alison bowen
like maria said paz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)