Iraq

Yet in Samarra, as in many parts of this ravaged country, better is a relative term. The city's name is derived from an Arabic phrase meaning "a joy for all to see." But joy, or even basic satisfaction, remains a scarce commodity.
The violence that once raged throughout the overwhelmingly Sunni city has quieted in the last few months. In August there were only nine small weapons attacks, compared with 44 last November, according to the American military. One homemade bomb exploded in August. Last November there were 13. The curfew for residents has been pushed back to midnight or even later if there are religious events.
Yet the costs of greater safety are also apparent. At virtually every corner there are checkpoints staffed by members of the Iraqi security forces or guards from the Awakening Councils, the citizen patrols that the American military paid and trained to fight the insurgents. Blast walls line the streets. And to stray outside the nine "safe" neighborhoods that American military officials say have been secured by the Awakening guards is still to invite violent death.

The above is from Erica Goode and Mohammed Hussein's "As Bombs Fall Silent, an Iraqi City Rebuilds" (New York Times)and among the details provided by the reporters is that the reconstruction of Askairya Shrine (after the 2007 bombing) is not only expensive (expected to cost $8 million), the reconstruction is being done "without blueprints." Samara, like everywhere in Iraq, suffers from the same problems: "few jobs available, that the water is not potable, that the electricity is intermittent at best, that they have not received their pensions and that there are shortages of medicine." It's a strong article and hopefully the paper running articles filed from Iraq two days in a row does not mean that judgments will be made that readers can do without Iraq for three to four days.

Yesterday saw violence as usual and the violence included two bombings in Baghdad which garnered some press attention. Jeffrey Fleishman covers the bombings in "Baghdad blasts kill at least 24" (Los Angeles Times):

A witness to the Zafaraniya attack, a vendor who gave his name only as Salaam, said that moments before the explosion, he saw a car racing toward the mosque and an Iraqi armored vehicle parked near the entrance. He said the blast created a fireball, setting the armored vehicle and four cars ablaze.
"I feel distressed," said Salaam, who helped evacuate the injured to a hospital in a pickup truck. "Despite all the government assurances that the security situation is improved and Ramadan this year was safe . . . the situation is still bad."

On Democracy Now! today, a vice presidential debate is offered between Matt Gonzales (Ralph Nader's running mate) and Rosa Clemente (Cynthia McKinney's running mate). The exchange on prison reform may be the closest the two come to "testy."

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


iraq

the new york times
erica goode

mohammed hussein
the los angeles times
jeffrey fleishman
democracy now

I Hate The War

Robin Morgan's written a piece for Women's Media Center. Violet Socks (Reclusive Leftist) weighs in, "In the comments someone pointed me to this ridiculous essay by Robin Morgan. Ridiculous because it's full of lies. You know, if I were going to write an Eminent Feminist's missive to the world -- which Morgan clearly thinks she's doing -- laying out the Eminent Feminist viewpoint on Palin, I think I'd least check my facts. Morgan obviously didn't. In her piece she repeats long-debunked lies that it would have taken her only seconds to investigate: that Palin claimed the war was part of God's plan, that she didn't know what the Vice President does (it was a rhetorical question, for chrissake), that she denounced Hillary supporters as 'whiners,' that she opposes sex ed, that she's against contraception, that she opposes funding for pregnant teens, that she made a point of charging victims for rape kits, that she believes in 'praying away' homosexuality, that she’s a crazy fundamentalist who wants to put us all in calico dresses, and on and on." From Monday's snapshot:

'Sarah Palin wants rape victims to pay for their own rape kits!' Prove it. September 24th, FactCheck.org published their item on it and they found nothing to prove that rumor. No proof. That's how the Cult took down Hillary, they repeated lies and piled on more lies. Usually, the most effective lie was the one that turned a Hillary strength into a liability -- a strength Barack didn't posses. So when 'feminists' rush to tell you Sarah Palin hunted wolves from a helicopter, the appropriate response is, "You, ma'am, are a damn liar." And when they insist that Palin forced rape victims to pay for rape kits, the same reply should be followed by pointing to Barack's "Faith, Family, Values Tour" with headliner Doug Kmiec who is both a homophobe (and actively fighting to overturn marriage equality in California) and an anti-choice advocate who admitted to the New York Times last month that he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. If 'feminists' think that's feminism, they have more problems than lying.

So, Robin, love you though I do, you are a damn liar. Unlike Violet, I don't think Robin intentionally meant to lie but Robin is an incredible journalist (as well as a writer of books) and she knows the importance of checking the facts. Equally true is the Women's Media Center has refused to correct falsehoods in other pieces on Palin.

Tuesday and yesterday, Marcia's been addressing her disappointments with feminist leaders (and 'leaders') who resort to silence and lying. (Robin Morgan isn't a feminist 'leader,' she's an actual feminist leader.) Yesterday, Marcia noted the pile on nature regarding Governor Sarah Palin. And she cites Ava and myself pointing out that when a pile-on is taking place with regards to a woman a feminist thing is to not to add to it.

Third again explained "Bash the Bitch" in February (in a piece that we all, including Marcia, worked on):

Bash The Bitch involves a focus on misdeeds that is only applied to one person and that person is a woman. When that takes place the nation engages in group trashing.

That is what Robin Morgan engaged in.

From a feminist perspective, there is no excuse for it. You can disagree with Palin's politics and positions, but think about the mind-set that would go after a woman (with lies) while "Bash the Bitch" was the national craze and to do so prior to the woman doing what is billed as her make-or-break debate?

That's not feminism.

There is no excuse for it. There is no excuse for Robin's article.

Sexism is clearly at play in the non-stop ridicule of Palin served up daily. The fact that Senator Joe Biden (I know Biden, I like Biden tremendously) has been caught in fabricating (see Wally & Cedric's joint-post today), has been caught in huge factural errors and has even cried on the campaign trail last week with none of the outcry from the press that Hillary Clinton received for her eyes welling up while she was speaking in New Hampshire underscores that the pile-on very much has a gender aspect to it. Biden got choked up tonight during the debate. Will it be commented on? Or is just when a woman comes close to crying that we figure, "Hey, maybe she can't handle the job!" As always, note the "she" because, as Ava and I pointed out Sunday, there is no standard for the males in the press coverage of the 2008 election but women have all sorts of ___ tossed at them.

And it has gone on non-stop with Palin.

Therefore a feminist thing to do would be to either speak out against it or, if that's too damn much for you, to just stay silent. (Marcia points out that a writer with How I Met Your Mother? begged Ava and I to cover Britney Spears appearances on the show and we watched and declined twice. Britney cannot act. To say that in the midst of the pile-on would have been joining in the bashing. Spears appears to have gotten her career back under control so it should do her no harm today.) The pile-on has a name: "Bash the Bitch."

The 'game' (an American past time) always centers on a woman. It's the modern day equivalent of burning 'witches.' The game is so very popular because women are so very hated. As Holly Near sings, "The war against women marches on, beware of the fairytale."

When Robin Morgan repeats falsehoods about Sarah Palin, it doesn't matter that she didn't grasp that they were lies. Robin has engaged in "Bash the Bitch."

The very fact that she didn't feel the need to check out the rumors goes to how "Bash the Bitch" runs deep in this society. When Women's Media Center posts a column with factual inaccuracies (and this isn't the first time), they don't just waive through "Bash the Bitch," they endorse it.

It's a real shame because Robin has suggestions at the end of her column and four are worthy ones worth exploring. However, one of the four is her perception shaped by the media. Hillary didn't address women's issues?

That's not true, Robin. Whenever Hillary did, the media ignored it. As a breast cancer survivor (hopefully a survivor), I think I can say that because I damn well remember Hillary's suggestion regarding funding research and I damn well remember the lack of media attention given to that proposal. [If, like Robin, you don't, you can see "Other Items (and the press demonstrates how little breast cancer matters to them)" from April 8th. And for the record, Women's Media Center didn't call out the media silence of Hillary announcing she would increase to $300 million the amount of money to breast cancer research. And for the record, Women's Media Center did not rush out of the gate with a story on it either. I'm aware of no story on it, in fact, but may it was an 'under the radar moment' for WMC. Considering the ages and the health of the women who started WMC, it is shameful that they didn't cover Hillary's proposal.]

So on that Robin's wrong.

She's wrong on a great deal including her claim that women have some vested reason to elect Barack Obama.

She embarrasses herself with a 'book note' at the end. It's a shame she doesn't read the newspapers. Jim's asked me to sit on something all week and bring it to Third on Sunday. If I can manage to in tomorrow's snapshot, we'll address it a Third and it will underscore not just Barack's sexism (in public) but how little reading goes on.

I actually saw it as an indictment of the lazy (and cheap -- provided bloggers have money to spend) online world. Barack made a huge sexist statement this week and no one's called it out. Including the media. One print outlet mentioned it in passing. If they'd front paged it, Robin would probably be aware of it (she does read that newspaper). To claim that women need to support Barack is to claim that women need to endorse sexism and render themselves silent. Again, it will be addressed Sunday at Third. And apparently, it's not only the lazy bloggers (doing "Sexism watch!"es on incidents covered elsewhere) who can't be bothered with actual reading (and, possibly, paying for a paper -- the write up probably wasn't easy to find if you 'read' that paper by clicking around the website).

It's a real shame that so many feminists disgraced themselves in the Democratic Party primary by refusing to call Barack out for his use of homophobia to scare up voters in South Carolina and are still refusing to call out his use of homophobia going on right now in that hideous 'values' tour. They better grasp that women like Marcia do not consider themselves as a lesbian and a feminist. To them, it is all the same package and they are deeply disgusted with women like Robin, Gloria Steinem and many others who never said a damn word about homophobia used in this election cycle.

Silence sends a message. And it needs to be noted that the awful woman online who thinks she does something amazing (but doesn't) sends a message with her self-presentation of 'feminist' that includes a 'watch' for everything under the sun but can't do a homophobia 'watch.' Has feminism been so repackaged in the push-up bra wave of Do-Me-Feminism that we've all forgotten our lesbian sisters? That we've rendered them invisible and yet we still want to claim we are part of a feminist movement? It's sad and it's disgusting.

What it appears to indicate is that we're all so desperately seeking male approval that we'll toss our own sisters under the bus.

When feminism -- real feminism -- wants to wake up to the fact that homophobia is ALWAYS UNACCEPTABLE and when leaders and 'leaders' want to SPEAK OUT against it, then you'll see women like Marcia feel that they're invited to dinner -- and not just to coffee after. The movement has sent this message to lesbians. They have done it by ostracizing them. And don't claim otherwise because when the feminist movement can't call out a candidate putting homophobes on stage, what kind of a pathetic movement has it become?

I'm sorry, I'm second wave. I know Robin. I know Gloria. What was allowed to happen was disgusting. Robin and Gloria, to their credit, called out the vile sexism against Hillary. But they never called out the homophobia. Neither Gloria nor Robin is a homophobe. Both strongly support ALL women. So it may be another instance that, at the time, they were unaware of it.

The media certainly didn't make a big deal out of it.

But there's no excuse for the silence on it now.

Feminism never dies.

It will never be snuffed out. And there has been much that has taken place in 2008 that (I think) argues for a very strong wave of feminism emerging out of all the sexism that went down. But it is past time for leaders (and 'leaders') to start calling out the homophobia that Barack has regularly used. If they can't, there's really no reason for any self-respecting lesbian to bother listening to the feminist movement. The movement was never about a skin color, a sexual orientation, a region, an education level, etc. It was about women, all women.

In the early days of the second wave, many women (not just Gloria but she did so regularly in public and deserves tremendous credit for that and for setting the tone) refused to respond to questions of, "Are you a lesbian?" Those questions always popped up when someone learned you were a feminist. It was ignorance on the part of some (feeling that, remember this one, only a woman who couldn't 'get' a man would be a feminist) and it was an effort to stigmatize feminism on the part of others. Gloria refused to take that bait. ("Are you the alternative?" was her usual sardonic reply.) And that sent a message.

A very important message because The Ego Of Us All was using her 'reputation' to snarl about the alleged "lavender menace." (A detail left out or glossed over in the undeserving tributes The Ego Of Us All received after she passed away.)

That message needs to be sent today. Robin is someone who will hear criticism and then make up her own mind after weighing it. I say that because I would never write so strongly about Gloria. (As everyone knows who knows me, I have no interest in criticizing Gloria.) With Gloria, any criticism is going to be evaluated but that's not the end of it. She tries so very hard to see every person's side that she hangs on to criticism forever (not in a "bitter" way -- but in a sincere "I could be wrong, I really need to think about this" type way). Robin (a wonderful person) is not like that. She can reflect on criticism such as what I am offering for a brief spell, make up her own mind and then she's done with it. She'll agree or disagree (in whole or part), but it's over for her. That's not saying she's "better" than Gloria or "worse." That's just saying they are two different types of personalities.

But to Gloria, it needs to be said: You were there to lead against homophobia in the late 60s and early 70s when it was sorely needed. Your work did so much to enlarge feminism and to make sure all were welcomed and all felt welcomed. I seriously do not believe any other woman (straight, gay or bi) could have accomplished what you did on that issue. You need to do that again because there is a very strong feeling among feminists at the grassroots level that not only are our leaders (and 'leaders') being silent as homophobia is utilized (and Barack used in South Carolina for the primaries and is using it now in swing states) and that the silence is going to do tremendous harm. For those feminists who are gay, it is especially appalling. They feel very estranged from a movement that they are a part of.

That's not surprising. When our leaders and 'leaders' cannot speak out against any candidate who uses homophobia, the movement has a problem far worse than the blind spot to Bob Packwood.

A presidential election happens every four years. Who ever gets elected gets elected (barring the Supreme Court stepping in or voter fraud). But the feminist movement, the longest movement (globally or nationally) cannot afford to send the message to any member of it, "It's really more important that we prop up this man than that we defend your rights."

Homophobia is disgusting. Failure to call it out leaves the impression that you agree with it.

Neither Robin nor Gloria are homophobes. And that's a statement I've had to make repeatedly when we have been on the road speaking to women's groups. (I have not made that statement for others who are more 'leaders' than leaders. They're on their own.) But my saying, "Robin's not a homophobe" or "Gloria's not a homophobe" is nothing but a bandaid that gets ripped off as women (straight and gay and bi) wait repeatedly for feminist leaders to call out the homophobia and it never happens.

Barack may be perfectly happy sending out homophobes as surrogates. He may feel that's a winning 'strategy' or 'tactic.' But feminists know it's disgusting and it's vile. We don't need leaders calling it out because we need an education on the issue. We need leaders calling it out because we need to know our leaders still know what the feminist movement is about.

The silence is creating ill will and what follows that is a very serious division. It needs to be addressed and feminist leaders need to make it clear that feminists stand together. Again, Gloria handled that wonderfully before. She can do so again. She needs to do it now. After the election? It's too late. Regardless of who gets elected, it's too late. Staying silent through the next few weeks will be seen as refusing to call out a man. When you combine homophobia and that silence, you get a very serious (and large) split in the feminist movement. This issue is not going away and silence has not 'addressed' it.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4172. Tonight? 4176. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,273,378 up from 1,267,401.

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


iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
robin morgan
violet socks
sickofitradlz
the third estate sunday review

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, October 2, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, military court-martials continue, Iraqi widows in Baghdad live in appalling conditions (provided by the government!), and more.   Starting with an update to the September 17th snapshot which noted:   BBC reports that Sgt John Hatley, Sgt 1st Class Joseph Mayo and Sgt Michael Lehy Jr. are charged with murdering four Iraqis ('blindfolded, shot and dumped in a canal in April 2007'). . . .   CBC notes, "The killings are alleged to have been retribution for casualties suffered by U.S. forces."  CBC also states that four more are being held and are under investigation (with two of the four US soldiers having been charged).  AP, however, says the four additional soldiers 'have already been charged with conspiracy in the case'."  None of those three soldiers charged with murder has entered a plea but one of the four charged with conspiracy has: Spc Belmor Ramos.  AP reports that Ramos "pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder and was sentenced to seven months in prison Thursday in the deaths of four Iraqis, saying he stood guard from a machine-gun turret while the bound and blindfolded prisoners were shot."   BBC reports today that Spc Steven Ribodry "has been jailed for eight months after admitting playing a part in the killings of four Iraqi men in April 2007" -- accessory after the fact.  George Frey (AP) adds that Ribordy "pleaded guilty Thursday to charges of accessory to murder and was sentenced to eight months in prison" and "also will receive a bad conduct discharge". RTT News quotes Ribordy telling the court, "The reason I didn't say anything was because of loyalty to my comrades."  CBS and AP quote him also stating, "I wasn't ordered or asked in any way, shape or form to move the body.  I wanted to get it done and get out there -- I didn't want anybody getting in trouble."  Matt Millham (Stars and Stripes) explained in August that Ribordy was among the four (Staff Sgt Jess Cunnigham, Spc Belmor Ramos, Sgt Charles Quigley and Ribordy) suspected "in the alleged cover-up.  The soldiers who pulled the triggers, according to Sgt. Daniel Evoy, were 1st Sgt. John Hatley, who he called a beloved company first sergeant; Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Mayo, the company's master gunner; and Sgt. Michael Leahy, a medic." Reuters notes the "charge against" Riobordy "of conpiracy to commit premediated murder was dismissed.  As part of his guilty plea, Ribordy agreed to testify in the trials of other soldiers involved".   Staying with that theme, Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times) reports on the "pretrial hearing Wednesday at Camp Pendleton" of Sgt Ryan Weemer "charged with murder for allegedly killing a prisoner Nov. 9 [2004] in the first hours of battle" who called "Sgt. Maj. Brad Kasal as a character witness".  While Weemer testified as a character witness (and about the US actions in Falluja), Rick Rogers (San Diego Union Tribune) reports that Sgt Jermaine Nelson did not despite having immunity and being "ordered to testify.  But Nelson wouldn't talk about what transpired during a Nov. 9, 2004, battle in Fallujah.  He, Weemer and other Marines allegedly found several men during a house-to-house search, held them captive and then shot them to death after interpreting their superiors' comments over the radio as an order to kill. 'At this time, sir, I am going to continue to use my Fifth Amendment right,' Nelson said in reply to questions from the prosecutor."  Perry reports that Sgt Jose Nazario is also refusing to provide testimony and this follows Nazario's own court-martial which Weemer and Nelson refused to testify at leading to an acquittal for Nazario.  As the White House attempts to push through a treaty with the puppet government in Baghdad (while calling it a SOFA) a sticky point has been the issue of immunity for US service members whom Iraqis feel are not punished for criminal actions.  Court-martials like Weemer's do nothing to allay those fears.  (And long after the next US president is sworn in, this will still be an issue.)   In other military legal news, David Allen (Stars and Stripes) reports, "Marine Sgt. Bassa Cisse was sentenced to eight years in prison and a dishonorable discharge Wednesday for beating to death his 6-year-old daughter. . . . An Air Force psychiatrist testified that Cisse suffered from PTSD as a result of his second tour in Iraq, when a patrol vehicle he commanded almost tipped over a cliff. However, the prosecution submitted a medical report by a Navy psychologist that rejected the PTSD diagnosis."   From Iraq, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) examines the various tensions between different factions of Iraqis and how elections might put new sections into power which "in turn means that groups currently in power would likely lose ground".  Rubin explains how many groupings (such as the "Awakening" Councils and followers of Moqtada al-Sadr) can point to the names of colleagues who were assassinated, the struggle in southern Iraq between the Dawa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (both Shi'ite political parties), Al Anbar Province where there is conflict among the "Awakening" Councils and the Iraqi Islamic Party (both Sunnis) and it all comes down to who will control the resources.  In the north, it's not just resources, it's a land grab (my thoughts and words, not Rubin's).  Rubin notes "the Kurds are battling for hegemony in areas that lie along the border of their semiautonomous region.  They are competing with Turkmens and Sunni Arabs who claim primacy of ownership to some of the same territory, particularly the city of Kirkuk and its surrounding province.  Politicians have tried repeatedly since 2003 to reach a deal to resolve the disputes.  But each effort has foundered on Kurdish ambitions to expand the Kurdistan region. For much of the past five years, the situation was tense but did not explode into ethnice violence.  That changed in the last six months as attacks began on the party headquarters of different groups.  Then in August, Kurdish soldiers in Kirkuk opened fire on Turkmens after a suicide bomb; the ensuing riot killed dozens of people.  The violence spread.  In early September in Khanaqin, a predominately Kurdish city that lies in neighboring Diyala Province, Iraqi Army tanks faced off against the Kurdish pesh merga, the Kurdistan security forces."  On the issue of the Kurdish region, professional friend to the Kurdistan government, Peter W. Galbraith writes in today's New York Times, "You [Senator Joe Biden] have espoused a plan for an Iraqi confederation in which Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds could have controlled their own security forces in separate self-governing regions.  The Bush adminsitration has created the Sunni army.  Should we now encourage the Sunnis to form their own autonomous region, as allowed under Iraq's Constitution, and make the Awakening the army of that region?"  No, Galbraith can't stop pimping the splitting up of Iraq.  It's really the only topic Galbraith has.  As noted last week, Galbraith wrote of John McCain, "He has denounced the Obama-Biden plan for a decentralized state but has said nothing about how he would protect Iraq's Kurds, the only committed American allies in the country."  ["Is This a 'Victory'?" (New York Review of Books)].  It's really important for Galbraith to pretend that the "Awakening" Councils are supported by the people when that is not the case.  They are thugs placed on the US payroll -- as both US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus freely admitted to Congress last April -- to get them to stop attacking US troops.  They intimidate the people of the regions they allegedly 'protect.'  But Galbraith's concern has always been (and remains) the oil-rich Kurdistan region.   Rubin doesn't touch on the 'handover' yesterday in Iraq in her article. Jeffrey Fleishman (Los Angeles Times) reports on the tension and suspicion the 'handover' of the "Awakening" Council to the puppet government has created: "Some leaders of the Sons of Iraq feel that the transition represents a betrayal by the U.S. The government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki also questioned the Sunni fighters loyalty to Iraqi forces and whether it can provide jobs and training for them."  NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (Morning Edition) reported Monday where "Awakening" members in Diyala Province feel they are being targeted with violence and phony arrest warrants leading some to leave Iraq including two Garcia-Navarro spoke with who moved to Syria.   Yesterday Garcia-Navarro reported on Iraqi widows for All Things Considered condemned to a trailer park in Baghdad with metal roofs that make it impossible to inhabit due to the heat and "with no electricity or running water."  (This must qualify as 'helping' to al-Maliki.)  Garcia-Navarro spoke with widow Hiba Attiyah who states, "When my husband was alive, I used to depend on him for everything.  After his death, I've been through many black days and difficult times.  My three boys did not come here to live with me in this trailer because there is not enough space.  They live now with my mom and I don't get to see them much."   Two bombings in Iraq today managed to grab some press attention.  Corrine Reilly, Sahar Issa and Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) report the bombings took place "at Baghdad mosques" this morning "as Shiites marked the first day of Eid, a three-day celebration that follows Ramadan, Islam's holy month." Mohammed Abbas and Peter Graff (Reuters) offer, "A leg and other body parts could be seen more than 100 metres from where a bomber detonated a taxi after ramming it into a police vehicle guarding a Shi'ite prayer hall in the Zafaraniya district, said a Reuters TV cameraman at the scene.  A vegetable truck used to carry away the bodies was covered in blood, and glass was shattered in surrounding buildings."  Deborah Haynes (Times of London) adds, "Severed limbs littered the bloodied streets at the site of both explosions, while ambulances wailed into action, evacuating the wounded and the dead."  Al Jazeera Magazine explains, "Security officials said a bomber blew himself up in a mosque in Jadida, a Shia district of southern Baghdad, killing 12 people and wounding 30.  In the second attack, another bomber slammed his explosives-laded car into an Iraqi military armored vehicle at a checkpoint near a mosque in the nearby district of Zafaraniyah".  CNN puts the death toll  at "at least 20".  Vanessa Gera (AP) quotes eye witness Ammar Hashim stating, "Pools of blood and the smell of burned flesh was everywhere and I saw a man of about 70 bleeding and lying on the ground from injuries."     In other reported violence . . .   Bombings?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing targeting "a U.S. military convoy" that destroyed 1 "U.S. army vehicle" and wounded two Iraqis.  CBS and AP report that four US service members were wounded in the bombing.   Shootings?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports  an attempted assassination of Sheikh Radhwan Izuddin in Nineveh Province which he "survived . . . with superficial injuries" and an attack on a minibus in Diyala Province in which 3 women, 1 man and 2 children were shot dead and two adults were wounded.  On the minibus attack, Ken Sury (Waco Tribune) adds, "The dead were heading to Baquoba to visit relatives"   Corpses?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports  1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.   Turning to the US presidential race.  Robin Morgan has a column at Women's Media Center.  Violet Socks (Reclusive Leftist) has a response.  You can also see Marcia's "" and "."  I'll address in part tonight in "I Hate The War."  Robin's column is a very bad column.  It will be addressed in part tonight because Jim's asked me to save a topic (as Kat noted Monday) for Third this weekend.  After that goes up, Robin's column will appear even more uninformed.  For now, you can read Marcia's "When feminist 'leaders' lie" and "Ralph Nader, HB Melissa, and more"  Robin is a strong voice and real feminist leader (not a 'leader') so it's a damn shame she chose to publish that column.  Again, we'll address tonight.  For now, she's elected to play a round of "Bash the Bitch."  It's not pretty.  It is embarrassing and it is deeply harmful to feminism.  And let's be really clear, no one would mistake Robin's column for a "catfight."  It is "Bash the Bitch."  Which is worse? "Bash the Bitch" is how you get women burned at the stake in earlier times.  Today, you burn them with lies, half-truths and a double standard.  My opinion, "Bash the Bitch" is much worse than a "catfight."  Robin should have known better.  Violet Socks also points out that while Governor Palin proudly defines herself as a feminist, Michelle Obama replied when asked that question, "You know, I'm not that into labels.  So probably, if you laid out a feminist agenda, I would probably agree with a large portion of it.  I wouldn't identify as a feminist just like I probably wouldn't identify as a liberal or a progressive."  Well of course she wouldn't.  Sexism is the theme of the Obama household.  Many a foolish woman has said "well he has two daughters!"  That has to be the most insane and ahistorical remark made yet.  Are we supposed to believe that women just emerged in the last few decades?  Men have always had daughters and sons.  And sexism has always thrived.  Get a grip. Your first clue was his insistence upon going along with Michelle to a job interview (Michelle's job interview).  That tells you his actual opinion of women -- their abilities and their intellect.  It would appear Robin's been bitten by the Sour Grape Girl syndrome.  Hopefully, it's a 24-hour viral sort of illness.  Semi-related, garychappelhill (The Confluence) has a post.  It has nothing to do with this topic but a comment garychappelhill left on Riverdaughter's post resulted in a number of e-mails here.  While the sour grape girls can't bring themselves to call out homophobia, a lot of people are suffering.  Gary is a gay man and wrote of the damage done to the LGBT community in Barack's campaign.  That topic will be brought up tonight but I probably won't have time to link to him and will probably focus more on lesbians than gay males so we're including a link to his post.  A number of community members e-mailed afraid that he would stop writing.  He's already written a post today.  That's an understandable fear.  Team Obama has run an ugly, disgusting campaign and the 'progressives' have refused to call it out thereby sending the message to so many people that they are unwanted.  PUMA is only one response to the ugly campaign.  There are a number of people who've been made to feel they do not fit in with the 'grand vision.'  Sadly, Robin's very bad column will only further that impression.    Tonight Governor Sarah Palin debates Senator Joe Biden in the 'vice presidential' 'debates.'  Palin is the v.p. nominee of the Republican Party, Biden of the Democratic Party.  Today, the McCain-Palin ticket picked up an endorsement from the Lowell Sun which notes Senator John McCain's work with Senator Ted Kennedy on immigration and with Senator Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform and calls McCain "America's true-blue, principled maverick."   Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and Monet Drake (Howard University's The Hilltop) weighs in on her candidacy: History is certain to be made this election, but not by Sen. Obama and Gov. Palin, but rather by the Green Party's Presidential nominee, Cynthia McKinney - a black woman.          Cynthia McKinney, who was previously a Democrat, expanded her political views and won over the Green Party as the nominee for the presidential candidacy. She is a firm believer in the 2008 Green Party's Platform and a strong advocate for her "Power to the People" campaign.           In a press release, her running mate, Rosa Clemente said, "Cynthia McKinney is a hero to me and many others across this country and around the world." McKinney has been actively involved in politics since 1986. She was born the daughter of Georgia state representative Billy McKinney. Previously a resident of Jamaica, she ran and won a seat in the House of Representatives representing Georgia along side her father, in 1988. She was elected the first African-American woman to Congress in 1992, however, just 10 years later, she lost her seat. Congresswoman McKinney has since been able to move forward and attempt to promote a new health care plan and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, key values set forth by the Green Party. In an International Tribunal Press Release, McKinney expressed her concern for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.         "I am pleased to be among this tested and true group of activists who are committed to Katrina justice," McKinney said to dozens of supporters in the press release.       Meanwhile the US Senate passed a bail out measure late yesterday.  Voting in favor of it were Senators Joe Biden, John McCain and Barack Obama.  While they were all in agreement on the need or 'need' for the measure, many other Americans were not.  Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Team Nader issued this today:   NADER STATEMENT ON BAILOUT  Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez vigorously oppose Bush's $700++ billion taxpayer bailout of Wall Street.   "This is not just a bailout of Wall Street" says Nader, "It's a bailing out of the bankrupt Republican and Democratic policies that have led us to where we are today with Senators John "Deregulation" McCain and Joe "MBNA" Biden leading the way.   Full Statement from Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez:  "The revised bailout legislation is the same $700 billion piece of burnt toast, with some window dressing, sugar coating, and $150 billion of pork tax cuts covering everything from casinos to coal.  But this isn't even the main course that Senate is serving up for Congress on Friday. The main course is on page 92 of the 451 page document:  BORROWING LIMITS TEMPORARILY LIFTED. - During the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Corporation may request from the Secretary, and the Secretary shall approve, a loan or loans in an amount or amounts necessary to carry out this subsection, without regard to the limitations on such borrowing under section 14(a) and 15(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1824(a), 1825(c)).  Translation: Bush, McCain, and Obama want Congress to co-sign off on the mother of all blank checks, paving the way for a sinking dollar and higher interest rates.  By bumping the FDIC's line of credit at the Treasury from $30 billion to infinity, the FDIC assumes fiat powers to bailout to its heart content, leaving the taxpayer to pay the bill. This unacceptable unlimited right to ransack taxpayers would last until 2010.   "The bailout ignores the needs of millions of swindled families facing foreclosure, and it squanders an opportunity to bring about real regulatory change, decisive shareholder power over their companies' bosses, and authentic taxpayer equity that would prevent economic crises like this from happening again. Wall Street's wildly overpaid bosses are addicted to speculative gambling with other people's money. When a drug addict is facing overdose, you don't give them more needles.   According to Richard W. Fisher, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas: "The seizures and convulsions we have experienced in the debt and equity markets have been the consequences of a sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior, not a too-tight monetary policy. In the end, we're going to have to deal with the underlying stock of housing."  "We need to protect homeowners and our neighborhoods first. That's why Nader/Gonzalez support introducing a law with a 5-year sunset clause that would provide homeowners facing foreclosure the right to rent to own their homes at fair market value.   "Wall Street is out of control. We need to bring some sense of accountability, transparency, and law and order back to Wall Street's crooks and speculators, or they will desperately seek socialism to bail out their criminal corporate capitalism, going again and again to the taxpayer trough in Washington DC each time. That's why Nader/Gonzalez support a Wall Street speculation tax, starting on derivatives, which would make Wall Street less like Las Vegas, and generate enough funds to more than eliminate the federal tax burden on the first $50,000 of income for every working American.   Click here for Nader's Ten Point Plan        iraq tony perry the los angeles times jeffrey fleishman rick rogers  the new york times alissa j. rubin mcclatchy newspapers corinne reilly sahar issa jenan hussein deborah haynes npr lourdes garcia-navarro morning edition robin morgan