Thursday, the other community sites didn't post. A few e-mails ask: Why?
That was probably my fault. If you were reading Thursday morning, the snapshot went up twice.
The first time (now deleted) half of it was missing.
I had dictated it. But when it didn't all go up, a version of it was copy and pasted and e-mailed to me because the full version would not go up.
I played with it and worked with the HTML for about a half hour (maybe a little more) and then got it up at the website. (I've not fixed the 'repeat.' That's where the original posted entry broke off.)
Because THIRD wasn't done in a timely fashion, we were still working Wednesday night.
After the problems with Thursday's snapshot, I advised everyone that copy and pasting the snapshot into a Thursday entry might mean they couldn't post it. Marcia tried early on and it wouldn't post so she advised others and it was decided to take Thursday off.
Moving to another issue, someone is upset with me. He e-mails that he's asked repeatedly for various things to be noted and I never include them.
We get a ton of e-mails and I can't note everything.
Equally true, sometimes I decide not to note it.
The gentlemen e-mailed this comment for sharing early Friday:
It's a comment to this WSWS article.
I think there are some important points in that comment . . .
The great majority of the poor in the US are not White?
The only way that's true is if you include Anglo-Hispanic as White.
Which you can do. But most people don't.
(And if you don't lump the two together -- they can be lumped together -- then African-Americans are going to have a larger percentage.)
What does the comment have to do with the Iraq War?
Could I have squeezed it into a snapshot?
But I would had to have explained it, as I've done above.
It just didn't seem worth it to me.
Next one, Maria wondered if Friday's snapshot was the shortest ever?
I think so.
A) I didn't want to risk the problems with Thursday's snapshot. B) I told myself (possibly lying to myself) that keeping it brief and the September 25th planned referendum might help the focus (the western media is completely uninterested in Iraq).
The big question: Why am I supporting the KRG's referendum? Surely, I must be trying to break up Iraq, right?
If the referendum goes the way most believe it will -- support for an independent Kurdistan (and Kirkuk) -- that might lead Iraq to split up into a federation at some point in the future.
I am not opposed to a federation and I am not supporting one.
My problem, check the archives, with this notion as promoted by then-Senator Joe Biden (who I know and like) was that it was coming from the US. I always said it was their decision, their choice and it shouldn't be imposed on them.
An independent Kurdistan will come to be.
Whether it's this year, five years from now, 100 years from now, it's going to happen.
You can think that it happening would be right or that it would be wrong.
But it's going to happen, independence, at some point in time.
THIRD -- why is it so late?
It's late again.
Maybe it's too many people to do group writing?
I don't know.
I know Ava and I turn in our stuff on time and frequently have to rewrite because two or three days later, when it finally posts, things need to be updated.
I'm tired of this site.
I'm tired of THIRD.
It would have been so nice if this could have all ended after the 2008 election.
We could have been like United for Peace and Justice, for example, and just folded shop.
So many did.
The Iraq War didn't.
We're still here.
I want the war over but I don't know if I have the stamina to continue online.
Sorry, I'm tired. Ava and I are tired of covering the media every week -- which we've done since January of 2005. That's 12 years ago. And 2004 is when this site started so that's 13 years.
If there were others covering the Iraq War, calling for it to end, I could close shop and not worry.
But who covers it?
The Iraq War mattered and it still matters.
People don't understand the going to third parties for voting or the not voting.
Look no further than US troops still in Iraq despite the lie that electing Barack would bring the troops home.
I remember his lies.
And called them that in real time.
I remember that stupid commercial, "We want to end the war now!"
The candidate hollered.
But as president . . .
Would Hillary have been different?
I think she would have.
You can argue that I'm just saying that to justify my support of her in 2008.
But I think she would have been held accountable.
Barack never was.
I understand some of the frustration with regards to her not becoming president in 2016.
But she won the nomination in 2008 -- it was stolen from her. (And she went on to ensure Bernie wouldn't get it in 2016.)
I was upset.
But I did not make every day for the next year about how it was stolen.
At some point, you grow the hell up.
And I have sympathy for Rickie Lee Jones, for example. I will say nothing against her. She supported Hillary in 2008 and in 2016.
But these people who trashed Hillary in 2008 and then want to act like 2016 was bad?
Hillary did not suffer from sexism in 2016.
In 2008, she did.
And those of us who defended her were trashed.
This nonsense about "Bernie Bros"?
Where the hell were these useless bitches (male and female) in 2008?
When Barack was making his remark about "periodically" and "the claws come out"?
When he was mocking her in sexist terms?
Where were they?
They weren't defending her.
I defended her. A lot of us did. And a lot of women ended up closing shop as a result of the way we were treated.
Riverdaughter, I'm sure, supported Hillary in 2016. I don't blame her and I have no rude remarks about her.
But for me it was the constant push by Hillary for war -- as Secretary of State -- and it was that awful hearing where the press thought she did a wonderful job but -- check the archives -- I said that day and the next that she had created problems for herself and noted that I would not be supporting her if she ran in 2016.
She was a War Hawk.
I gave her the benefit of the doubt in 2008.
I didn't in 2016.
Her record was known.
I understand being frustrated.
I was when the nomination was stolen from her.
But my life went on and I had more important things to address.
The Rob Reiners have no lives. They exist for nothing but the division in the duopoly.
They have no ethics. They have no standards.
So many of these people lie about who they are. They get married and they have closeted affairs with members of the own sex or, for example, they molest their children and then they have to worry what gets said in group therapy sessions when their children go into treatment facilities.
Hillary's celebrity crowd is not a crowd to want to be in. The ones who refuse to let it go have very sad and disgusting lives.
I could care less about them.
But those who supported Hillary in 2008, I don't attack them if they supported her in 2016. I remember the disappointment.
That covers four e-mails right there. So let me wind down.
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.