Friday, July 25, 2008

Iraq

Kamal was just 16 when gunmen snatched him off the streets of Baghdad, stuffed him in the trunk of a car and whisked him away to a house. But the real terror was about to begin.
The men realized he was gay, Kamal said, when he took his shirt off and they saw that his chest was shaved.
"They told me to take off my clothes to rape me or they would kill me immediately. This moment was the worst moment in my life," he said, weeping as he spoke of the 2005 ordeal.
"I was watching them taking off their clothes, preparing to rape me. I did not know what to do, so I started shouting loudly, 'Please do not do that! I will ask my family to give you whatever you want.'"


The above is from Frederik Pleitgen, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Wayne Drash's "Gays in Iraq terrorized by threats, rape, murder" (CNN) and, if you look really hard, you can find a few things that are news and are about Iraq. If you look really, really hard.

In terms of the papers, you're best skipping all but the New York Times. Want a lot of fluff about 'glamor' that ignores why Miramax, et al are 'helping' Kuridstand? Rush to the Los Angeles Times and take a garbage bag.

Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "8 Die in Iraq in Suicide Bombing, Apparently by Woman" (New York Times) covers the bombing in Baquba yesterday:

If the explosion proves to have been carried out by a female suicide bomber it will be at least the 16th time that a woman has donned a bomb and exploded herself in Diyala Province since last year.
Wearing billowy, black head-to-toe garments, the female bombers have been able to conceal powerful explosives and slip into crowded areas too heavily guarded for a male suicide bomber to ease through undetected. While men often undergo physical searches, Islamic rules do not allow male security officers to pat down women.
It was not immediately clear how many of Mr. Dulaimi's guards and militia fighters were among the victims in Baquba. The dead also included two police officers, and six police officers were among the wounded. A local council member was also killed, according to an Iraqi security official.

Alissa J. Rubin covers Iraqi collaborators with the US who are having immigration problems. We are not interested in that story. We will never be interested in that topic. If you are, there's a link. (And if you're confused, the widows, the children, the elderly, these huge, vast groups, have no advocates for them. The fact that the US military will advocate for the collaborators mean they have all the help they need.)

Returning to Oppel, he also contributes "State Department Inspector to Investigate Texas Oil Company’s Deal in Kurdistan" which explores the continued attempts to get infomation about the deal Hunt Oil made with the Kurdistan region -- bypassing and undercutting the central government in Baghdad -- while the US State Dept did . . . what? Nothing? ". . . earlier this month a Congressional committee released internal e-mail messages and documents from the State Department and Hunt Oil that suggested that State Department officials did not try to dissuade Hunt Oil from signing the deal with the Kurds." State Dept Inspector General (acting), Harold W. Geisel has announced an investigation.

Turning to US politics, "Why Workers World is endorsing Cynthia McKinney for president" (Workers World):

Workers World newspaper in the past has supported the candidates of Workers World Party running for national office in the U.S. presidential elections and who have put forward a revolutionary socialist program. This time we are taking the unusual step of endorsing the candidacy of Cynthia McKinney because these are unique times and this is a unique candidate.
McKinney, a courageous Black woman and former U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia, has become one of the most militant leaders and voices for the U.S. left, progressive and Black movements.
Because of her militancy in the struggle against the war, the struggle to impeach Bush, as well as her struggle to expose the government’s role in the displacement of survivors of Hurricane Katrina, she was branded too Black and too radical to walk the halls of Congress. She was pushed out, not once but twice, by the leadership of the Democratic Party. Last year, McKinney severed her ties to that party.
On July 12, McKinney and her running mate, activist Rosa Clemente, won the Green Party’s nomination to run for president and vice-president, respectively. The Green Party’s nomination will put McKinney on the ballot in about 20 states, which is no small thing in the U.S. where the ruling class has made it very hard for any electoral formation independent of, and even slightly to the left of, the two major ruling-class parties to get ballot status. The Green Party is not the reason why we are supporting McKinney.
McKinney’s "Power to the People Campaign" gets most of its program from the draft program of the still-in-formation Reconstruction Party. Activists in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, together with supporters nationwide, have been developing a Reconstruction Party as a mass political vehicle to fight for the reconstruction of the Gulf and justice for Katrina survivors.
The draft program of the Reconstruction Party is inspired by the program of the original Black Panther Party. The Reconstruction Party draft program calls for, among other things: self-determination for Black people, the relocation of displaced survivors of Katrina back to the Gulf, jobs, healthcare and housing, reparations for Black people, an end to racist terror and political repression, an end to the prison-industrial complex and an end to the war.
McKinney's campaign is laying the foundation for a radical coalition of Black, Latino, Asian and Indigenous activists, trade unionists, progressives and revolutionaries. This is important and timely.
We have no illusions regarding the difficulty that McKinney's campaign will face, because this presidential election is like none other before it.
The economic crisis and prospects for class struggle
Barack Obama is the first Black person to be the nominee of a ruling-class party, and he could be the first Black president of the U.S. Many are understandably excited about Obama's candidacy, especially Black people.
No matter how far Obama moves to the right, most likely Black people are going to come out in unprecedented numbers in November in the hopes of achieving something that very few thought possible a year ago. Apart from Black voters, many others will vote for Obama in November for reasons that are historically progressive. And some will not vote for Obama because of his name, because they think he's Muslim and because he's Black.
Race, or what some of us call the national question, is central to this year’s election.
But then there is the negative side to this contradictory development. Should Obama win the election (a prospect that shouldn't be considered certain), the U.S. imperialist ruling class will have a gifted Black politician to help them save their troubled empire. An Obama presidency as the face of an imperialist state will not change anything fundamental, but on the surface it will mark a change, a new situation.
The U.S. capitalist class desperately needs to try something new to help them with their overlapping crises of deepening economic turmoil and imperialist war. In the board rooms of Wall Street, some are, no doubt, hoping that someone like Obama can delay or derail an uprising against widespread depression-level social conditions, or at least be the scapegoat for the unbearable misery that the ruling class has in store for workers.
The Obama phenomenon is more than anything else a sign that the period of political reaction, which has held the working class back and weakened revolutionary movements, organizations and their revolutionary ideas, is coming to an end.
No matter who wins the election, the magnitude of the spiraling crisis of world imperialism, centered here in the U.S., is going to challenge all the forces who share an anti-imperialist, working-class-centered socialist orientation to put aside narrow views, sectarian habits and small differences that have festered during a long and demoralizing period of world reaction.
The material conditions for resurgence of the working class may sooner than later reach levels not seen in this country since the 1930s. In order for the working-class movement to grow politically and organizationally, it will take time, experience in the class struggle, and the assistance of conscious political forces who are dedicated to reviving the struggle.
What is required of all of us who consider ourselves among the dedicated? At a minimum it is a higher level of clarity, seriousness, confidence, solidarity and coalition building.
McKinney's campaign is Black-led, anti-imperialist, working-class-centered and has a multinational radical base with the potential of unlimited growth.
Of course, we believe that the struggle should not be confined to the electoral arena, especially as the capitalist ruling class completely dominates the electoral process. We must be in the streets fighting the war, fighting foreclosures and evictions, fighting in solidarity with immigrant workers, etc. However, Workers World believes that supporting the McKinney campaign is a step forward towards the path that the movement needs to take.
Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

As noted in yesterday's snapshot:

Staying with women, Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente (McKinney is the Green party presidential nominee, Clemente is her running mate) are not the first women of color ticket in a US presidential race. Amy Goodman repeated that nonsense on Monday (and we called it out Monday -- and Jim did with the note he added to my morning entry) and has refused to correct it. As noted in the July 11th snapshot and many times since: " What About Our Daughters? explains that, if McKinney is the nominee, this is the third time two women of color would be on the ticket with the first being Lenora Fulani and Maria Elizabeth Munoz in 1992 (New Alliance Party) and Monica Moorehead and Gloria La Riva (Workers World Party) in 1996." Workers World Party confirmed to Martha this week that, yes, Moorehead and La Riva were women of color and also noted that the party's publication (Workers World) has endorsed a presidential candidate for this election: [. . .]

Thank you to Martha. Amy Goodman never issued a correction. She 'misses' a great deal such as efforts to attack democracy. Turning to BonusGate, where at least 50 Democrats conspired to keep Ralph Nader off the state's ballot in the 2004 eleciton. From John L. Micek's "Nader wants feds to investigate state Democrats" (The Morning Call):

Attorney General Tom Corbett, armed with a 74-page grand jury presentment two weeks ago, alleged that Democratic House employees worked to challenge the 51,273 signatures Nader and running mate Peter Camejo had gathered for access to the 2004 presidential ballot.
A dozen former and current House Democratic lawmakers and employees face theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest charges, partly for their alleged role in derailing Nader's campaign.
On Thursday, Nader's attorney, Oliver Hall of the Center for Competitive Democracy in Washington, D.C., took aim at House Majority Leader Bill
DeWeese's claims that he was unaware that his staff and his second-in-command, then-Democratic Whip Michael Veon, were engaged in allegedly illegal activity.
"Where was Bill DeWeese?" Hall asked. "He hasn't been indicted, but [former DeWeese chief of staff Michael] Manzo and Veon have. Attorney General Corbett has made clear that his investigation is ongoing, and we would urge him to focus on the role of Bill DeWeese. This needs to be clarified."

Charles Thompson's "BONUS SCANDAL: Nader hits deceit in '04 fight on petition" (The Patriot-News) continues the story:

Nader wants relief from an $81,102 penalty for legal costs following court battles over his presidential nomination petition in 2004. He said he will file a challenge with the state Supreme Court.
Nader said those damages should be dropped in light of criminal charges brought this month by Attorney General Tom Corbett against 12 people with ties to the state House Democratic caucus. Among allegations of illegal activities, Corbett said House Democratic staffers were deployed on state time in a successful effort to get Nader knocked off the ballot four years ago.
"This was one of the most fraudulent and deceitful exercises ever perpetrated on Pennsylvania voters," Nader said. He added that it was symptomatic of attempts to quash independent and small-party candidates across the nation.

And from Amy Worden's "Nader to ask Pa. court to reopen presidential nomination case" (Philadelphia Inquirer):

"According to the grand jury, millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, resources and state employees were illegally used for political campaign purposes - including to remove the Nader-Camejo ticket from the ballot," Nader said at a news conference here.
The Supreme Court in 2006 upheld a lower court order for Nader and his running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, to pay the court costs.
In announcing the indictments of Rep. Sean Ramaley (D., Beaver), former House Minority Whip Mike Veon, and 10 former and current House Democratic staffers on July 10, Attorney General Tom Corbett described a "massive" effort by Democrats to oust Nader in order to help Democratic candidate John Kerry win Pennsylvania.
As many as 50 House staff members worked on a challenge to Nader's ballot petition, and more than half received state-funded bonuses, in part for their "Nader efforts," according to the grand jury report.
The grand jury report also cited Democratic efforts to bounce former Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli, who in 2006 challenged Democrat Bob Casey for a U.S. Senate seat, from the ballot. Last week, Romanelli asked the Supreme Court to reopen his ballot-access case on similar grounds.

Bonnie notes this from the Nader Team:

15 Dollars, 15 States, 15 Days

ShareThis

15 Dollars, 15 States, 15 Days .

Drop fifteen dollars now on Nader/Gonzalez.

Why?

We now enter the most difficult and challenging ballot access stretch of the campaign.

We need to get on fifteen more states in fifteen days.

Last month, we laid out an ambitious ballot access plan.

Thanks to you, we have met stages one and two on time and on schedule.

Now, on to stage three -- 15 more states, a total of 30 states, by August 10 -- on our way to 45 states by September 15.

And we need to raise $100,000 by August 10 to fuel that drive and push us over the $2 million mark for the campaign.

Why is it important to put Ralph Nader on the ballot -- and get him into the Presidential debates this fall?

For one, because Nader is the only candidate who would take the bombing of Iran "off the table."

As Obama made clear yesterday in Israel, he's keeping the military option against Iran "on the table."

As would McCain.

And if you doubt the seriousness of the situation, check out Israeli historian Benny Morris' recent Op-Ed in the New York Times in which he predicts that Israel will bomb Iran within four to seven months.

Cooler heads must prevail.

While McCain and Obama are fueling the Israeli drive to bomb Iran, even some of their own advisors are warning about the disastrous consequences of such a policy.

Yesterday, Brent Scowcroft told the Israelis to "calm down" and Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said the "all options on the table" talk was "counterproductive." Brzezinski said he would tell Israel "don't do it."

That's of course why we need the strong Nader/Gonzalez off the table voice in the debates.

And the chances improve as we continue to poll at or above five percent -- see yesterday's NBC/WSJ poll here.

This was the third major poll putting us at five percent and above. (Remember, John Anderson and Ross Perot both got into Presidential debates because they met the then threshold of five percent.)

So, please, we need 1,000 of you, our loyal supporters, to hit the button now and contribute $15 each to kick off our drive to get to 30 states.

How will your generous donations help us on the ground?

Think about the more than 50 young at heart, dedicated road trippers working 10 and 12 hours, day after day -- working through blazing hot summer afternoons, ducking under covered awnings during heavy thunderstorms, and bringing the Nader/Gonzalez message to thousands of voters state by state.

We need your $15 donation to help buy gas for their rental cars, feed them, and help pay for thousands of photo copies.

We need your $15 donation to help buy Greyhound bus tickets, Amtrak tickets and airplane tickets.

Of course, we're always looking for one or two angels willing to max out and cover the "filing fees" -- like the one in West Virginia that will cost us $2,500.

How badly and urgently do we need your help?

  • Our New Hampshire crew needs to collect 4,000 signatures in 10 days -- that's 400 a day.
  • In Maine, starting Saturday, our crew has 12 days to collect 5,000 signatures.
  • Our people in Ralph's home state of Connecticut need to collect more than 700 signatures a day over the next 13 days.
  • In South Dakota, we need 1,500 signatures 10 days.
  • In Wyoming, we need 2,000 more signatures in 10 days.
  • In Virginia, we need to collect 600 signatures a day over the next couple of weeks.
  • In the Buckeye State, our Ohio crew needs to collect 11,000 signatures in the next couple of weeks -- 350 to 400 a day.

In short, our backs are up against the wall.

And the best way you can help get us on the ballot is to donate $15 now.

Help us lift off toward the debates in November.

Thank you for your generous support.

Together, we are shaking it up.

Onward

The Nader Team

ShareThis



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










Thursday, July 24, 2008

I Hate The War

Two years earlier a soldier like those, who openly opposes the Iraq war, quietly returned to his home in Utah. Sgt. Marshall Thompson had served in the military as a journalist for six years, previously in Kosovo, from where he returned proud of the work he had done. Returning from Iraq was a very different experience. "I just had to do something," he since said about that time. "This is an unjust war. I couldn't not do something."
What he decided to do was to set out on a 500-mile walk for peace across the conservative, pro-war state of Utah and to make a documentary about the journey. Many people who now oppose the war are branded in the media and by certain members of the government as un-American, unpatriotic, or worse, some sort of enemy of the state. It would be difficult to label Sgt. Thompson in this way. He is a devout Mormon and the son of a former Mayor of Logan, Utah, not to mention a soldier who has served for a significant amount of time. In fact, he considers himself to be very patriotic.
The film that documents Thompson's story will be screened on Saturday at 7:30 p.m. at the Westhaven Center in Trinidad. It is being presented by Ted Pease, a journalism professor at Utah State University, who lives locally when he is not in Utah. Pease knows Thompson from the days when he was his teacher and they have remained friends.


The above is from Robyn Hillman-Harrigan's "A Soldiers Peace to be screened at Westhaven Center" (Times-Standard). Meanwhile, Edward Colimore's "A move to take care of 'stop-loss' service members" (Philadelphia Inquirer) reports on a Congressional bill 'addressing' stop-loss. Stop-loss is the (illegal) policy by which Bully Boy has extended service members' length of service. The service contract has been completed but instead of moving towards discharge, Bully Boy is claiming a national emergency and extending service. If the Iraq War has caused a "national emergency" for the United States, you certainly can't tell it by the tiny trickle of reporting on the Iraq War. So Congress has decided to 'address' it. By writing a law making clear how unlawful the policy is? No, by tossing out a few dollars at the problem -- "an additional $1,500 a month of extnded duty . . . retroactive to October 2001". If this is step-one, it's needed. It's past due. But if this is the 'fix,' it's not repairing anything. From the article:

Though also in favor of the additional pay, Kristopher Goldsmith said he would much rather see stop-loss ended. The policy, he said, nearly ended his life.
A former Army sergeant, the Long Island, N.Y., resident served in Iraq in 2005, returned home, and was called up again - under a stop-loss order - to be part of the troop surge last year.
"Instead of being a civilian again and starting my life, I was doing the polar opposite: putting on a uniform and returning to Iraq," said Goldsmith, a member of
Iraq Veterans Against the War, an anti-war group with 47 chapters across the country.
"I had come back with pretty severe PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] and depression and was having panic attacks."
He said he attempted suicide on Memorial Day last year and received a general discharge.
Such stories leave former soldiers such as Steve Mortillo, 25, of West Philadelphia, unimpressed by the extra money being sought for the troops.
"I'm glad people realize the situation soldiers are in," said Mortillo, an Army specialist who served in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and is president of the Philadelphia chapter of
Iraq Veterans Against the War, which has 1,200 members.
The extra pay "is better than nothing, but it doesn't address the larger issue."


Now we're into the talking entry portion. Jess wrote "Dear Late To The Party" this evening. He has every right to express his opinion, he's doing me a favor by helping out with the e-mails. I'm not disagreeing with anything he wrote, but I am going to address some of what's behind it.

The Cult of St. Barack has been very illuminating and demonstrated just how many posers make up the 'left' as they repeatedly found ways to excuse the War Hawk. Jeremy Scahill 'cut him slack' for his plan to keep contractors in Iraq and savaged Hillary who was moving to the position Scahill claimed to support. Allan Nairn, pressed, had to admit that Barack took Big Money but then quickly added the ridiculous 'justification' that if Barack didn't take the money, Big Money wouldn't trust him. Poor Barack. You had Dave Lindorff nonsense that Barack should be supported as "a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs". You had Amy Goodman turning over her program -- and all journalistic standards -- to the Barack campaign. Pick any example but the BIGGEST ETHICAL problem was her bringing on Melissa Harris-Lacewell to discuss the New Hampshire primary and allowing MH-L to talk about the candidates (she ignored Hillary -- that would be the winner of the New Hampshire primary) and allowing Melissa Harris-Lacewell to deliver a testimonial on a Barack speech she 'just happened' to catch when MH-L has been campaigning for Barack since 2007 and Goodman damn well knew that. You do not let someone who is part of the campaign come on your program and praise the candidate without informing your audience that the person is part of the campaign. Had she been an employee NPR and pulled that stunt, it would have been grounds for dismissal. Obviously Pacifica has no standards. If you missed it, that's how KPFA offered a two-hour 'analysis' of the Texas debate that featured only Barack endorsers but Larry Bensky and KPFA failed to inform the listeners of that. Hillary lost that debate they cried (or "cackled" to use the term Laura Flanders seemed unable to stop repeating) and the listeners had a right to know that these 'independent' judgments were coming from people who had endorsed Barack. There are many more examples and you can include Robert Parry's latest attempt to scare up votes for Barack: The Supreme Court! You might get another John Roberts! Uh, Barack's adviser Cass is the 'left' voice that made Roberts acceptable.

Everyone's sick of the lies and the liars. "Alternative Media" is not supposed to translate as "Democratic Party Organ." So there is a factor of disillusionment at play.

In terms of whom Jess is replying to, we're talking about a Green who thought she had a right to butt into a Democratic primary, who practiced Hillary Hatred and who pimped Barack. As offensive as all of that is, it was her attempt to lecture Ty about how awful racism is. And her attempt to minimize Barack's use of homophobia. For the record, Ty doesn't need a White straight woman to tell him about either topic. As an African-American male, he knows racism personally, he doesn't need to hear lectures on how awful it is from a White woman. As a gay man, he doesn't need to hear the same Barack-Loving-Freak tell him how homophobia isn't that important. I got dragged into that because when she continued to persist with her e-mails, Ty was too upset to write her back.

So when she e-mailed today and Jess saw it and saw her attempting to order me to cover a topic (a topic we've covered for weeks now but why should she be more informed today than she's been all year?), he'd just had enough. None of us have ever e-mailed anyone saying, "Please highlight us." And Jess is just damn sick of all these people, especially that woman, showing up to take from this community when they never give anything.

It goes into the nonsense another woman pulled. A four day event produced many panels. We praised all but one. Instead of accepting the fact that, as critics, we're not just going to toss out roses, she went from person to person, e-mailing, trying to turn us against each other. While the panel was called out at Third, in the same edition, Ava and I included strong aspect from it in our TV commentary. So it's not as though it just got a pan. But that wasn't good enough, it had to be 100% love from us or nothing at all.

That's not how it works. We're not for sale and we don't take money from anyone.

We are responsible only for this community and only to tell the truth as best we can and as we see it.

Which brings us to that idiotic e-mail on July 4th.

ABC News reported something. Some idiot has to e-mail in (and, yes, he was speaking for the war resister in question) and scream and yell at me about how I hadn't done this or done that (I had covered the topics he said I hadn't) and yell his conspiracy theories about ABC and his nonsense about how I blindly accept the MSM.

I had made all the points he supposedly wanted made but reading is apparently too damn difficult. Now The Nation's 'online exclusive' repeated the ABC story and I seriously doubt he (or the war resister) e-mailed screaming at them.

That soured everyone. And we're still having to deal with the fall out everytime it's time to write another edition for Third. Yes, one bad apple can spoil everything for everyone. Especially when they're manipulative.

Now none of us expect thank yous or praise for covering war resisters (when they are ignored by every outlet in Panhandle Media). But we also don't expect little meltdowns from video artistes.

That goes straight to the lack of gratitude that Jess feels and that a number of others feel.

It's also irritating because this community is not for sale. No one helped build it, the community built itself. There's no pledge drives, there's no asking for money. As Gina has long pointed out, this is a private conversation in a public sphere. If you don't like it, move on to other sites.

There's another area that I'm not supposed to know about because it involves someone I know and like. But I do know about it. Despite Ruth not saying a word to me about it. Ruth called out a media critic for his silence on the sexism in the Democratic primary. As I'm guessing it happened, he e-mailed Ruth a private e-mail where he objected to her 'tone' (this part is really not guessing, she wrote about it without identifying him and implying that he might just be a drive-by, he wasn't, he was a media critic). He got the e-mail back from her where she explained (in a tone he approved of) where he was failing. She took her responses public noting at her site that if a dialogue was sincerely wanted, then have that dialogue in public where others could explore it as well. At which point, no more e-mails.

What appears to have happened is he didn't like being called out for sleeping on the job, he wanted a private e-mail exchange where Ruth would speak the way he wanted to speak. That is BULLS**T. I like him, I know him, but that is bulls**t. Don't try to shame people for calling you out for not doing your job. You want a dialogue, have one with Ruth publicly.

That's offended people. It's offended them because Marcia has let it rip on the person in question and he KNOWS to avoid Marcia because she's not going to put up with any of that s**t. Rebecca wouldn't either. And Elaine made it clear (with AlterPunk) that you snarl and hiss at her, she'll take your e-mail public and not even delete your e-mail address when she does.

You can yell and scream all you want if you've been written about. You can't try to manipulate and that's what's behind all of the anger, that some try to manipulate. The panel we didn't care for resulted in rushing to Rebecca, to Mike, to Elaine, to me. I don't know who else, but it was a long list. Trying to turn us against one another. It's not going to happen.

Ruth was really excited by an e-mail praising her work from a site we used to highlight. It was nothing but a fishing expedition. Ruth was trusting. That site is not linked to anymore by any of us as a result. Ruth and Jess are both trusting and you screw with them and you piss us all off.

FAIR wrote this site, with an apology. Jess replied for me and included a few comments on his own. I didn't ask him about the e-mail, I asked him to reply, but I never asked him what he wrote. So imagine my shock when I'm hearing about what he wrote not from him but from a friend at The Nation. I can't believe it. I insist FAIR wouldn't have forwarded Jess' e-mail to The Nation. My friend says, "Okay, check your inbox right now, I'm sending it to you." All this time later and Jess has still not gotten an apology. In fairness, FAIR -- in their apology -- was forwarding me e-mails from a journalist to them. I didn't know that and would have told Jess not to bother replying if I had known that. FAIR wanted to apologize to me and wanted to then score some brownie points with The Nation by forwarding Jess' e-mail. That's disgusting. Jess didn't say anything embarrassing. He did reveal that we would be posting our six month study on how few women The Nation was publishing on July 4th. That's why Ben rushed in with his e-mail trying to kill that story. On July 2nd. That's why Ben thought Third didn't have an e-mail address. It was briefly down when the templates switched -- something noted by Jess in his reply to FAIR.

We could go on and on with a long, long list. And I don't know the bulk of them. I haven't read all the e-mails to the public account since January 2005. It's too much for one person. Martha and Shirley give me a report and Eli gives me a report. That's how they prefer to handle it. Ava and Jess can handle any e-mail anyway they want. And if they handle it, there's no reason to even bring me in on it. If it's an e-mail from someone complaining about something that I wrote about them or their work, I will read that. And it doesn't have to be polite and I don't get my feelings hurt.

But what's really going on is the attempts at manipulation. That started very early with something Kat wrote where a man wanted her to retract what she wrote. One sentence where she said stupid Bernie can love Bob Dylan or not. And Bernie has a meltdown that she said he loved Bob Dylan. No, she said "can." Can implies ability. But Kat's attitude is pretty much the attitude non-stop in this community. We've had our say, have your say. She told Bernie she'd post whatever comment he wanted at her site. But that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted her to post these statements of praise about him -- but as if she was writing them.

That's not how it works. You cannot put words into someone else's mouth. That whole thing was so ridiculous and offensive. Kat's post only mentioned jerk-off Bernie in one sentence (the "can" sentence). He'd already responded by falsifying a sentence from her. (He took a sentence at her site and intentionally misquoted it -- refusing to correct it unless she posted his words as her own at her site.) Kat didn't give a damn what he wrote about her and he had no other blackmail so he (and his partner) slowly slinked away.

Nobody has to like us. We're not in the running for a popularity contest or the congeiality title. But we're tired of the attempts at manipulation. We're tired of the "I'll pretend to be high-minded and I want a dialogue and then when I get something like, 'Maybe you're not sexist,' I'll get my nut and blow." Ruth needs to go back to critiquing that person by name. Her critiques were valid. She was not wrong to make them. Because I know him, she felt she was in bind. She hasn't talked to me about this (and no one's run back to me to tell me) but I can tell from what she wrote what went down.

And while all this backstory intrigue plays out, what is Panhandle Media doing to end the illegal war? Not a damn thing. They have all the time in the world for their private e-mails, for their private whines. And I need to take accountability here because I did tolerate it myself and it put others in a position where they felt they had to. Mike gets screamed at by some lunatic who praised Barack on TV and Mike feels badly about that? He shouldn't have and Kat and I both told him to let it rip in response at his site because Mike was being nice. All he had to do was quote the man from that TV broadcast.

Save your firey e-mail speeches about how you don't really support Barack but if you call him out it's hard to get work and ___ won't have you on their show or ___ won't publish you or whine, whine, wah, wah. You sell yourself, that's your business. You sell yourself in the public sphere, get ready for criticism. That's a given. Don't do it in public if you can't take criticism of it.

If we're creamed at another site, we don't sob. We don't even sob when we're regularly ripped off. We don't e-mail the sites and say, "How dare you! Let's have a private conversation!" We don't e-mail at all. We're focused on what we need to do. But others have all the time in the world to devise these (not so) complex schemes of how they'll manipulate the community. "I know," some must be thinking to themselves, "I'll tell Rebecca that Elaine's not just trashing me, she's also getting her digs in at Rebecca!" Which, for the record, a mainstream reporter attempted to do. Foolish, foolish man. Rebecca, Elaine and I went to college together, we lived together, we have a decades long friendship. You're not the first man who thought you could come between our friendship, and you're not the first man to learn that, no, you couldn't. But you had plenty of time to scheme -- from your work e-mail -- and plot that out.

At this point, we really don't reply to private e-mails. For all the reasons above and many more. One more example? David Swanson showing up to tell Rebecca what a fan he was of her site and blah, blah, blah. Rebecca responds to him and then finds an e-mail from Lennox Yearwood in her inbox. She opens it. He's out of the country. He has his e-mail set up to automated reply. David Swanson 'shared' her e-mail with Yearwood without telling Rebecca. In fact, he shared it right after she sent it. In other words, he wrote Rebecca to get some information and then immediately started forwarding it. Who knows to how many? But when Rebecca calmly confronted him on it (I know Rebecca and I've read the e-mails, she was calm -- mainly because she was in shock -- she actually liked Swanson), he started denying he'd forwaded her e-mail. She was crazy! She was nuts! It never happened. But she was looking right at it (and I've seen the print out). He didn't realize that the automated reply meant Rebecca would be cc-ed. So little stunts like that, little manipulations means we're not interested in private conversations. (Yearwood is not linked to or mentioned here as a result of that. That really hurt Rebecca's feelings because she thought Swanson was someone trustworthy. Due to the fact that she'd written Yearwood to ask if he was involved in this or it was being forwarded without her knowledge, and due to the fact that he never saw fit to reply to her, I wrote him. He no longer exists to this community -- however, Betty, Cedric and Ty were already on record at Third as being tired of his s**t before that took place.)

So when the White woman who felt it was her place to both dismiss homophobia and to attempt to tell Ty how hard it was to be Black e-mails ordering me to cover something and Jess sees it today, he's had enough from her. Even with my explaining clearly how upset Ty was and why, she never felt the need to apologize to him. She is White Green, she knows all. So what if she came off racist to Ty (who was the one replying to her e-mails in the past) and insulted him. She didn't care. Not enough to e-mail and apologize. Though she's been happy to e-mail non-stop requesting links for this and links for that. And then today she decided she could try to order me to cover something. (Which I may now ignore because I don't take orders.) Jess saw the e-mail and it was the last straw for him. I don't blame him one bit.

All of the things mentioned above (and there are many more examples that could be provided) go to attempts to manipulate. You can't manipulate this community, you can't take over it, you can't control it. In the end, we will always stand with each other. It doesn't matter how 'big' you think your name is or how wonderful you think you are. If you're not a community member, you are an outsider and you do not dictate to this community.

When Panhandle Media decided that 'independent' translated as "lie for a War Hawk," we didn't drink the Kool-Aid. We didn't fret the bullying e-mails. As an outsider, you have no power in this community. And it's really amazing how so many had so much time to plot. Think about the time that went into e-mailing Mike, then Elaine (three times for Laine), then Rebecca, then Cedric, then me. Think how much time went into that "I will divide them!" plot. That time could have been better spent focusing on the illegal war. Especially in covering war resisters.

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 4122. Tonight? 4124. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,245,538 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War up from 1,236,604.

In various forms, the talking entry has been addressed at other community sites. To put an end to it (hopefully), it's being addressed here. It has become a problem and may be one of the main reasons the writing editions for Third are taking so long. I'm not in the mood for a 36 hour writing session this weekend.

The community sites are:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.

And the community stands together.

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



Dear Late To The Party

Welcome to the party. You're late and cake's all gone, food's put away, but maybe someone can fix you a plate to take home?

Jess here and I'm among the people reading the e-mails that come into the public account (common_ills@yahoo.com) as well as to the private accounts for members.

I read them and so do Martha, Shirley, Eli, Heather, Dona, Jim, Ava and, yes, C.I.

Ava will rip people apart that come whining or begging to the public account. She doesn't suffer fools. So Cynthia McKinney Supporting Green (referred to from this point on as CMSG) got very lucky that I was the one who read her e-mail and not Ava.

She'd still be rubbing the side of her face if Ava had read it.

It always amazes me who shows up begging in the public account. Today, a friend of C.I.'s showed up asking. The friend could have called C.I. but didn't want to abuse the friendship. So, instead, the friend just e-mailed asking if C.I. would be able to highlight The Denver Group? I saw the e-mail and left a voice mail for C.I. about it. As soon as C.I. heard the voice mail, the highlight went up. That's someone C.I.'s known for years. And that friend didn't want to abuse the friendship by calling. Felt it was better to go through 'proper channels' and ask.

So there are e-mails like that in the public acocunt. There's also the worst group: The beggars ("Please promote my pet project!") who never e-mail after to say thank you.

But someone, CMSG, hit an absolute new low today.

CMSG e-mailed ordering C.I. to cover a topic. Saying it was an important topic and it needed to be covered! It had to be covered!

CMSG has their own site. If CMSG thinks something's important, then cover it there.

But, this was what made it so funny, the topic was one C.I. has covered over and over for the last three weeks. It's been covered in the same period of time at other community sites and we've even covered it at Third.

CMSG had just stumbled upon it. Just found out. And didn't take the time to see if C.I. was already covering it. Just showed up in bossy mode.

I'm getting real damn tired of it. If Ava had read that, it would not have been pretty -- as many a journalist whining to the public account can attest.

So I just want to note my policy with e-mails to the public account from now on. I checked with C.I. and was told it was fine to note this.

If you're showing up in the public account and you're not anyone that C.I. knows, I'm blowing you off from now on. I'm not worrying about your pet issue because there's never a thank you. And not only is there never a thank you, now people are starting to think they can show up and order. That's what CMSG thought.

The Common Ills content is dictated by members. The focus is Iraq because that's what we voted on. On any given day, there are a number of things C.I. wants to include (on Iraq) in the snapshots and it gets held over for another day because there's just not enough room.

So the three of you with books (non-Iraq related), I just put your e-mails into the trash folder. Maybe you'll find someone more eager to pass on? I doubt it. But if I come across your e-mails, I'll just trash them.

It's gone from the rudeness of never a thank you to the rudeness of demanding.

You are not a community member. Community members e-mail the private accounts. If you're a friend of C.I.'s you know the phone number. But maybe, like the person today, you want to go through 'proper channels.' That's fine, you'll get noted.

C.I.'s got a list with about fifty things on it currently that are requests of "note me" and, when possible, C.I. will squeeze those in. (Two went into today's snapshot. One had been on hold since before the Fourth of July.) I'm not going to add to that list anymore.

And that's because suddenly people are thinking they can demand things.

Rudeness has been rewarded and now it's being taken a step further. So I'm saying "no."

Keep trying though, maybe I won't see your e-mail and maybe who ever does will pass it along. But my parents did not bring me up to demand favors from people. And if I asked for a favor and it was granted, I was taught to say "Thank you." For the bulk of these people, they wouldn't have to do a special e-mail, they'd just have to add "Thank you" to their next begging. Because they beg and then they come back and beg again, and then they come and beg some more. And they never say thank you. That's why Jim put a stop to that at Third.

He got sick of it, Dona got sick of it. They stopped it and now most don't come begging anymore. Good. We don't have the number of e-mails that C.I. gets, but we do have more than there is time for.

And as long as we're on the subject of beggars . . .

If you're a liar, don't write. C.I. is supposed to be the only one in charge of the links to the left. However, I do have the password (as does Ava, Ruth and Kat) and I do know how to add links. In the past, if someone with a site this community would be interested in e-mailed and asked if we could trade links and I saw the e-mail, I would reply that C.I. doesn't trade links. I would reply that I was putting them in because I thought they did good work. I would then say, a link from you would be appreciated.

Weeks would pass. Nothing.

Or worse, they'd show up wanting links for something they wrote.

A number of those people have taken to e-mailing that they've been dropped from the links on the left. Yes, you have. I put you up there and I took you down. You asked for a link, you said you'd give one back. You never said thank you for the link and you never linked back.

It's rude. I'm not in the mood for it.

So for the three of you who wrote today whining that you'd been de-linked, consider this the reply to your e-mail. All of them were linked to for a month (by me). They not only never said thank you, they never returned the courtsey that they'd promised in the e-mail I'd replied to.

I don't know if you grew up in a barn or just hit 18 and decided manners didn't matter.

But it's like trying to walk down a street downtown these days when I go into the public account. It's one person begging after another. Since you managed to write, I'll assume you're not homeless and not have any sympathy for you.

Again, you can continue to e-mail. If it's me, it'll go right in the trash. I probably speak for Jim as well. I can tell you that if Ava sees your e-mail, you'll get a blistering reply. I won't try to speak for anyone else (but I know C.I. will continue to read them and provide links as always). Possibly the next time you feel the need to beg you would be better off asking yourself what gives you the right to?

Repeating, it's gone from beggars who never say thank you but return to beg again to orders of "YOU WILL". No, that's not how it works. I think you've all been babied enough.

the common ills
the third estate sunday review
kats korner
ruths report