Hump day, hump day! Two days until the weekend. I was going to cook tonight -- don't laugh, I can cook a few things. But Elaine and I both ended up cooking. And that was pretty cool and turned out really cool which was surprising since we were just raiding the pantry and not really planning anything. She had a canned ham (someone gave her for Christmas last year, she thinks) and I knew from Dad how to fix that up in the oven so it would be like a really good briskette. And we had mashed potatoes and gravy and also black eyed peas. So it was really cool.
Then it was time to watch NBC's Chuck from last night which we Tivo-ed. I said I'd watch it some other time but Elaine wasn't in the mood for the news (The NewsHour) and we were also going to try to grab The New Adventures of Old Christine (which we did and was very funny). So let me talk about Chuck. Sarah's name was Jenny in high school. But that may or may not have been her name. She was using multiple names. The guy who recruited her for the CIA (the day her father was arrested) gave her the Sarah name.
Nicole Richie was a guest star. She played a character who went to high school with Sarah and was a real jerk to her then and now. So Chuck got to find out some more about Sarah's life. And Nicole's husband was a scientifically gifted guy who was selling secrets to the bad guys to make money for his marriage. So that was the big spy part of it only it turned out Nicole was in with the Russians as well. This all came out at the high school reunion.
It was a funny episode and the best moment -- my opinion -- was the end. Nicole Richie and Sarah had an intense fight and Sarah had some bruises and all. Chuck shows up with hamburger and there's a joke about how he couldn't afford steak. Then, Sarah tells him he deserves one answer about her life so go ahead, he can have one question and she'll answer it. Chuck decides he knows enough about Sarah and says he doesn't have a question. It was a really nice moment.
And you can go to Chuck and watch the episode online if you missed it.
So dinner was cool and we ate it and watched TV and then I had to do some cramming for classes and Elaine had some stuff for work and now it's blogging time.
Okay, here's a section of Foon Rhee's "Nader announces 'Massachusetts Marathon':"
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader announced today his own version of the Boston Marathon, a sprint across 21 cities and towns from Westfield to Sheffield across Massachusetts on Saturday -- what his campaign says will be the most stops ever in one day by a presidential candidate.
"We’re hoping for a big Nader voter turnout in Massachusetts – where Ralph got his third largest vote total (6.4 percent) in 2000," his campaign said.
Nader also announced that he'll air his first radio ads of the campaign, in 22 markets in 14 states.
If you're new to my blog, I'm voting for Ralph.
I'm happy for Ehren Watada tonight. I know it's not a real and full victory until the military stops attempting to go after him but the decision by Judge Settle today throws out three of the charges and makes it unlikely that Watada can be retried on the other two. It's a small victory until the military lets him out.
C.I. goes over this in the snapshot and points out that Watada's service contract expired December 2006. Pretty soon, he will have been kept in the military for two years so that they could try to punish him. You'd think the right-wing would be screaming their heads off now, griping about how Watada's being paid by the tax payers and how his court-martial was paid by the tax payers and how the military should just discharge him.
You have to wonder how long they're going to keep him in the service? He may end up having to sue just to get out. I'm not joking. That's something a number of people are thinking about right now.
But it was a little victory. Real victory will be Ehren getting to leave finally but this was a victory. And each step brings him closer to freedom. Or that's what I believe.
Abeer is the 14-year-old girl who was gang-raped while her parents and five-year-old sister were killed in the next room. Then Abeer was murdered. All the US soldiers involved in the war crimes have been punished except for Steven D. Green. This is the AP on Green:
Prosecutors filed court documents Wednesday that said former Pfc. Steven D. Green told FBI agents that "George Bush and Dick Cheney ought to be the ones that are arrested." The documents indicate the Kentucky-based soldier also said: "Guess I'm looking at spending the rest of my life in jail."
Here's another AP story:
Green, 22, faces 16 charges that include premeditated murder and aggravated sexual assault. He has pleaded not guilty and claims he was insane at the time of the March 2006 attack.
He was arrested a few months later at his grandmother's house in Nebo, N.C., about 80 miles northwest of Charlotte. Eventually he was brought back to Kentucky his unit was based. Green had been deployed in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division, which is based at Fort Campbell, an Army post on the Kentucky-Tennessee border about 185 miles southwest of Louisville. His remarks to the FBI agents came as he was being taken to jail, then to court in Charlotte, N.C. after his arrest.
Four other soldiers pleaded guilty or were convicted for their roles in targeting the girl from a checkpoint near Mahmoudiya, a village 20 miles south of Baghdad, and helping rape and kill her.
Yeah, this is a grab bag post. That happens when I'm overwhelmed with classroom readings. Sorry. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, October 22, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Ehren Watada gets some legal news, the treaty still waits, and more.
Starting with Ehren Watada, the first officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq. Lt Watada refused to deploy in the summer of 2006 (June 22nd). An Article 32 hearing took place in August 2006. In February 2007, a court-martial began but Judget Toilet (John Head) -- sensing the prosecution was losing -- ignored objections from the defense team and ruled a mistrial. Head announced that a new court-martial would begin the next month. It never did. In November 2007, federal Judge Benjamin Settle ruled in Watada's favor stating that the issues needed to be resolved. Hal Bernton (Seattle Times) reports today that Judge Settle has ruled that "Watada cannot face a second court-martial on three of five counts" which "leaves open the possibility of a second prosecution on two other counts involving conduct unbecoming an officer." As UPI explains, "A federal judge in Tacoma ruled an Army officer cannot be tried a second time for refusing orders to deploy to Iraq. In a ruling on the technicalities of Lt. Ehren Watada's first trial, U.S. District Judge Ben Settle said prosecuting Watada again would amount to double jeopardy." The Honolulu Advertiser adds, "Settle barred the military from retrying Watada on charges of missing his deployment to Iraq, taking part in a news conference and participating in a Veterans for Peace national convention." And they quote Ehren's father Bob Watada stating, "It's obviously good news. It's very good news." While that aspect is good news, as Bob Watada notes, the Pentagon has a lot of money and may attempt to appeal the decision or to try Ehren on the other two charges. Yet again, Ehren's life is in limbo. His service contract expired in December of 2006. He has been kept in the military all this time so that the military could pursue charges against him. As always, he continues to report for duty at his base.
Turning to Iraq and the treaty. Leila Fadel (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) explains yesterday's events, "After a 4 and 1/2 hour meeting little was accomplished in a cabinet meeting to discuss the 'final' draft of a long-term security agreement between the United States and Iraq that would replace a United Nations mandate that currently governs the U.S. presence here. Following the meeting it was no longer final, Shiite ministers once again raised objections to the wording of the draft. The Foreign Minister of Iraq, Hoshyar Zebari, conceded that it was unlikely the agreement would be finalized before the U.S. elections on Nov. 4, he told Reuters. The clock is ticking; the United Nations mandate expires on Dec. 31." AFP reports, "Iraq warned on Wednesday it would not be bullied into signing a security pact with the United States despite US leaders warning of potentially dire consequences if it failed to approve the deal" and quotes Ali al-Dabbagh, Iraq spokesperson, declaring, "It is not correct to force Iraqis into making a choice and it is not appropriate to talk with the Iraqis in this way." al-Dabbagh was referring specifically to the chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen. China's Xinhua quotes al-Dabbagh stating, "Deeply concerned, the Iraqi government received the comments of Admiral Michael Mullen. These comments are not welcomed by Iraq. All Iraqis and their political parties are aware of their responsibilities and they know how important to sign or not to sign the deal in a way that it is suitable to them." As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Mullen and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were using bullying tactics with Gates tossing out, "I don't think you slam the door shut, but I would say it's pretty far closed" and "Clearly, the clock is ticking"; while Mullen was threateinging "significant consequence" if the treaty -- masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement -- wasn't pushed through. Alissa J. Rubin and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) term Mullen's remarks "a stark warning to the Iraqis to think hard before rejecting the agreement." The International Herald Tribune editorializes about the road block the treaty has encountered "The most obvious motive is located at the intersection of patriotism and politics. With provincial elections coming up early next year and public opinion surveys indicating that more than 70 percent of Iraqis want an end to the U.S. occupation, Iraqi ministers are striving to align themselves with public opinion."
The reality is more complex and has a great deal to do with Iraqis questioning tricky wording in a contract being shoved before them. Rubin and Zoepf note that the 'aspiration' of withdrawal in 2011 wording has been noticed, by the Iraqis, to allow for the US to decide. Similarly, Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) points out issue of off duty US troops being tried in Iraqi courts for crimes also includes the US determining when the soldiers are off-duty. In other words, the decision on both issues remains US decisions.
At the White House today, spokesperson Dana Perino stated of the treaty, "Well, the text was negotiated by both sides and it's now before the Iraqi government, as you say, Secretary Gates put it well yesterday, which is that the door wasn't slammed shut but it's pretty much closed, in our opinion. So the -- I'll leave it to our negotiators to look at any suggestions that the Iraqis have, but I think that any changes would -- it would be a very high bar for them to clear. . . . We are working towards it. As we said -- and I said the door is closing fast, the expiration date for the UN mandate is December 31st and there will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that." At the State Dept today, deputy spokesperson Robert Wood was asked to expand upon Perino's comments and replied, "Well, look, as we said yesterday, this text is in front of the Iraqi government right now. And as we've said previously, we believe this is a good text. It's a text that promotes Iraqi sovereignty as well as allows a legal basis for our troops to operate in Iraq. And we think the Iraqis need to take a decision on this now. And I don't have anything really to add from -- to what Dana said this morning. But you know, it's -- the Iraqis need to make a decision. The door is not slammed shut, but it's closing."
"Recent attacks and threats against Christians have caused alarm from Baghdad to the Vatican to the United Nations," Missy Ryan (Reuters) summarizes. On the plight of Iraqi Christians, Bradley S. Klapper (AP) explains that the estimated 10,000 Christians who have fled Mosul since the most recent outbreak of violence are not returning thus far (despite being offered the US equivalent of $865 to return) and that Amr Moussa, Arab League chief, issued a statement noting, "We can't remain silent as brutal crimes are being committed against the Christian Iraqis." Meghan Walsh (Arizona Republic) notes a Phoenix demonstration in support of the victims where an estimated 100 people gathered to show their support. Jennifer O'Neill (WBBM780) reports on Michighan's demonstration in Dearborn which had an estimated turnout of 1,000 and notes: "Steve Oshana is Policy Director of the Assyrian American National Coalition. He says the groups are asking Illinois congressmen for support on Assyrian proposals that are currently on the table in Washington D.C." Philip Pullella (Reuters) explains that Reverend Federico Lombardi, spokesperson for Pope Benedict, states the Vatican is troubled, "We are extremely worried about what we are hearing from Iraq. The situation in Mosul is dramatic. The victims are Christians and many thousands of people are fleeing precisely because they are subjected not only to the fear of periodic sttacks but a systematic campaign of threats. This is extremely worrying and we ask ourselves if these people are sufficiently protected by the authorities or if the authorities are not able to protect them or if there is insufficient willingness to protect them." Missy Ryan (Reuters) reports that al-Maliki again met with Iraqi Christians leaders "and again promised protection" but that protection doesn't appear to be coming, now does it? Ryan notes al-Maliki's vague statements about culprits, the US military's insisting that it's "Sunni Islamist militants" and whispers that it's the Kurds who are responsible for the attacks. The Kurdish Globe notes the Kurdish region's president Massoud Barzani today was "vociferously denying fringe allegations that Kurds in Mosul are behind the attacks on Christians that have recently drove many from the city. President Barzani classified such ridiculous insinuation as baseless, extremely malacisious, and a distraction from the real issue at hand: aiding the Christian families that have been forced to leave their homes out of fear for their personal safety." The president "classified"? Looks like the Kurdish Globe "classified" as well with the choice of "ridiculous".
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 Baghdad sticky bombs that claimed 3 lives and left seven people wounded, a Mosul car bombing that claimed 4 lives and left four more wounded, and a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer.
Shootings?
Reuters notes a Mosul shooting that wounded an Iraqi soldier.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad, the head of a man kidnapped last month was discovered in Tuz Khurmatu and 34 corpses were discovered in Anbar Province. Reuters notes 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul.
Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney was a guest on NPR's Talk of the Nation today. There seemed to be confusion or outright hostility aimed at her from Ken Rudin and host Neal Conan. A perfect example is when Cynthia was asked how her run was different from independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's run. Either the two men were extremely dense or they were hoping to create some slug-fest.
"Well first of all," she began, "I'm running as part of the Green Party" which has over 200 elected officials in the US . . . But it was lost on the two men. She then attempted to explain that November 5th the Green Party would still be in place. For some reason, this was confusing and very hard for the two men to understand. Cynthia is not the independent presidential candidate, she is the nominee of a party. That is one way in which her run and Ralph's run are different. Somehow that was either confusing to the men or they were just hoping that Cynthia would launch a slug-fest.
What she did have to speak about they weren't interested in. That included the death penalty and who would have guessed that was a 'fringe' issue to NPR? Repeatedly pressed as to how much difference she saw between the Republican and the Democratic Parties, she offered as an example the issues that get addressed and discussed and the ones that do not. Cynthia pointed out that the death penalty has been ignored by the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain.
There wasn't any interest in exploring the death penalty issue even after Cynthia pointed out that it hadn't been included in the debates. There was no interest in exploring anything. Asked about her run at the start, she began, "Well basically, le me sort of bring you up to speed on when all of this started and how all of this started." She then briefly recounted how she found herself, last year, standing in front of the Pentagon and delivering a speech about how the shift to a Democratically controlled Congress (following the November 2006 mid-term elections) had not resulted in any movement, how the Democratic leadership had become complicit on issues they supposedly opposed such as the Patriot Act and the illegal war in Iraq. The boys weren't interested in that. They weren't interested in her tying her departure from the Democratic Party to "the footsteps of people who a hundred years ago declared their independence" -- referring to the suffragette movement and the "260 women and 40 men gathered in a room and they also declared their independence" was about all she got to before the boys wanted to cut her off.
It wasn't a conversation, it wasn't a discussion. It wasn't pleasant to listen to. At one point Cynthia McKinney was attempting to discuss the issues she and her running mate Rosa Clemente supported such as college education and how the government will "spend $720 million" for violence and war but not to put America's youth through college. "People need the opportunity to hear a different set of issues discussed," she would explain. But college education didn't matter to the boys.
Repeatedly, Cynthia would present a topic and either be cut off or allowed to make her remark only to have the topic immediately switched by the boys. It was not a professional interview, it was not a joy to listen to.
Cynthia wisely chose to take the Sarah Palin path. (Palin in the Democratic and Republican vice-presidential debate: "And I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let 'em know my track record also.") Since Neil and Ken weren't interested in a discussion or anything even approximating a follow-up question, Cynthia was correct to talk beyond and over them noting that she and Rosa were "broadening the political discourse and we're representing those people and their values who've been locked out of the two party paradigm." She explained she and Rosa were on the ballot in 32 states and that people in 17 other states could write the McKinney-Clemente ticket in. A caller named Daneil phoned from North Carolina to explain that, "In our state, North Carolina, we can't really write in a candidate" because there's a space but he doesn't believe a write-in vote will be tabulated. Cynthia discussed the hurdles involved involved in just becoming a write-in candidate in North Carolina and, had the boys paid attention, they could have explored this issue in depth. Instated, they came to the interview with a set of questions they were going to work through regardless of any reply or topic raised. Facts also weren't important which is why Cynthia had to correct Neil when he wrongly characterized her as not having campaigned in the north. (Also true is her running mate Rosa has done multiple events in the north.)
What may have been most shocking considering the boring trivia the boys started the hour with -- first African-American woman to head a political party ticket (answer, Charlene Mitchell the 1968 Communist Party presidential nominee). The fumble, stumble, eat up time with bad guesses would have only been worthwhile had the overgrown boys ever taken a moment to ask Cynthia about her own historic run. Needless to say, two tired boys are rarely interested in discussing progress for women. Cynthia next appears Saturday October 25 on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday.
October 18th, Cynthia spoke in Georgia at a renuion for the Black Panther Party:
Your experience with the Counter-Intelligence Program of yesterday is instructive today now that the Patriot Acts, the Secret Evidence Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Funding for the War on Terror Act are all carved into the law. Kathleen and Natsu and, of course, King Downing, and others can describe how vastly the legal landscape has changed. But there is one aspect of the operation to neutralize your good works and your good name that has not changed. And that's what I want to talk about today.
How many times has the corporate press used the word "spoiler" in reference to the 2000 Presidential election and every Presidential election since then and how many times have they reported accurately the number of black votes cast and not counted or the way in which black voters were disfranchised?
How many times did the corporate press use the word "conspiracy," not in conjunction with the September 11th tragedy, but in conjunction with those who want to know the truth about what happened on that day?
How many times did the corporate media lie to the people of this country and the world in the lead-up to the war against Iraq?
In the wake of accounts of torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, how many times were prisoner abuse and torture inside this country mentioned? How many times was Attica, the Angola 3, Chicago's Area 2, or the San Francisco 8 mentioned?
In this, an election year, how many times have stories on election integrity been written that inform and warn potential voters of the problems they might face at the polling place and what their rights are if they encounter them?
Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) believes Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama will be swept into office and notes how 'calming' his signals to conservatives are: "He makes it clear he will address black people directly only when chastisement is on the agenda. If anyone has doubts, the sight of Obama campaign commercials featuring one or two black faces, Obama's included, seal the deal for the two Christophers and their friends. What will Progressives for Obama have to say about the conservative pitching and wooing for their candidate? If past history is any indication, they and other progressives will say nothing at all. They made a decision to collude with the Obama agenda that progressives ought to oppose. The praises of Buckley and Hitchens will have no effect on them any more than the pledges to keep troops in Iraq or to escalate the war in Afghanistan. Obama will make history in more ways than one. He won't just be the first black president. He will be the first president in modern history that convinced millions of people not to believe the words that came out of his own mouth. 'Change' is the campaign slogan, but his policy agenda tells us we will see anything but that. Hitchens and Buckley are certainly convinced that there won't be any changes that aren't to their liking."
Senator John McCain is the Republican presidential nominee and Governor Sarah Palin is his running mate. Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reports on "Sweat Equity," the new ad from McCain-Palin '08 that takes issue with Barack's "spread the wealth around" comment to Joe Wurzelbacher. Jake Tapper, Matt Jaffee and Imtiyaz Delawala (ABC News, Political Punch) echo CBS News' Scott Conroy from earlier in the week noting of Palin, "In the last two weeks, Palin has fielded questions twice from the Palin traveling press corps on board the campaign plane, and on Sunday night, Palin took impromptu questions from reporters on the airport tarmac in Colorado Springs, Colo., on issues ranging from her thoughts on Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama to the role of robocalls in the election. An hour later, she took questions again from the press pool during an unscheduled stop for ice cream before returning to her hotel for the night. Palin has also become increasingly accessible to local and national media."
At the McCain-Palin '08 blog, Matt Lira posts the following:
I wanted to take a moment and post, with her permission, an email we recieved from a supporter after a McCain event in Missouri. Thank you Melanie for your support, it is because of the support and activism of people like you that keeps this country great. Thank you for fighting for a better America. If you'd like to join Melanie and stand up for what's right for America, click here to take action today. Additionally, if you want to share your story from the campaign trail, please send them along to mccainstories@johnmccain.com.
I had the honor to be seated right beside Senator John McCain today for an informal lunch in Columbia, Missouri. I can tell you that he is the real deal. We had an opportunity to ask him questions, share a few laughs and provide him with insight from fellow Americans. He listened, he provided us with real answers and I truly believe he not only has the experience and the right plan but also a big heart for America. The media was present when he first entered the room and then were asked to leave as we had lunch with him. He wasn't interested in pandering to the media. He instead wanted to spend time with the people. If you want to know his answers to questions regarding the economy, support of small businesses, job creation, national security, education funding, etc. let me know. I got the answers I needed. John McCain is the right choice.
I have voted on both sides of the fence in the past, Democrat and Republican. I know what it's like to only have $30 to my name. I know what it's like to work hard to get a job. It took me 3 years to get the job I wanted as a teacher. I know what it's like to start a business from absolutely nothing. And I know what it's like to pay student loans for 15 years. Why? Because I believe in opportunity. I didn't ask for a hand-out. I just wanted the opportunity to use my skills, to help others and to provide for my family. Sound familiar to the rest of you? I bet we all have similar stories. America is a country of endless opportunities. We are not a country of hand-outs. We are a country of leg-ups. People...get the word out...we need a leader that has had more than 144 days of experience in the U.S. Senate. You are as good as your word. But actions speak louder than words. Honor, Honesty, Hard Work should matter... must matter.
Melanie Columbia, Missouri
Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Nader notes:
The three so-called presidential debates--really parallel interviews by reporters chosen by the Obama and McCain campaigns--are over and they are remarkable for two characteristics--convergence and avoidance.A remarkable similarity between McCain and Obama on foreign and military policy kept enlarging as Obama seemed to enter into a clinch with McCain each time McCain questioned his inexperience or softness or using military force.If anyone can detect a difference between the two candidates regarding belligerence toward Iran and Russia, more U.S. soldiers into the quagmire of Afghanistan (next to Pakistan), kneejerk support of the Israeli military oppression, brutalization and colonization of the Palestinians and their shrinking lands, keeping soldiers and bases in Iraq, despite Obama's use of the word "withdrawal," and their desire to enlarge an already bloated, wasteful military budget which already consumes half of the federal government's operating expenses, please illuminate the crevices between them.This past spring, the foreign affairs reporters, not columnists, for the New York Times and the Washington Post concluded that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are advancing foreign and military policies similar to those adopted by George W. Bush in his second term.Where then is the "hope" and "change" from the junior Senator from Illinois?Moreover, both Obama and McCain want more nuclear power plants, more coal production, and more offshore oil drilling. Our national priority should be energy efficient consumer technologies (motor vehicles, heating, air conditioning and electric systems) and renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal.Both support the gigantic taxpayer funded Wall Street bailout, without expressed amendments. Both support the notorious Patriot Act, the revised FISA act which opened the door to spy on Americans without judicial approval, and Obama agrees with McCain in vigorously opposing the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.What about avoidance? Did you see them speak about a comprehensive enforcement program to prosecute corporate crooks in the midst of the greatest corporate crime wave in our history? Did you see them allude to doing anything about consumer protection (credit card gouging, price of medicines, the awful exploitation and deprivation of the people in the inner city) and the ripoffs of buyers in ever more obscure and inescapable ways?Wasn't it remarkable how they never mentioned the poor, and only use the middle class when they refer to "regular people?" There are one hundred million poor people and children in this nation and no one in Washington, D.C. associates Senator Obama, much less John McCain, with any worthy program to treat the abundant poverty-related injustices.What about labor issues? Worker health and safety, pensions looted and drained, growing permanent unemployment and underemployment, and outsourcing more and more jobs to fascists and communist dictatorships are not even on the peripheries of the topics covered in the debates.When I was asked my opinion about who won the debates, I say they were not debates. But I know what won and what lost. The winners were big business, bailouts for Wall Street, an expansionary NATO, a boondoggle missile defense program, nuclear power, the military-industrial complex and its insatiable thirst for trillions of taxpayer dollars, for starters.What lost was peace advocacy, international law, the Israeli-Palestinian peace movement, taxpayers, consumers, Africa and We the People.The language of avoidance to address and challenge corporate power is spoken by both McCain and Obama, though interestingly enough, McCain occasionally uses words like "corporate greed" to describe his taking on the giant Boeing tanker contract with the Pentagon.Funded by beer, tobacco, auto and telecommunications companies over the years, the corporation known as the Commission on Presidential Debates features only two corporate-funded candidates, excludes all others and closes off a major forum for smaller candidates, who are on a majority of the states, to reach tens of millions of voters.In the future, this theatre of the absurd can be replaced with a grand coalition of national and local citizen groups who, starting in March, 2012 lay out many debates from Boston to San Diego, rural, suburban and urban, summon the presidential candidates to public auditoriums to react to the peoples' agendas.Can the Democratic and Republican nominees reject this combination of labor, neighborhood, farmer, cooperative, veteran's, religious, student, consumer and good government with tens of millions of members? It will be interesting to see what happens if they do or if they do not.
iraq
ehren watada
hal bernton
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
margaret kimberley
the washington postmary beth sheridanthe new york timesalissa j. rubinkatherine zoepfmegan walshjennifer o'neill
brian montopoli
jake tapper
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
CNN LIES
Tuesday and I'm getting damn sick of the liars. Max Blumenthal's father should be ashamed of him and, sadly, Max is incapable of being ashamed of himself.
But CNN may take the prize the Liar Club Prize these days. Here's CNN 'quoting' Governor Sarah Palin's 'controversial' remark:
We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation.
And here's what Palin actually said:
We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe -- We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.
Yeah, they stripped out "the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C." to make it look like she said something insulting.
Now the thugs, goons and fools for Barack think he's going to win. Maybe he will. But the press didn't change.
The press still LIES and a large number of people who used to call it out stay silent or cheer them on because they want lies.
The same press that LIES FOR Barack today will lie against him tomorrow.
So when all the Cult of Barack members start whinging and crying about how mean the press is, tough f**king s**t. You should have been calling out the press for lying all along.
But it was too much for you, having ethics was too damn much for you.
I love the psy-ops operation the press has mounted against John McCain. It may confuse Republicans but Democrats who supported Hillary know how this works. They lie and then they lie some more and they say there's no way anyone can beat Barry and then it turns out they lied. They lied and then they lie again.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, October 21, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the Vatican has concerns, Ralph Nader gets broadcast-network attention, the treaty hits a bump, and more.
Starting with the US race for president, NBC Nighly News with Brian Williams featured a report on the independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader yesterday. Tonight Nightly News begins the first of two-nights inteviewing the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Ron Allen interviewed Nader at length for the report and the interview is available online at Nightly News. Below is a transcript.
Ron Allen: I think the first question everybody has is why do you keep doing this because it would seem you really don't have a chance of winning? So why do you keep pursuing this?
Ralph Nader: You have to keep justice on the front burner. The forces of injustice never take a vacation and the forces of justice can never take a vacation. So as long as I can go around the country putting the progressive agenda on the front table for people, giving voters a choice, I feel I have to do it.
Ron Allen: So what is winning? Is there a specific policy, a specific change of the process that in your mind, makes this worth it?
Ralph Nader: There are a lot of different definitions of winning. One of them is building for a future third political force that can really win an election. The second is bringing lots of people into local, state and national elections as candidates -- especially young people in the future. The third is to push the two parties -- a tugboat candidacy to either make them less worse or a little better which is a historic function of third parties.
Ron Allen: And do you think -- do you think -- is there a way to really measure what you've accomplished, do you think?
Ralph Nader: Oh we'll see. We're pressing for example for single payer health insurance. They're 93 members of the House who've signed on John Conyers HR 676 so let's say we get a good vote and we're trade marked by this agenda -- more people sign on, we think we've played a part.
Ron Allen: This time your signature issues seems to be the rescue package, the bail-out, your opposition to it. It's a consumer-ish issue which is in your wheelhouse. Do you think however -- the administration, the Congress seemed to insist that this was absolutely necessary to avert wider catastrophe -- do you think your message is getting through though?
Ralph Nader: Yes, because I think it was the wrong kind of bail-out. They shouldn't have bailed out first the speculators and the high-risk paper, you should have helped the prudent institutions and the prudent savers that developed a wall to protect them from the ruinous fall-out from Wall St. Second, I think that there should have been re-regulation because de-regulation opened the doors to this excessive speculation and most important the Congress should have made the speculators pay for their bail-out with a tiny tax, 1/10 of 1 percent of the security transactions that are traded every year. That would produce $500 million.
Ron Allen: Part of the rescue package -- without getting too much -- contains some of that, some of the broader principles that Obama and McCain and others argued for, seemed to contain some of that. That tax payers would be investors, that there would be a return on this. Is that not enough?
Ralph Nader: It wasn't thorough enough, it's too easily evaded in terms of the tax payer equity. For example, they weren't given any representation on the boards of directors and there was a cut-off below which they wouldn't have any equity and it was very complex and not really very enforceable. I think when it came to the $700 billion bail-out of Wall St., Washington had Wall St. over a barrel. They could have gotten anything in that bill because Wall St. wanted that $700 billion and, instead, Wall St. pushed Washington in the barrel and rolled it to a blank check. That's why I think Congress has got to revisit this issue.
Ron Allen: Now there's an issue where there was a lot of support for that point of view in the country as there have been for other ideas you have pushed. I hear both candidates, for example, talking about public works projects which you were talking about only a moment ago. Do you think that, having run for the office so long and been out there for so long and not increased your margin significantly, do you think that perhaps you're not the best messenger for your own cause now?
Ralph Nader: No, I think I am the best manager because it's very hard to be nationally known for any candidate unless you're a multi-billionaire. And I am nationally known, I have a track record, I have constituencies around the country which I have helped over the years so I thank I am the candidate for those positions.
Ron Allen: But some people would argue it's the ideas, it's the positions, it's not you. And I think that Obama and others have suggested that in their assessment of you, it's too much about you and it's not about the ideas. I think he said something to the effect that his sense was that if you don't agree with everything Nader stands for, he thinks less of you, he thinks you're not substantive. I think was the word he used.
Ralph Nader: Well let's put it this way. Take all our speeches -- my speeches, Senator Obama's, Senator McCain's -- and count the number of times they say "I" compared to the number of times I say "I" and I think that's your answer. I'm the least egotistical candidate probably in presidential history.
Ron Allen: Let's take them individually. Senator McCain, Governor Palin, what's wrong with them?
Ralph Nader: Well they're corporate candidates. Except for Governor Palin -- she did stand up to the oil companies. But if you look at Senator McCain's positions he is for restricting the rights to have their full day in court of wrongly injured people. That's tort reform, for example. He has consistently supported a bigger military budget. He is very militaristic towards certain countries in the world. He wants the idea of a hundred military bases around the world. He has a cockamamie health insurance plan that's not going to give sufficient health care to all the people in this country. And Governor Palin has fallen in line.
Ron Allen: What do you think of her?
Ralph Nader: Well I think that she has been mistreated. But I think that it was the fault of the Republicans because they introduced her to the American people not as a governor of a state, they introduced her as a soccer mom, they introduced her as having five children, NRA member, a hunter, a fisherman, and once you have that folksy image it's easy to prick the balloon and give the impression she's empty.
Ron Allen: Do you think she's qualified?
Ralph Nader: She's as qualified as any other presidential and vice presidential candidate. What do you have to be to be a member of the two parties and run for president? All you have to do is know how to read and write, get advisers and follow corporate orders.
Ron Allen: When you were talking about -- when you were talking about Senator Obama, you said prepare to be disappointed if he wins. What did you mean by that?
Ralph Nader: Because I think he is very receptive to corporate power and that's why he doesn't have a full Medicare plan for the American people, that's why he doesn't press for a real living wage, just to keep up with inflation on the minimum wage it would be $10 an hour instead it's $6.55 an hour. He doesn't have a platform to crack down on the corporate crime wave that the mainstream press keeps reporting. He doesn't have a program for the bottom 100 million poor Americans and that's just the beginning of what we're going to see of Senator Obama if he wins.
Ron Allen: And you were also in there railing against the mainstream media, us. Why do you think it is that you think you don't get a lot of coverage? Why is it that you don't get any coverage? I think the editors would say, as I think they've told you, you're not that relevant you're not going to win why should we spend the time devoting scarce resources at what you're doing?Ralph Nader: Because I think the media should be interested in a competitive democracy. I think they believe there should be a competitive economy. I think that without a competitive democracy, voter choices are narrowed and the voters that are their audience and one would think they would give more voices and choices in their own reporting other than the same routine daily, redundant, five-minute speeches by Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Reporters keep telling me how bored they are covering the presidential campaigns. Well, we can give them some excitement.
Ron Allen: And also listening to you, it sounds like, it sounds like for you it's not about, you don't seem to -- you're not telling your audiences 'we're going to win, we're going to go to the White House' Winning is a much different goal. You talked about some thirty-odd states where it's not going to be a contest, you can vote your conscience in other places. Have you gotten much more realistic about this?
Ralph Nader: Well I'm always realistic but I know that if you don't allow seeds to sprout, you'll never get plants or trees and if business doesn't allow entrepreneurs a chance, you're never going to rejuvenate the business community but somehow the press has bought into this two-party duopoly which is very exclusionary on presidential debates, on ballot access and this two party duopoly can't be regenerated unless small political starts have a chance to be heard by the American people and that means the mass media.
Ron Allen: And in terms of the two parties, there are still some people out there who -- you may never live this down -- as you know, there are many people who, there are people out there who still blame you for Al Gore's loss in Florida and in 2000 and therefore for the last eight years.
Ralph Nader: Well Al Gore doesn't blame the Green Party to his credit. He thinks he won the election -- which he did in the popular vote but the electoral college threw it into Florida and he can give you chapter and verse on how it was taken from him illicitly from Tallahassee all the way to the five Republican politicians on the Supreme Court who selected George W. Bush as president. But it's interesting that you raise this because I don't think the mass media can have it both ways. On the one hand they say, Nader-Gonzalez doesn't have a chance to win therefore don't cover them. On the other hand, they say well Nader-Gonzalez may be 'spoilers,' that bigoted political word, and tip the election by tipping some of the close states. Well, which is it?
Ron Allen: I think that was the case back in 2000. I don't think people think that's the case now.
Ralph Nader: Well because of recent polls but they thought that back in July.
Ron Allen: Do you think you're going to influence some of these battlegrounds? I've heard you suggest that Colorado, Nevada, places where you think you could in fact effect the outcome.
Ralph Nader: Well we want to get as many votes as we can so we're traveling and getting votes in all fifty states but if we are going to be able to be heard more by going into the close states and effecting the margins, we'll be very pleased to do it because our interests are the health, safety and economics well being of the American people not the plight of one party over another.
Ron Allen: But do you actually think, is there a state where you think that you are really going to have an impact at this point, just a few weeks -- couple of weeks -- before the election?
Ralph Nader: Well it could be Ohio but it's trending towards an Obama landslide so Ohio I suppose is close maybe Florida is still close. What else would there be?
Ron Allen: But again in states where you seem to be running the strongest, Colorado, Nevada,
Ralph Nader: Yes, in Colorado --
Ron Allen: Even if you don't effect the overall outcome, do you really think you're going to have an impact? Where do you think you're going to have the greatest impact?
Ralph Nader: Well I think the greatest impact will be where ever the media covers us the most and they'll probably cover us the most when we go into the small states. Assuming there isn't a landslide by then.
Ron Allen: Do you think -- how do you think the election is going to turn out?
Ralph Nader: Right now? If nothing happens in the next two weeks, I think it will be a big Democratic landslide for the Congress and probably 330 electoral votes for Barack Obama.
Ron Allen: And what's wrong with that?
Ralph Nader: Well one thing that is not wrong is that the Democrats will control the White House and the Congress with large minorities and they'll have no more excuses How many times have I gone up on Capitol Hill and said, "Why don't you strengthen the consumer protection laws and why don't you end these corporate subsidies? And why don't you get full health insurance and living wage?" And they always say well we can't get it through because Republicans will stop us. No more excuses. If there's a Democratic landslide we're going to put so much heat on Congress and the White House that they're going to have to move for the American people and stop succumbing to the demands of their corporate pay masters.
Ron Allen: And if there was one idea or one thing you would like to accomplish, of if there was one part of a platform or a policy proposal that McCain or Obama or the Democrats or Republicans were willing to adopt that would say, that would make Ralph Nader say "Okay, I'll stop running for president I'll join you" what would it be? What would have to happen for you not to do this?
Ralph Nader: Well that they take the populist positions that we have on our website VoteNader.org and --
Ron Allen: The whole thing?
Ralph Nader: They're very long overdue. Western Europe has most of them, out of the rubble of WWII full health insurance, living wage, decent pensions, four weeks paid vacation, university free tuition at public universities. The kind of elementary civilized benefits like paid maternity leave, paid family sick leave, decent day care, they've had these for years and we're the richest country in the world. Barack Obama and John McCain will not come out for these straight and clear.
Ron Allen: That sounds like a very socialistic position.
Ralph Nader: Well it's called a Social-Democratic position in Europe and basically to me it's just elementary humanity because if we really love our country we will have to love the people in our country and people who are poor or disabled or otherwise disadvantaged but work hard and want to play a role in our society and raise their children why can't we give them a lending hand?
Ron Allen: And lastly, why -- why is someone not wasting their vote if they vote for you?
Ralph Nader: Because they'll be voting for their conscience. They'll be voting for what a middle-aged man told me in Syracuse recently when he came up to me and he said, "I'm voting for myself, therefore I'm voting for Ralph Nader."
Ron Allen: Meaning?
Ralph Nader: Meaning -- meaning that for forty years I've demonstrated that I will not succumb to corporate power, I will not be tempted by corporate accouterments. I will stand for the people of this country from A to Z, I will stand for their just treatment by the powers that be whether they be in Wall Street or whether they be in Washington.
Ron Allen: And again what is -- when you look back on this campaign months from now what will -- what will have made it a success? What does it take to make this a success for you?
Ralph Nader: Well we're turning a corner on the violations of candidates' civil liberties by winning cases to break down the ballot access barriers in many states that deny voters a choice. These are Jim Crow type laws to keep candidates off the ballot and without candidate rights, voter rights aren't worth as much because voters won't have a choice. That's a clear trend that we are advancing. Number two, we keep alive a future progressive enlightenment in our country. All of the things that are so overdue that the American people need and deserve and are being denied because of the concentration of power and wealth in so few hands. Number three and the most gratifying for me is the young people who are volunteering, who are going to be the political leaders of the future, who are learning the skills of clean political activity.
Ron Allen: And do you still think that you can be an effective messenger for that cause, again, given the last number of years that you've run unsuccessfully, the criticism that you've endured, the fact that a significant number of people don't take you seriously you still think you can be an effective messenger?
Ralph Nader: Well I take the American people seriously and that's enough for me. But I remember the famous progressive writer I.F. Stone who once said that every social justice in this country started by people who lost and who lost and who lost but in the process of losing built more and more support for the breakthrough that made this a better country. So I am not afraid to keep losing and losing as long as we are expanding awareness and galvanizing energies of the American people for a better future.
Nightly News has the video of the report from last night as well as the interview Allen conducted with Nader (the latter is a "web only" feature). Warning, the clip will quickly feature the gutter trash of MSNBC including IDIOT Rachel Maddow -- the War Hawk Elaine caused to meltdown back in 2005. So Rachel The Dog Face Anchor likes to brag about her alleged big brain and yet the IDIOT has no idea that there's a difference between Socialism and Communism. (People, she's a dumb ass.) Ralph Nader has been blocked out by many outlets -- including the alleged public airwaves of PBS -- so when NBC Nightly News does a report on him, we will open the snapshot with it. It is big news.
Today US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke about the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. David Morgan (Reuters) reports that Gates declared, "I don't think you slam the door shut, but I would say it's pretty far closed." Meaning no more discussing the 'text' with those silly people who think they should have a say -- what do they think Iraq is, their own country? That really is the attitude and how much of that is genuine and how much of that is for-show (to attempt to make the Iraqis think it's a take-it-or-leave-it offer) no one knows but he used one of the oldest ploys, "Clearly, the clock is ticking." What has Gates so touchy? Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) explains, "The Iraqi cabinet Tuesday called for reopening negotiations over a draft agreement to keep U.S. forces in this country beyond 2008, in the most serious sign yet that the accord is in trouble." Sheridan notes that Michael Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "We are clearly running out of time." It's a mantra. Expect Condi Rice to next declare, "Tick-tick-tick." For the US administration, it all fell apart today with reports that Iraqis were not going to be easily bullied. Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) explained that, "in a sign that opposition is growing to a prolonged American presence, the largest political faction issued a statement demanding additonal revisions" in the treaty. And AFP reported that the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, is attempting to bully Iraq into approving the treaty and that "Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also charged that Iran was working hard to scuttle passage of the so-called Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA." Mullen's bluster betrays the calm the US State Dept attempted to project at yesterday's press briefing where deputy spokesperson Robert Wood attempted to act as if everything was fine and dandy and kept stressing the democratic process, refused to speculate on going to the United Nations to talk of possibly extending the mandate which expires December 31st and is the only legal framework that allows foreign forces on Iraqi soil. BBC notes Gates' foot stomping and that he "has warned of 'dramatic consequences'." Despite the threats, so far, Iraq isn't immediately buckling. CNN reports, "The Iraqi government has unanimously agreed that a security pact with the United States lacks "some necessary amendments," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Tuesday." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) puts it a little more bluntly, "The Iraqi Cabinet dealt a blow today to a draft agreement to allow US forces to stay in Iraq beyond the end of the year, demanding changes to the document to make it more acceptable. The nature of the amendments were not specified, but Iraqi MPs said there are concerns about the lack of a guaranteed date for US forces to withdraw. Another worry is whether Iraqi courts would in practice be able to try US soldiers who commit serious crimes. There are even gripes about differing interpretations in parts of the US and the Arabic versions of the draft accord." At the White House, spokesperson Dana Perino declared of the process, "Well, we knew it was going to take a little while to get this done. I think we feel pretty comfortable with the strategic framework agreement. That is a broader document; it talks about our relationship moving forward on the political and economic issues. The strategic -- I'm sorry, the status of forces agreement is a little bit more complicated. We knew that the Iraqis would have several steps to go through. I saw reports that they want to -- today, and the Council of Ministers have suggested that they want to see some changes. I don't think we have seen those yet. And I'll let the negotiators in Baghdad talk about that when they get them." At the US State Department today, spokesperson Sean McCormack stated he had not used the term "final draft" and he hasn't, he's called it "a text" nearly throughout. He also stated, "We believe that this is a good text. We wouldn't have had the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense making phone calls about this text if we didn't think it was a good text. So we'll see what the Iraqi comments are." And what of the puppet of the occupation? CBS and AP report Nouri "Al-Maliki wants his coalition Cabinet to sign off before sending it to parliament. Al-Maliki fears he could end up politically isolated if he pushes forward with the agreement without solid national backing."
In other US and Iraqi relations, on the topic of Iraqi Christians, Niraj Warikoo (Detroit Free Press) covers today's rally in support of Iraqi Christians "held by the Network of Iraqi-American Organizations and the Michigan Christians of Mosul Relief Committee. After the rally, some are to travel to Washington D.C. to express their concerns to U.S. government officials, members of Congress, and the Iraqi embassy." Assyrian International News Agency explains this evening's rally will be "at the Mother of God Chaldean Church Hall, 25585 Berg Road, Southfield, MI 48033. The rally will start at 5:30 PM." Philip Pullella (Reuters) reports, "The Vatican on Tuesday called on the Iraqi government and human rights groups to do more to protect Christians in Mosul, where half of the minority community has fled after attacks and threats.Pope Benedict's spokesman, the Reverend Federico Lombardi, told Reuters that the Vatican was asking itself if there was 'insufficient willingness' on the part of Iraqi authorities to protect Christians. 'We are extremely worried about what we are hearing from Iraq,' Lombardi said."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded four people and a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded five people.
Shootings?
CNN reports Mowaffak Merhi ("department director for Iraq's largest oil refinery") was shot dead in Shirqat today.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul and, dropping back to yesterday, 9 discovered in Latifiya.
In the US a vote on Iraq flares up like a club and lands on John Kerry's face. The US Senator was more than happy to back Barack Obama and to rip Hillary Clinton to shreds for voting for the 2002 authorization and now it's come back to bite him in the ass. Mike Underwood (Boston Herald) reports Kerry's Republican challenger Jeff Beatty declared in last night's debate that Kerry had "blood on his hands" and "You knew. You knew when you voted for that war that we didn't have what we needed for the war . . . and you didn't care because it was always about getting elected president. You have got blood on your hands." Kerry denied it but Underwood leaves out whether or not he did so before first checking his own hands.
In US presidential race news, Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney will appear Wednesday October 22nd on NPR's Talk of the Nation and Saturday October 25 on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday.
The Republican presidential nominee is John McCain and Sarah Palin is his running mate.
Matt Lira posts this to the McCain-Palin campaign blog:ICYMI: Chicago Superintendent Gives Obama An F The former head of the Chicago education system has spoken out against Barack Obama. The education foundation headed by Barack Obama "failed to monitor projects and funded school 'reform' groups that campaigned against boosting academic standards."Paul Vallas, who was the superintendent of the Chicago school system when Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Foundation, said "There was a total lack of accountability. If you went back and asked, you'd be hard-pressed to find out how the money was spent."Click here to read the full article.
McCain-Palin also note that Govenor Tim Pawlentry believes John McCain is ready to be president on day one, "John McCain is respected around the world because of his national security, military, and foreign affairs experience. The country is struggingly economically and in many other ways and we don't need the added pressure of some sort of invitation or tempation by others to see that kind of weakness. This is not coming from me or from somebody on our side, this is coming from his own vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, who repeatedly has suggested Barack Obama's not ready." Delilah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament) has the run down on Biden's statements (the sort called out in 2004 when Republicans made them during a presidential election).
And Ralph Nader and his running mate Matt Gonzalez released the following "Brief Statement on War, Education:"
The United States, through its various agencies and aid programs, touts itself as a leader in global humanitarian and educational assistance. A glance through USAID's FY 2008 Budget Appropriations report indeed reveals an extensive list of programs broken down by country to which our government is donating. But while the list may run long and cover a wide range of programs, the amount of cash this country sends overseas in assistance nowhere near matches the amount it spends to fight Bush's costly, illegal wars.At a rate of $14 million per hour, 24 hours per day, the US spends roughly the same amount of money occupying and destroying Iraq in one hour as it does annually to fund the three American universities in the Middle East (The American University of Beirut, The American University in Cairo, and The Lebanese American University).This demonstrates the folly of a foreign policy based on militarist interventionism as opposed to a foreign policy driven by true humanitarian principles. A humanitarian foreign policy is much less costly and much more effective in both the short and longterm, especially if more democracy is the goal at home and abroad.One can only imagine how much support and goodwill we would find around the world if we spent a significant fraction more overseas promoting education and knowledge rather than wasting hundreds of billions devastating and destabilizing entire countries, regions, and their peoples.To truly gain credibility and earn trust as a humanitarian superpower, the US must reverse its current foreign policy by immediately ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and ending all military aid and supplies to Israel used to brutalize its Arab neighbors. Instead, we need to use some of those funds to invest in education and help rebuild the nations we destroyed and the much larger amounts to rebuild the public works and infrastructure inside the United States. Good jobs are created in both places.
iraqthe telegraph of londondamien mcelroynbc nightly news
niraj warikoonbc nightly news
But CNN may take the prize the Liar Club Prize these days. Here's CNN 'quoting' Governor Sarah Palin's 'controversial' remark:
We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation.
And here's what Palin actually said:
We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe -- We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.
Yeah, they stripped out "the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C." to make it look like she said something insulting.
Now the thugs, goons and fools for Barack think he's going to win. Maybe he will. But the press didn't change.
The press still LIES and a large number of people who used to call it out stay silent or cheer them on because they want lies.
The same press that LIES FOR Barack today will lie against him tomorrow.
So when all the Cult of Barack members start whinging and crying about how mean the press is, tough f**king s**t. You should have been calling out the press for lying all along.
But it was too much for you, having ethics was too damn much for you.
I love the psy-ops operation the press has mounted against John McCain. It may confuse Republicans but Democrats who supported Hillary know how this works. They lie and then they lie some more and they say there's no way anyone can beat Barry and then it turns out they lied. They lied and then they lie again.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, October 21, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the Vatican has concerns, Ralph Nader gets broadcast-network attention, the treaty hits a bump, and more.
Starting with the US race for president, NBC Nighly News with Brian Williams featured a report on the independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader yesterday. Tonight Nightly News begins the first of two-nights inteviewing the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Ron Allen interviewed Nader at length for the report and the interview is available online at Nightly News. Below is a transcript.
Ron Allen: I think the first question everybody has is why do you keep doing this because it would seem you really don't have a chance of winning? So why do you keep pursuing this?
Ralph Nader: You have to keep justice on the front burner. The forces of injustice never take a vacation and the forces of justice can never take a vacation. So as long as I can go around the country putting the progressive agenda on the front table for people, giving voters a choice, I feel I have to do it.
Ron Allen: So what is winning? Is there a specific policy, a specific change of the process that in your mind, makes this worth it?
Ralph Nader: There are a lot of different definitions of winning. One of them is building for a future third political force that can really win an election. The second is bringing lots of people into local, state and national elections as candidates -- especially young people in the future. The third is to push the two parties -- a tugboat candidacy to either make them less worse or a little better which is a historic function of third parties.
Ron Allen: And do you think -- do you think -- is there a way to really measure what you've accomplished, do you think?
Ralph Nader: Oh we'll see. We're pressing for example for single payer health insurance. They're 93 members of the House who've signed on John Conyers HR 676 so let's say we get a good vote and we're trade marked by this agenda -- more people sign on, we think we've played a part.
Ron Allen: This time your signature issues seems to be the rescue package, the bail-out, your opposition to it. It's a consumer-ish issue which is in your wheelhouse. Do you think however -- the administration, the Congress seemed to insist that this was absolutely necessary to avert wider catastrophe -- do you think your message is getting through though?
Ralph Nader: Yes, because I think it was the wrong kind of bail-out. They shouldn't have bailed out first the speculators and the high-risk paper, you should have helped the prudent institutions and the prudent savers that developed a wall to protect them from the ruinous fall-out from Wall St. Second, I think that there should have been re-regulation because de-regulation opened the doors to this excessive speculation and most important the Congress should have made the speculators pay for their bail-out with a tiny tax, 1/10 of 1 percent of the security transactions that are traded every year. That would produce $500 million.
Ron Allen: Part of the rescue package -- without getting too much -- contains some of that, some of the broader principles that Obama and McCain and others argued for, seemed to contain some of that. That tax payers would be investors, that there would be a return on this. Is that not enough?
Ralph Nader: It wasn't thorough enough, it's too easily evaded in terms of the tax payer equity. For example, they weren't given any representation on the boards of directors and there was a cut-off below which they wouldn't have any equity and it was very complex and not really very enforceable. I think when it came to the $700 billion bail-out of Wall St., Washington had Wall St. over a barrel. They could have gotten anything in that bill because Wall St. wanted that $700 billion and, instead, Wall St. pushed Washington in the barrel and rolled it to a blank check. That's why I think Congress has got to revisit this issue.
Ron Allen: Now there's an issue where there was a lot of support for that point of view in the country as there have been for other ideas you have pushed. I hear both candidates, for example, talking about public works projects which you were talking about only a moment ago. Do you think that, having run for the office so long and been out there for so long and not increased your margin significantly, do you think that perhaps you're not the best messenger for your own cause now?
Ralph Nader: No, I think I am the best manager because it's very hard to be nationally known for any candidate unless you're a multi-billionaire. And I am nationally known, I have a track record, I have constituencies around the country which I have helped over the years so I thank I am the candidate for those positions.
Ron Allen: But some people would argue it's the ideas, it's the positions, it's not you. And I think that Obama and others have suggested that in their assessment of you, it's too much about you and it's not about the ideas. I think he said something to the effect that his sense was that if you don't agree with everything Nader stands for, he thinks less of you, he thinks you're not substantive. I think was the word he used.
Ralph Nader: Well let's put it this way. Take all our speeches -- my speeches, Senator Obama's, Senator McCain's -- and count the number of times they say "I" compared to the number of times I say "I" and I think that's your answer. I'm the least egotistical candidate probably in presidential history.
Ron Allen: Let's take them individually. Senator McCain, Governor Palin, what's wrong with them?
Ralph Nader: Well they're corporate candidates. Except for Governor Palin -- she did stand up to the oil companies. But if you look at Senator McCain's positions he is for restricting the rights to have their full day in court of wrongly injured people. That's tort reform, for example. He has consistently supported a bigger military budget. He is very militaristic towards certain countries in the world. He wants the idea of a hundred military bases around the world. He has a cockamamie health insurance plan that's not going to give sufficient health care to all the people in this country. And Governor Palin has fallen in line.
Ron Allen: What do you think of her?
Ralph Nader: Well I think that she has been mistreated. But I think that it was the fault of the Republicans because they introduced her to the American people not as a governor of a state, they introduced her as a soccer mom, they introduced her as having five children, NRA member, a hunter, a fisherman, and once you have that folksy image it's easy to prick the balloon and give the impression she's empty.
Ron Allen: Do you think she's qualified?
Ralph Nader: She's as qualified as any other presidential and vice presidential candidate. What do you have to be to be a member of the two parties and run for president? All you have to do is know how to read and write, get advisers and follow corporate orders.
Ron Allen: When you were talking about -- when you were talking about Senator Obama, you said prepare to be disappointed if he wins. What did you mean by that?
Ralph Nader: Because I think he is very receptive to corporate power and that's why he doesn't have a full Medicare plan for the American people, that's why he doesn't press for a real living wage, just to keep up with inflation on the minimum wage it would be $10 an hour instead it's $6.55 an hour. He doesn't have a platform to crack down on the corporate crime wave that the mainstream press keeps reporting. He doesn't have a program for the bottom 100 million poor Americans and that's just the beginning of what we're going to see of Senator Obama if he wins.
Ron Allen: And you were also in there railing against the mainstream media, us. Why do you think it is that you think you don't get a lot of coverage? Why is it that you don't get any coverage? I think the editors would say, as I think they've told you, you're not that relevant you're not going to win why should we spend the time devoting scarce resources at what you're doing?Ralph Nader: Because I think the media should be interested in a competitive democracy. I think they believe there should be a competitive economy. I think that without a competitive democracy, voter choices are narrowed and the voters that are their audience and one would think they would give more voices and choices in their own reporting other than the same routine daily, redundant, five-minute speeches by Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Reporters keep telling me how bored they are covering the presidential campaigns. Well, we can give them some excitement.
Ron Allen: And also listening to you, it sounds like, it sounds like for you it's not about, you don't seem to -- you're not telling your audiences 'we're going to win, we're going to go to the White House' Winning is a much different goal. You talked about some thirty-odd states where it's not going to be a contest, you can vote your conscience in other places. Have you gotten much more realistic about this?
Ralph Nader: Well I'm always realistic but I know that if you don't allow seeds to sprout, you'll never get plants or trees and if business doesn't allow entrepreneurs a chance, you're never going to rejuvenate the business community but somehow the press has bought into this two-party duopoly which is very exclusionary on presidential debates, on ballot access and this two party duopoly can't be regenerated unless small political starts have a chance to be heard by the American people and that means the mass media.
Ron Allen: And in terms of the two parties, there are still some people out there who -- you may never live this down -- as you know, there are many people who, there are people out there who still blame you for Al Gore's loss in Florida and in 2000 and therefore for the last eight years.
Ralph Nader: Well Al Gore doesn't blame the Green Party to his credit. He thinks he won the election -- which he did in the popular vote but the electoral college threw it into Florida and he can give you chapter and verse on how it was taken from him illicitly from Tallahassee all the way to the five Republican politicians on the Supreme Court who selected George W. Bush as president. But it's interesting that you raise this because I don't think the mass media can have it both ways. On the one hand they say, Nader-Gonzalez doesn't have a chance to win therefore don't cover them. On the other hand, they say well Nader-Gonzalez may be 'spoilers,' that bigoted political word, and tip the election by tipping some of the close states. Well, which is it?
Ron Allen: I think that was the case back in 2000. I don't think people think that's the case now.
Ralph Nader: Well because of recent polls but they thought that back in July.
Ron Allen: Do you think you're going to influence some of these battlegrounds? I've heard you suggest that Colorado, Nevada, places where you think you could in fact effect the outcome.
Ralph Nader: Well we want to get as many votes as we can so we're traveling and getting votes in all fifty states but if we are going to be able to be heard more by going into the close states and effecting the margins, we'll be very pleased to do it because our interests are the health, safety and economics well being of the American people not the plight of one party over another.
Ron Allen: But do you actually think, is there a state where you think that you are really going to have an impact at this point, just a few weeks -- couple of weeks -- before the election?
Ralph Nader: Well it could be Ohio but it's trending towards an Obama landslide so Ohio I suppose is close maybe Florida is still close. What else would there be?
Ron Allen: But again in states where you seem to be running the strongest, Colorado, Nevada,
Ralph Nader: Yes, in Colorado --
Ron Allen: Even if you don't effect the overall outcome, do you really think you're going to have an impact? Where do you think you're going to have the greatest impact?
Ralph Nader: Well I think the greatest impact will be where ever the media covers us the most and they'll probably cover us the most when we go into the small states. Assuming there isn't a landslide by then.
Ron Allen: Do you think -- how do you think the election is going to turn out?
Ralph Nader: Right now? If nothing happens in the next two weeks, I think it will be a big Democratic landslide for the Congress and probably 330 electoral votes for Barack Obama.
Ron Allen: And what's wrong with that?
Ralph Nader: Well one thing that is not wrong is that the Democrats will control the White House and the Congress with large minorities and they'll have no more excuses How many times have I gone up on Capitol Hill and said, "Why don't you strengthen the consumer protection laws and why don't you end these corporate subsidies? And why don't you get full health insurance and living wage?" And they always say well we can't get it through because Republicans will stop us. No more excuses. If there's a Democratic landslide we're going to put so much heat on Congress and the White House that they're going to have to move for the American people and stop succumbing to the demands of their corporate pay masters.
Ron Allen: And if there was one idea or one thing you would like to accomplish, of if there was one part of a platform or a policy proposal that McCain or Obama or the Democrats or Republicans were willing to adopt that would say, that would make Ralph Nader say "Okay, I'll stop running for president I'll join you" what would it be? What would have to happen for you not to do this?
Ralph Nader: Well that they take the populist positions that we have on our website VoteNader.org and --
Ron Allen: The whole thing?
Ralph Nader: They're very long overdue. Western Europe has most of them, out of the rubble of WWII full health insurance, living wage, decent pensions, four weeks paid vacation, university free tuition at public universities. The kind of elementary civilized benefits like paid maternity leave, paid family sick leave, decent day care, they've had these for years and we're the richest country in the world. Barack Obama and John McCain will not come out for these straight and clear.
Ron Allen: That sounds like a very socialistic position.
Ralph Nader: Well it's called a Social-Democratic position in Europe and basically to me it's just elementary humanity because if we really love our country we will have to love the people in our country and people who are poor or disabled or otherwise disadvantaged but work hard and want to play a role in our society and raise their children why can't we give them a lending hand?
Ron Allen: And lastly, why -- why is someone not wasting their vote if they vote for you?
Ralph Nader: Because they'll be voting for their conscience. They'll be voting for what a middle-aged man told me in Syracuse recently when he came up to me and he said, "I'm voting for myself, therefore I'm voting for Ralph Nader."
Ron Allen: Meaning?
Ralph Nader: Meaning -- meaning that for forty years I've demonstrated that I will not succumb to corporate power, I will not be tempted by corporate accouterments. I will stand for the people of this country from A to Z, I will stand for their just treatment by the powers that be whether they be in Wall Street or whether they be in Washington.
Ron Allen: And again what is -- when you look back on this campaign months from now what will -- what will have made it a success? What does it take to make this a success for you?
Ralph Nader: Well we're turning a corner on the violations of candidates' civil liberties by winning cases to break down the ballot access barriers in many states that deny voters a choice. These are Jim Crow type laws to keep candidates off the ballot and without candidate rights, voter rights aren't worth as much because voters won't have a choice. That's a clear trend that we are advancing. Number two, we keep alive a future progressive enlightenment in our country. All of the things that are so overdue that the American people need and deserve and are being denied because of the concentration of power and wealth in so few hands. Number three and the most gratifying for me is the young people who are volunteering, who are going to be the political leaders of the future, who are learning the skills of clean political activity.
Ron Allen: And do you still think that you can be an effective messenger for that cause, again, given the last number of years that you've run unsuccessfully, the criticism that you've endured, the fact that a significant number of people don't take you seriously you still think you can be an effective messenger?
Ralph Nader: Well I take the American people seriously and that's enough for me. But I remember the famous progressive writer I.F. Stone who once said that every social justice in this country started by people who lost and who lost and who lost but in the process of losing built more and more support for the breakthrough that made this a better country. So I am not afraid to keep losing and losing as long as we are expanding awareness and galvanizing energies of the American people for a better future.
Nightly News has the video of the report from last night as well as the interview Allen conducted with Nader (the latter is a "web only" feature). Warning, the clip will quickly feature the gutter trash of MSNBC including IDIOT Rachel Maddow -- the War Hawk Elaine caused to meltdown back in 2005. So Rachel The Dog Face Anchor likes to brag about her alleged big brain and yet the IDIOT has no idea that there's a difference between Socialism and Communism. (People, she's a dumb ass.) Ralph Nader has been blocked out by many outlets -- including the alleged public airwaves of PBS -- so when NBC Nightly News does a report on him, we will open the snapshot with it. It is big news.
Today US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke about the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. David Morgan (Reuters) reports that Gates declared, "I don't think you slam the door shut, but I would say it's pretty far closed." Meaning no more discussing the 'text' with those silly people who think they should have a say -- what do they think Iraq is, their own country? That really is the attitude and how much of that is genuine and how much of that is for-show (to attempt to make the Iraqis think it's a take-it-or-leave-it offer) no one knows but he used one of the oldest ploys, "Clearly, the clock is ticking." What has Gates so touchy? Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) explains, "The Iraqi cabinet Tuesday called for reopening negotiations over a draft agreement to keep U.S. forces in this country beyond 2008, in the most serious sign yet that the accord is in trouble." Sheridan notes that Michael Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "We are clearly running out of time." It's a mantra. Expect Condi Rice to next declare, "Tick-tick-tick." For the US administration, it all fell apart today with reports that Iraqis were not going to be easily bullied. Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) explained that, "in a sign that opposition is growing to a prolonged American presence, the largest political faction issued a statement demanding additonal revisions" in the treaty. And AFP reported that the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, is attempting to bully Iraq into approving the treaty and that "Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also charged that Iran was working hard to scuttle passage of the so-called Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA." Mullen's bluster betrays the calm the US State Dept attempted to project at yesterday's press briefing where deputy spokesperson Robert Wood attempted to act as if everything was fine and dandy and kept stressing the democratic process, refused to speculate on going to the United Nations to talk of possibly extending the mandate which expires December 31st and is the only legal framework that allows foreign forces on Iraqi soil. BBC notes Gates' foot stomping and that he "has warned of 'dramatic consequences'." Despite the threats, so far, Iraq isn't immediately buckling. CNN reports, "The Iraqi government has unanimously agreed that a security pact with the United States lacks "some necessary amendments," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Tuesday." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) puts it a little more bluntly, "The Iraqi Cabinet dealt a blow today to a draft agreement to allow US forces to stay in Iraq beyond the end of the year, demanding changes to the document to make it more acceptable. The nature of the amendments were not specified, but Iraqi MPs said there are concerns about the lack of a guaranteed date for US forces to withdraw. Another worry is whether Iraqi courts would in practice be able to try US soldiers who commit serious crimes. There are even gripes about differing interpretations in parts of the US and the Arabic versions of the draft accord." At the White House, spokesperson Dana Perino declared of the process, "Well, we knew it was going to take a little while to get this done. I think we feel pretty comfortable with the strategic framework agreement. That is a broader document; it talks about our relationship moving forward on the political and economic issues. The strategic -- I'm sorry, the status of forces agreement is a little bit more complicated. We knew that the Iraqis would have several steps to go through. I saw reports that they want to -- today, and the Council of Ministers have suggested that they want to see some changes. I don't think we have seen those yet. And I'll let the negotiators in Baghdad talk about that when they get them." At the US State Department today, spokesperson Sean McCormack stated he had not used the term "final draft" and he hasn't, he's called it "a text" nearly throughout. He also stated, "We believe that this is a good text. We wouldn't have had the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense making phone calls about this text if we didn't think it was a good text. So we'll see what the Iraqi comments are." And what of the puppet of the occupation? CBS and AP report Nouri "Al-Maliki wants his coalition Cabinet to sign off before sending it to parliament. Al-Maliki fears he could end up politically isolated if he pushes forward with the agreement without solid national backing."
In other US and Iraqi relations, on the topic of Iraqi Christians, Niraj Warikoo (Detroit Free Press) covers today's rally in support of Iraqi Christians "held by the Network of Iraqi-American Organizations and the Michigan Christians of Mosul Relief Committee. After the rally, some are to travel to Washington D.C. to express their concerns to U.S. government officials, members of Congress, and the Iraqi embassy." Assyrian International News Agency explains this evening's rally will be "at the Mother of God Chaldean Church Hall, 25585 Berg Road, Southfield, MI 48033. The rally will start at 5:30 PM." Philip Pullella (Reuters) reports, "The Vatican on Tuesday called on the Iraqi government and human rights groups to do more to protect Christians in Mosul, where half of the minority community has fled after attacks and threats.Pope Benedict's spokesman, the Reverend Federico Lombardi, told Reuters that the Vatican was asking itself if there was 'insufficient willingness' on the part of Iraqi authorities to protect Christians. 'We are extremely worried about what we are hearing from Iraq,' Lombardi said."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded four people and a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded five people.
Shootings?
CNN reports Mowaffak Merhi ("department director for Iraq's largest oil refinery") was shot dead in Shirqat today.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul and, dropping back to yesterday, 9 discovered in Latifiya.
In the US a vote on Iraq flares up like a club and lands on John Kerry's face. The US Senator was more than happy to back Barack Obama and to rip Hillary Clinton to shreds for voting for the 2002 authorization and now it's come back to bite him in the ass. Mike Underwood (Boston Herald) reports Kerry's Republican challenger Jeff Beatty declared in last night's debate that Kerry had "blood on his hands" and "You knew. You knew when you voted for that war that we didn't have what we needed for the war . . . and you didn't care because it was always about getting elected president. You have got blood on your hands." Kerry denied it but Underwood leaves out whether or not he did so before first checking his own hands.
In US presidential race news, Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney will appear Wednesday October 22nd on NPR's Talk of the Nation and Saturday October 25 on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday.
The Republican presidential nominee is John McCain and Sarah Palin is his running mate.
Matt Lira posts this to the McCain-Palin campaign blog:ICYMI: Chicago Superintendent Gives Obama An F The former head of the Chicago education system has spoken out against Barack Obama. The education foundation headed by Barack Obama "failed to monitor projects and funded school 'reform' groups that campaigned against boosting academic standards."Paul Vallas, who was the superintendent of the Chicago school system when Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Foundation, said "There was a total lack of accountability. If you went back and asked, you'd be hard-pressed to find out how the money was spent."Click here to read the full article.
McCain-Palin also note that Govenor Tim Pawlentry believes John McCain is ready to be president on day one, "John McCain is respected around the world because of his national security, military, and foreign affairs experience. The country is struggingly economically and in many other ways and we don't need the added pressure of some sort of invitation or tempation by others to see that kind of weakness. This is not coming from me or from somebody on our side, this is coming from his own vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, who repeatedly has suggested Barack Obama's not ready." Delilah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament) has the run down on Biden's statements (the sort called out in 2004 when Republicans made them during a presidential election).
And Ralph Nader and his running mate Matt Gonzalez released the following "Brief Statement on War, Education:"
The United States, through its various agencies and aid programs, touts itself as a leader in global humanitarian and educational assistance. A glance through USAID's FY 2008 Budget Appropriations report indeed reveals an extensive list of programs broken down by country to which our government is donating. But while the list may run long and cover a wide range of programs, the amount of cash this country sends overseas in assistance nowhere near matches the amount it spends to fight Bush's costly, illegal wars.At a rate of $14 million per hour, 24 hours per day, the US spends roughly the same amount of money occupying and destroying Iraq in one hour as it does annually to fund the three American universities in the Middle East (The American University of Beirut, The American University in Cairo, and The Lebanese American University).This demonstrates the folly of a foreign policy based on militarist interventionism as opposed to a foreign policy driven by true humanitarian principles. A humanitarian foreign policy is much less costly and much more effective in both the short and longterm, especially if more democracy is the goal at home and abroad.One can only imagine how much support and goodwill we would find around the world if we spent a significant fraction more overseas promoting education and knowledge rather than wasting hundreds of billions devastating and destabilizing entire countries, regions, and their peoples.To truly gain credibility and earn trust as a humanitarian superpower, the US must reverse its current foreign policy by immediately ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and ending all military aid and supplies to Israel used to brutalize its Arab neighbors. Instead, we need to use some of those funds to invest in education and help rebuild the nations we destroyed and the much larger amounts to rebuild the public works and infrastructure inside the United States. Good jobs are created in both places.
iraqthe telegraph of londondamien mcelroynbc nightly news
niraj warikoonbc nightly news
Monday, October 20, 2008
Isaiah, Dashboard, Third
Monday, Monday. Need to get the week started off right? Here's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack's Wipings"
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
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,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
Now the good news is that Dona stopped smoking. But, as she will tell you, she would have picked another day to quit if she'd thought about it in depth.
I'm happy for her and had no idea that it was like that to quit. Betty made her laugh by saying something about, "Now, now, you've seen Diana Ross kick the junk in Lady Sings The Blues." :D
That may have been the only time Dona laughed. She was extremely tense and freaking out. She usually keeps us all focused (among other things) and the whole edition fell apart. Jim really thinks this was a lousy line up.
Truest statement of the week -- Joe Cannon got one truest.
Truest statement of the week II -- a Corrente guy got a truest.
Truest statement of the week III -- And I got a truest. Thank you to C.I.
A note to our readers -- This is Jim's note plus C.I. adding to it today to note that I should have been a truest but someone dropped the ball so C.I. was fixing it. I appreciate that. I knew C.I. was going to push for me to be a truest but I didn't push and Ava, Jess and C.I. had to attend a party so they joined the writing edition very late (and after drinking a huge amount of booze).
The Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-whore movement (Ava & C.I... -- This is the editorial. Ava and C.I. have worked on every edition. They are the only ones who can claim that. (Not even Dallas can claim that, I checked with him to be sure.) So Saturday/Sunday they were supposed to get a break. They'd just write their TV commentary and that would be it. They had to go to a big party which they did. They got back at two in the morning there (five where I was). They were buzzed (I don't think they were drunk -- and they were in a limo so it wasn't a problem being buzzed or drunk) when they came in. Jim immediately filled them in on what was going on. They said a few unprintables then Jess said he'd look at what we had so far and Ava and C.I. rushed off to do their TV piece. When they finished it, it was really just Jim, Rebecca, Wally, Cedric and me plus Jess, Ava and C.I. I mean the edition was a bust. Jim begged them to do an editiorial and they said no. He begged some more and they finally agreed. But no Nader, no McKinney. They didn't have time to hunt things down. Jim said, "Great I'll make coffee. " They said, "Don't bother" and popped open some beers. (I'm not joking.) They came up with this and Jim read it to us immediately. He hadn't even read their TV thing to us because there wasn't time. But because this would be the editorial, he wanted to get feedback. We all loved this.
TV: The fakes -- I loved this when I read it. This is Ava and C.I. doing the only piece they were supposed to do. This is pretty amazing and Jim pulled a section from it to turn into a feature article. We worked and worked on that and couldn't pull it off. Jim pointed out he should have just left it alone. I don't know where it got pulled out so I just enjoy this as is.
Urban Guerilla warfare -- This was Jess or C.I. thinking of a short feature.
Movie quotes -- I think Jim was yelling, "We need something we can post!" I'm not joking about yelling. The piece I mentioned above, that had us pulling from Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary was a huge failure. So we were desperate. Jim, Jess and I came up with this idea and with Rebecca, Cedric and Wally we came up with this. If we had more time, we would have made the first quote the last because it probably is the most difficult.
Remember New Hampshire! -- Ava and C.I. did internsive editing on this and another piece (the next one). But it was actually three pieces. They really reworked it and saved the sections that worked and beefed them up. But the three pieces became two. This one really is good. I really enjoy what they did here and what we did here.
We chose our side and we're sticking -- They could have made this go in with the feature above but they really thought they could talk Jim into making this the editorial. That didn't happen but it does work as an article.
CBS try something different -- Jim edited this and will tell you it's nothing like what any of us had hoped.
Highlights -- Rebecca, Cedric, Wally, Marcia, Ruth, Kat, Elaine and I wrote this and it looks like I left someone out. If so it's not intentional.
Kat's friend Maggie sent in the recipe Ma highlighted in Saturday's "Mushroom Green Beans in the Kitchen" so be sure to check it out. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, October 20, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, the treaty hits a snag, Ralph Nader goes on NBC Nightly News this evening, and more.
The targeting of Iraqi Christians continues and today the Los Angeles Times becomes the first major daily to strongly call it out noting that over 1300 Iraqi Christians have been displaced from Mosul as a result of the attacks: "But that is only the latest exodus of Christians from Mosul, which served as a refuge for those driven out of Baghdad, and from Iraq as a whole. A Chaldean Catholic archbishop has warned that Christians in his country face 'liquidation.' In opposing the invasion of Iraq, the late Pope John Paul II was motivated primarily by a concern about the carnage on all sides that a war would produce; but he also had reason to worry about the fate of Iraqi Christians once Saddam Hussein was deposed. Despite his crimes, Hussein offered protection for Christians against militant Muslims. The religious cleansing of Christians in Iraq is part of a larger pattern in which a faith with origins in the Middle East is being driven out of its native region." NPR's Corey Flintoff (Weekend Edition) reported on "the climate fear" for the refugees who've been displaced and among the refugees she interviewed was a woman with a young child who explained, "Mosul is a very dangerous city. I can hardly describe the condition there. . . . He [her son] is always afriad, even when he goes to school, he is very afraid." Missy Ryan (Reuters) reported yesterday on how the US commanders continue to insist the Iraqi Christians are being targeted by al Qaeda in Iraq while "other U.S. officials are less certain whom to blame, and describe a host of potentially destabilizing forces at play in a tense region ruled by a weak, minority provincial government." Ryan speaks with a man who fled with his wife and two daughters and told her, "The explosions continue. There is no safety." At this point, no one knows who is responsible and the central government in Baghdad has publicly scoffed at the idea that it is al Qaeda in Iraq. Today IRIN explores some of the possibilities and spoke with a priest who offered, "We have been targeted since 2003 by extremists but I can't explain the latest events which I believe are politically-motivated." IRIN reminds, "Parliament recently abolished the quota system in future local council elections in six of Iraq's 18 provinces, meaning that these local bodies will not be able to have specially reserved seats for ethnic and religious minorities. The reason for the decision was the lack of census data on the numbers of Christians, Yazidis and followers of other religions in specific areas." That's referring to Article 50 which guaranteed religious minorities representation but was removed when the Iraqi Parliament passed their bill for provincial elections.
Sunday Naharnet Newsdesk reported that Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Saniora expressed over the phone to Iraqi President Jalal Talabania, "The Lebanese people back all efforts exerted by the Iraqi government to safeguard the social fabric of the state of Iraq. Christians in Iraq, as in any other Arab state, are an integral component of the national fabric." Also yesterday, AP noted a demonstration in support of Iraqi Christians in Kirkuk today that had a turnout of at least 200 demonstrators (carrying banners such as the one that read "Stop the genocide against Christians") and "was organized by Kurdish groups". AP puts the number of Iraqi Christians who have fled Mosul in the last two weeks at 10,000. Today Naharnet Newsdesk explained that the Lebanese Forces Party "pleaded with Iraqi officials to adopt speedy measures capable of halting crimes committed against Christians".
On the SOFA masquerading as a treaty, Friday's snapshot included, " Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reminds that what's being talked about now is a draft and explains the process for Iraq: "presented today to Iraq's political and national security council, which is made up of top government officials and the leaders of major political groups. If it survives challenges there and among other government ministers, it will move to the Council of Representatives, or parliament, where Maliki has pledged to put it to an up-or-down vote. Far less controversial matters have taken months to move through the Iraqi legislative provess, if they moved at all." DeYoung also noted that the 2011 'withdrawal' of US forces is "aspirational." Would that all who followed over the weekend could have grasped and mastered the facts as well. But of course, some could not. Moving to the more reliable reporting, "No, No, to America! No, No, to the devil!" Al Jazeera reports protestors chanted in Baghdad Saturday in a demonstration against the proposed treaty between the White House and puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki. The protesters were followers of Moqtada al-Sadr and they want the US out of their country now and they want the treaty rejected. A message from al-Sadr read to the crowd also called for the treaty to be rejected. Iraqi analyst Abudllhay Yahya Zalloum explained that there was also Christian and Sunni opposition to the "so-called security pact" with a declartion from Sunnis "that it is against Islam to have any security pact with the United States" and "We have to realise that, firstly, the United States came uninvited and, secondly, this so-called draft has been negotiated while 150,000 American troops plus contractors, 50,000 of them at least, are still in Iraq. Thirdly, it is a government that was actually chosen by the Americans, therefore when you have a country under occupation with pseudo-indepence, you don't expect that the terms would be to the best interests of Iraq." Hussein Kadhim and Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) quoted chants of "No, no to the occupier" at the demonstration and quoted Shi'ite Jabar Kareem stating, "We want the occupier to leave without conditions. All Iraqi people reject this treaty."
The public demonstrations weren't the only objections. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) explained Sunday that, "Quietly, some parliamentary leaders suggested that they, too, were not comfortable with the agreement even though some of them had been involved in negotiating it. At a Friday night meeting with the leaders of the political blocs in Parliament, there were no clear statements of support except from the Kurds, who strongly backed the pact." Peter Graff and Mariam Karouny (Reuters) reported that the first attempt at consolidated support on Sunday failed with only support from the Kurdish faction. When that happened, though it's not pointed out in the bulk of the coverage, that meant even al-Maliki's own Shi'ite backers were not supporting the treaty. One of the sticky points was over US immunity which the Shi'ites raised. How serious was the upset? Gemma Daley (Bloomberg News) reported Nouri al-Maliki's planned and announced trip to Australia Tuesday has now been placed on hold. Alissa J. Rubin and Suadad al-Salhy (New York Times) explain today that Nouri al-Maliki's adviser Sami al-Askeri "said that two provisions particularly worried the Iraqis. The first is an option that would allow the Iraqi government to extend the American presence beyond 2011 if the government decided it wanted the soldiers to stay. The Iraqis woory that the Americans might press a new Iraqi government to extend the American presence. The second is a provision setting up a committee that would review suspected crimes of soldiers and determine if they should be referred to Iraqi courts." Because the Post got it right last week about the 'withdrawal date' being "aspirational," they don't have to play catch up today and instead Mary Beth Sheridan and Ernesto Londono explain, "The change sought by the influential United Iraqi Alliance would harden the withdrawal date for U.S. troops. A draft bilateral agreement completed this week would require American forces to leave by December 2011 but would allow for an extension by mutual agreement." Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) do their best to track the 'process' (the process is meandering away from what it's supposed to be), "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki had emphasized that the agreement should be debated by the Political Council for National Security before being sent to the Cabinet for approval. The council met Sunday night, but the meeting ended with neither the main Shiite Muslim nor Sunni Arab factions endorsing the pact. Nonetheless, it was decided that discussions would begin Tuesday before the country's Cabinet, the final stop before a vote in parliament. Further muddying the waters, one senior official, Nasser Ani, the chief of staff of Iraq's presidency council, said the council would continue to review the text." As for the immunity clause, CNN interprets it: "U.S. troops or contractors who commit "major and premeditated murders" in Iraq while off-duty and outside U.S. facilities would fall under Iraqi jurisdiction, according to a copy of a draft U.S.-Iraq agreement obtained by CNN. All other crimes -- including murders committed inside U.S. facilities or by on-duty forces -- would fall under American jurisdiction, according to the draft, which would govern U.S. troops' presence in Iraq."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left seven wounded while two others wounded six people, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded six family members.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 civilian shot dead by Iraqi police in Diyala Province, 3 "gunmen" shot dead by police in Diyala, 2 suspected members of al Qaeda shot dead in Diyala, 1 "member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party" shot dead in Mosul and 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse discovered in Diyala Province.
Aws Qusay (Reuters) notes, "A U.S. marine died in a non-combat related incident at the al Asad base in the western province of Anbar, the military said in a statement without giving further details on the incident." The announcement brings to 4186 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
Turning to the US race for president. Barck Obama is the Democratic presidential candidate. Sarah Palin is the Republican presidential candidate. Mark Mooney (ABC News) belongs to the Eternal Clueless (he's not lying, he just doesn't know better): "The ABC News/Washington Post poll found that the constant barrage of attacks is hurting McCain, particularly when he targeted Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a founder of the 1960s radical anti-war group the Weather Underground." No, that's not what the poll is showing. The William Ayers issue? Mooney doesn't even grasp it. "Anti-war"? Thai Jones, A Radical Line: From the Labor Movement to the Weather Underground, One Family's Century of Conscience, pp. 215:
He had an explicit political goal, and a congressional report described it accurately when it referred to Weatherman's "intention to build a small, tough, paramilitary organization designed to carry out urban guerilla warfare to bring about the revolution."
Thai Jones (who wrote an amazing book) is not attacking Weather (he is not anti-Weather), he's noting reality -- in the book he's telling his family story -- his parents are Weather members Eleanor Stein and Jeff Jones. In 2005, he told Shaina Fineberg (The Brooklyn Rail), "But the Weather Underground are despised by the right and the liberal left. They were seen as a slap in the face to the mainstream left. They were the far left group on the spectrum. They were openly dismissive of people whose commitment level was not the same as theirs. They felt that if you're not going to die for the cause, you're just wasiting your time. They were very combative: Going to peace marches and pulling anti-war signs from grandmother's hands. But it is important to remember that the Weather Underground is just one of thousands of groups. Their PR maching was better -- so people remember them still." But their goal was not ending the illegal war. That had been a goal in SDS and in the early days of Weatherman. Weather Underground saw itself as bringing about and leading an armed class struggle in the United States which would result in many deaths and this is where Bernardine Dorhn (leader of Weather) first begins referring to herself with the phrase "oven Jew." The 'left' today is so eager to elect to Barack (enshrine?) that they allow Weather to be distorted yet again. Sadly, we have no left historians -- despite various pretenders to the role -- who will step up and correct the falsehoods. Michael Falcone (New York Times) notes the Christian Broadcasting Network's interview with Palin to air on the 700 Club tomorrow. We'll note this section (CBN link has text and video) which is Palin responding to David Brody's question of whether she'd hesitate to use "palling around with terrorists" again to describe Barack and Bill Ayers: "No I would say it again, I would say it again because again it, it, according to the information that we have, the association that he's had with Bill Ayers wasn't just one or two time sitting on a board together where, No, there's been quite a few associations and events and meetings and discussion and emails and calls and to not disavow that too, I think is troubling." As for McCain being 'hurt' by any of this -- what is this load of crap? Every other day Barack's King, God and Lord Supreme. If McCain's hurting himself as badly as the press keeps insisting, why is the race still a dead-heat? Why can't the Christ-child pull it out in this alleged year for any Democrat? Whether it's Ayers or Palin, it hasn't hurt McCain in the least and has provided very real excitement for his campaign. And it's why Catty Barack can't stop sniping at Sarah Palin such as here: "And you know, you really have to work hard to violate Governor Palin's standards on negative campaigning. You gotta work hard." Palin does know about working hard. Barack? It's hard work to keep those nails so spiffy. Say Anything Barack is caught by Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller (ABC News Political Punch) in Tampa telling the Rays he's backing them ("I was going to cut my hair in a Mohawk in solidarity, but my political advisors said they weren't sure how that was going to play with swing voters.") while "earlier this month in Philadelphia -- in another battleground state, Pennsylvania -- he said that since 'my White Sox are gone . . . I'll go ahead and root for the Phillies now'."
While Barack roots for anyone who will vote for him, Colin "The Blot" Powell always sets his own end up so be very scared when the man who lied to sell the illegal war endorses Barack Obama's run for the presidency. No word on whether or not other War Criminals, past or present, will come forward to make endorsements. But Powell made his endorsement on NBC's Meet The Press yesterday -- link has video. For transcript of the segment, you have to go to CNN ("Reporter" in the CNN transcript is Tom Brokaw). Collie Powell declared of his Iraq War Crimes, "I'm well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn't get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I've never blinked from that. I've never said I didn't support a decision to go to war." Huh? Let's go back to 20/20 on ABC Sept. 9, 2005 where Barbara Walters reminded Collie, "However, you gave the world false, groundless reasons for going to war. You've said, and I quote, 'I will forever be known as the one who made the case for war.' Do you think this blot on your record will stay with you for the rest of your life?"
Powell: Well it's a, it's a, of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United Nations, uh, United States, to the world. And it will always be uh, part of my, uh, my record. Walters: How painful is it? Powell: (shrugs) It was -- it was painful. (shifts, shrugs) It's painful now.
Apparently it was a temporary pain because he's all over it and back to lying again. He claimed on NBC yesterday that his rol in the Iraq War was "very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war." LIAR. Damn and damnable LIAR. Collie wanted to get a little sympathy three years ago and try to save his image so he pretended he was haunted by his lies to the UN (if nothing else). Yesterday, he's back to singing his own praises and 'goodness.' It was a sort of 24-hour-viral, mini-mea-culpa. Joe Mowrey (Dissident Voice) provides more 'great' moments in Collie Powell history:
Powell is the guy who, as a bright young 31 year old Army Major, did his level best to keep information about the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam from becoming public. Specifically, he was charged with investigating a letter from a whistle-blowing soldier giving detailed accounts of many of the atrocities committed by U.S. military personnel in Vietnam under the auspices of the Phoenix Program. That program was a lovely little package of war crimes intended to "identify and neutralize (via infiltration, capture, or murder) the civilian infrastructure supporting the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (the Viet Cong)." In other words, it was a U.S. and South Vietnamese death squad operation which rampaged through the country side slaughtering civilians and burning down entire villages. You know, capturing the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. Powell summed up his investigation of the whistle-blower's accusations by saying, "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."
Well that's enough for me. If Powell endorsed the rousing success of the Phoenix Program, what more do we need to know? Queried about his participation in the attempted white wash of My Lai, some 40 years later Powell said, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again..." Personally, I think he sounds really sorry. And he's seems to be bashing Republicans these days, so I like him a lot.
[. . .]
And while we're at it, let's catalog of few of Barack Obama's progressive qualifications to be next President of the United States of Imperialism. Well first, there's his adamant condemnation of the war in Iraq. Why, he was against it from the very start. Of course, that hasn't prevented him from voting continually to fund the Occupation. But hey, he has to get elected before he can implement all his wonderful changey policies, right? You know, like maintaining a presence of 50,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq, along with a dozen or so permanent military bases and the world's largest foreign embassy. Then there is his pledge to escalate the "good war" in Afghanistan. We've only killed about 10,000 or so innocent civilians there in the last few years. I won't feel safe until we can push those numbers much higher. And Pakistan? Sending robot drones out to drop bombs on people is my kind of progressive war. Obama has assured us he'll continue that policy and actually increase the number of illegal violations of that country's sovereignty. Right on.
Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports Governor Palin is currently the most accessible to the traveling press, "In the past two days alone, Palin has answered questions from her national press corps on three separate occasions. On Saturday, she held another plane availability, and on Sunday, she offered an impromptu press conference on the tarmac upon landing in Colorado Springs. A few minutes later, she answered even more questions from reporters during an off-the-record stop at a local ice cream shop. By contrast, Biden hasn't held a press conference in more than a month, and Obama hasn't taken questions from his full traveling press corps since the end of September. John McCain--who spent most of the primary season holding what seemed like one, never-ending media availability--hasn't done one since Sept. 23." Meanwhile Ruben Navarrette Jr. (Pajamas Media) observes of the current climate between the two major parties, "It seems like just yesterday that the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy was talking about income equality and civil rights and worker protections and going to bat for the little guy, the blue collar laborer, the everyday Joe the Plumber. Now, the well-to-do elites who run the Democratic Party -- and their surrogates -- greet these people with brickbats. They insult them, talk down to them, and even try to destroy them. Isn't that the sort of war on the working class that Democrats are always accusing those greedy and heartless Republicans of waging?" Navarette is now with the San Diego Union Tribune and has been with many other papers (including the Dallas Morning News). A friend asked for that link and reminds that Ava and I were supposed to cover a documentary that Navarette appeared in. We haven't forgotten and we'll attempt to do so on Sunday.
Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney will appear Wednesday October 22nd on NPR's Talk of the Nation and Saturday October 25 on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday. The Indigenist Intelligence Review explains of Cynthia:
She sees tribal sovereignty, treaty obligations, and religious and cultural preservation as intertwined. The U.S. government has "selective amnesia" and never intended to honor the treaties, but it is obligated to do so without question, McKinney said, and also to adequately fund programs for the betterment of American Indians and affirm their religious rights. "How can a people survive, let alone thrive, absent their religion, spirituality, culture, language and sense of place? I support and strongly encourage religious and cultural preservation in Indian country and urge protection of sacred sites, whichever side of the map boundary they fall upon." On IHS funding, McKinney said that the Green Party's call for universal single-payer health care would provide medical, mental and dental benefits to everyone within the United States, including Native women and veterans. She also embraces traditional indigenous medicine and healing. "Health care needs to be treated as a human right and removed from the economic gaming field. Until such time as indigenous peoples are covered under such a policy, we Greens support generous IHS funding, including recognition of both Western and non-Western methods of healing. Western medicine deals quite well with trauma, but has much to learn from 'energetic/spiritual' traditional methods recognizing the implicit agreement between seen and unseen aspects of reality." McKinney said that the rampant substance abuse on reservations is part and parcel of a legacy of oppression and dispossession. "It offers the hollow promise of filling the void left by cultural obliteration. The sacred has been replaced by the profane. 'Treaty' dictates have enforced a substantial and abrupt end to traditional lifeways. For all of these reasons, it is incumbent upon the U.S. government to support IHS."
Ralph Nader is in the independent presidential candidate. His running mate is Matt Gonzalez. Team Nader's Toby Heaps explains how much easier it is to book Ralph on British television than on American airwaves:
Nightline vs BBC: No wonder Ted Koppel voted with his feet
Ralph is going to be on BBC's version of Nightline, which now employs Ted Koppel. Ralph said the international media were showing up the US media. So I tried booking him on Nightline again and a senior producer at the show said 'no thanks.'
I asked him if he had covered the main two candidates. He said 'yes.'
I asked why he didn't cover the guy polling in third place. He smugly said: 'We tend to profile the people who have the greatest chance of winning.'
I asked him if he felt there might be a catch-22. He said with a chuckle, 'You think he would win if we put him on the program.'
I can see why Ted Koppel moved over to BBC.
But Ralph will be on NBC Nightly News this evening:
Ralph Nader is at 5 percent in The Show Me State -- Missouri.
And he's moving on up.
That's according to the most recent CNN/Time Missouri poll.
The poll shows Nader at 5 percent last week, up from 3 percent at the end of September.
We believe that this shows that with just a little bit of visibility -- we have an active Nader/Gonzalez group in Missouri -- Ralph will move up in the polls.
That's why we're encouraging all of our supporters in Missouri and around the country to buy and wear -- during the last days of the campaign -- our hot selling heavy duty 100 percent cotton Nader '08 Buffalo T-Shirts (men's or women's).
(Pictured here -- Nader/Gonzalez road warrior Matt Zawisky and the Obama Girl, both wearing Nader 08 Buffalo T-Shirts in front of our favorite mascot in downtown DC last month.)
We sold out of our first stash of 600 in less than 24 hours this weekend.
So we ordered another 1,000.
And in less than 12 hours, we've sold over 250.
There are only 750 left.
At our current sale rate, we'll be sold out by Thursday night.
So if you don't have one yet, buy one now (men's or women's), before it's too late.
And wear it with pride.
At $30 a shirt (men's or women's), it's a deal.
If you have one already, buy one for a friend, relative or colleague (man or woman).
In case you haven't heard yet, Ralph will be profiled on the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams tonight.
Hope you get a chance to watch.
And just for fun, check out our spooky Nader/Gonzalez Halloween video.
We're firing on all cylinders.
Mainstream media.
On the ground get out the vote drive.
Nader/Gonzalez videos.
And Nader Buffalo T-Shirt drive.
It's a sprint to the finish line.
Onward to November.
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
ruths report
sickofitradlz
iraqthe new york timesalissa j. rubinsuadad al-salhy
the washington postmary beth sheridanernesto londono
the los angeles timesned parkersaif hameed
scott conroycbs news
nprweekend editioncorey flintoffsahar issamcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
corinne reilly
karen deyoung
Saturday, Kat's "Blah and music" noted a topic for me. "Interview with C.I." went up here Saturday morning (I started typing it Friday night which is why the time stamp says Friday) and I wanted to get something posted Saturday and also wanted to use some of it as my column for Polly's Brew. So I had told Kat about the sections I wanted to use and one had to do with music. (I was getting Kat's feedback on whether those would make for a good column.) And one of the things C.I. and I talked about is that The Poison Tree CD by Dashboard Confessional is one that I liked the music and only the music too. I wasn't thrilled at all with the lyrics. But the CD has grown on me and so that was a topic I wanted to include and C.I. and I ended up talking music forever.
And tonight, Elaine asked if we could just listen to music. She's so not into the election. I feel her. So I asked her what she wanted to listen to and she said anything. So I'm going through all of her CDs (she's a big collector) and I find Dashboard Confessional's MTV Unplugged v 2.0. It's still wrapped which Elaine says means it was a gift (probably from C.I.). If she buys a CD, she takes it out of the plastic CD wrapping immediately. But, point, I've been trying to find that CD. I lost mine when I moved. I probably didn't pack it. Or I may have put it on top of the car or something. This is my favorite Dashboard CD. And I was waiting to pack it because I always listen to it. So I lose it back in August and I have looked and looked for it. At used CD stores, at bookstores (not a lot of CD stores left anymore, if you didn't notice). I was looking again Friday. I could not find the thing. Needless to say, that's what Elaine and I listened to tonight. :D
She likes Dashboard -- and her listening to The Poison Tree is the only reason I've continued to -- so that was pretty cool. If you wanted a starter for Dashboard Confessional, the MTV CD would probably be your best move because you get the hits and you also get a DVD with the concert. It's weird to look at the titles because I really don't know the titles for the most part. I know the lyrics and can sing along from the first note but most of the songs don't seem to have the title in the chorus and I really just make up my own titles. :D "On The Way Home" is my madeup title for track five which is one of my favorite Dashboard songs.
Okay, moving over to Third. Along with Dallas, the following helped write the edition:
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,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
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,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
Now the good news is that Dona stopped smoking. But, as she will tell you, she would have picked another day to quit if she'd thought about it in depth.
I'm happy for her and had no idea that it was like that to quit. Betty made her laugh by saying something about, "Now, now, you've seen Diana Ross kick the junk in Lady Sings The Blues." :D
That may have been the only time Dona laughed. She was extremely tense and freaking out. She usually keeps us all focused (among other things) and the whole edition fell apart. Jim really thinks this was a lousy line up.
Truest statement of the week -- Joe Cannon got one truest.
Truest statement of the week II -- a Corrente guy got a truest.
Truest statement of the week III -- And I got a truest. Thank you to C.I.
A note to our readers -- This is Jim's note plus C.I. adding to it today to note that I should have been a truest but someone dropped the ball so C.I. was fixing it. I appreciate that. I knew C.I. was going to push for me to be a truest but I didn't push and Ava, Jess and C.I. had to attend a party so they joined the writing edition very late (and after drinking a huge amount of booze).
The Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-whore movement (Ava & C.I... -- This is the editorial. Ava and C.I. have worked on every edition. They are the only ones who can claim that. (Not even Dallas can claim that, I checked with him to be sure.) So Saturday/Sunday they were supposed to get a break. They'd just write their TV commentary and that would be it. They had to go to a big party which they did. They got back at two in the morning there (five where I was). They were buzzed (I don't think they were drunk -- and they were in a limo so it wasn't a problem being buzzed or drunk) when they came in. Jim immediately filled them in on what was going on. They said a few unprintables then Jess said he'd look at what we had so far and Ava and C.I. rushed off to do their TV piece. When they finished it, it was really just Jim, Rebecca, Wally, Cedric and me plus Jess, Ava and C.I. I mean the edition was a bust. Jim begged them to do an editiorial and they said no. He begged some more and they finally agreed. But no Nader, no McKinney. They didn't have time to hunt things down. Jim said, "Great I'll make coffee. " They said, "Don't bother" and popped open some beers. (I'm not joking.) They came up with this and Jim read it to us immediately. He hadn't even read their TV thing to us because there wasn't time. But because this would be the editorial, he wanted to get feedback. We all loved this.
TV: The fakes -- I loved this when I read it. This is Ava and C.I. doing the only piece they were supposed to do. This is pretty amazing and Jim pulled a section from it to turn into a feature article. We worked and worked on that and couldn't pull it off. Jim pointed out he should have just left it alone. I don't know where it got pulled out so I just enjoy this as is.
Urban Guerilla warfare -- This was Jess or C.I. thinking of a short feature.
Movie quotes -- I think Jim was yelling, "We need something we can post!" I'm not joking about yelling. The piece I mentioned above, that had us pulling from Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary was a huge failure. So we were desperate. Jim, Jess and I came up with this idea and with Rebecca, Cedric and Wally we came up with this. If we had more time, we would have made the first quote the last because it probably is the most difficult.
Remember New Hampshire! -- Ava and C.I. did internsive editing on this and another piece (the next one). But it was actually three pieces. They really reworked it and saved the sections that worked and beefed them up. But the three pieces became two. This one really is good. I really enjoy what they did here and what we did here.
We chose our side and we're sticking -- They could have made this go in with the feature above but they really thought they could talk Jim into making this the editorial. That didn't happen but it does work as an article.
CBS try something different -- Jim edited this and will tell you it's nothing like what any of us had hoped.
Highlights -- Rebecca, Cedric, Wally, Marcia, Ruth, Kat, Elaine and I wrote this and it looks like I left someone out. If so it's not intentional.
Kat's friend Maggie sent in the recipe Ma highlighted in Saturday's "Mushroom Green Beans in the Kitchen" so be sure to check it out. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, October 20, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, the treaty hits a snag, Ralph Nader goes on NBC Nightly News this evening, and more.
The targeting of Iraqi Christians continues and today the Los Angeles Times becomes the first major daily to strongly call it out noting that over 1300 Iraqi Christians have been displaced from Mosul as a result of the attacks: "But that is only the latest exodus of Christians from Mosul, which served as a refuge for those driven out of Baghdad, and from Iraq as a whole. A Chaldean Catholic archbishop has warned that Christians in his country face 'liquidation.' In opposing the invasion of Iraq, the late Pope John Paul II was motivated primarily by a concern about the carnage on all sides that a war would produce; but he also had reason to worry about the fate of Iraqi Christians once Saddam Hussein was deposed. Despite his crimes, Hussein offered protection for Christians against militant Muslims. The religious cleansing of Christians in Iraq is part of a larger pattern in which a faith with origins in the Middle East is being driven out of its native region." NPR's Corey Flintoff (Weekend Edition) reported on "the climate fear" for the refugees who've been displaced and among the refugees she interviewed was a woman with a young child who explained, "Mosul is a very dangerous city. I can hardly describe the condition there. . . . He [her son] is always afriad, even when he goes to school, he is very afraid." Missy Ryan (Reuters) reported yesterday on how the US commanders continue to insist the Iraqi Christians are being targeted by al Qaeda in Iraq while "other U.S. officials are less certain whom to blame, and describe a host of potentially destabilizing forces at play in a tense region ruled by a weak, minority provincial government." Ryan speaks with a man who fled with his wife and two daughters and told her, "The explosions continue. There is no safety." At this point, no one knows who is responsible and the central government in Baghdad has publicly scoffed at the idea that it is al Qaeda in Iraq. Today IRIN explores some of the possibilities and spoke with a priest who offered, "We have been targeted since 2003 by extremists but I can't explain the latest events which I believe are politically-motivated." IRIN reminds, "Parliament recently abolished the quota system in future local council elections in six of Iraq's 18 provinces, meaning that these local bodies will not be able to have specially reserved seats for ethnic and religious minorities. The reason for the decision was the lack of census data on the numbers of Christians, Yazidis and followers of other religions in specific areas." That's referring to Article 50 which guaranteed religious minorities representation but was removed when the Iraqi Parliament passed their bill for provincial elections.
Sunday Naharnet Newsdesk reported that Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Saniora expressed over the phone to Iraqi President Jalal Talabania, "The Lebanese people back all efforts exerted by the Iraqi government to safeguard the social fabric of the state of Iraq. Christians in Iraq, as in any other Arab state, are an integral component of the national fabric." Also yesterday, AP noted a demonstration in support of Iraqi Christians in Kirkuk today that had a turnout of at least 200 demonstrators (carrying banners such as the one that read "Stop the genocide against Christians") and "was organized by Kurdish groups". AP puts the number of Iraqi Christians who have fled Mosul in the last two weeks at 10,000. Today Naharnet Newsdesk explained that the Lebanese Forces Party "pleaded with Iraqi officials to adopt speedy measures capable of halting crimes committed against Christians".
On the SOFA masquerading as a treaty, Friday's snapshot included, " Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reminds that what's being talked about now is a draft and explains the process for Iraq: "presented today to Iraq's political and national security council, which is made up of top government officials and the leaders of major political groups. If it survives challenges there and among other government ministers, it will move to the Council of Representatives, or parliament, where Maliki has pledged to put it to an up-or-down vote. Far less controversial matters have taken months to move through the Iraqi legislative provess, if they moved at all." DeYoung also noted that the 2011 'withdrawal' of US forces is "aspirational." Would that all who followed over the weekend could have grasped and mastered the facts as well. But of course, some could not. Moving to the more reliable reporting, "No, No, to America! No, No, to the devil!" Al Jazeera reports protestors chanted in Baghdad Saturday in a demonstration against the proposed treaty between the White House and puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki. The protesters were followers of Moqtada al-Sadr and they want the US out of their country now and they want the treaty rejected. A message from al-Sadr read to the crowd also called for the treaty to be rejected. Iraqi analyst Abudllhay Yahya Zalloum explained that there was also Christian and Sunni opposition to the "so-called security pact" with a declartion from Sunnis "that it is against Islam to have any security pact with the United States" and "We have to realise that, firstly, the United States came uninvited and, secondly, this so-called draft has been negotiated while 150,000 American troops plus contractors, 50,000 of them at least, are still in Iraq. Thirdly, it is a government that was actually chosen by the Americans, therefore when you have a country under occupation with pseudo-indepence, you don't expect that the terms would be to the best interests of Iraq." Hussein Kadhim and Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) quoted chants of "No, no to the occupier" at the demonstration and quoted Shi'ite Jabar Kareem stating, "We want the occupier to leave without conditions. All Iraqi people reject this treaty."
The public demonstrations weren't the only objections. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) explained Sunday that, "Quietly, some parliamentary leaders suggested that they, too, were not comfortable with the agreement even though some of them had been involved in negotiating it. At a Friday night meeting with the leaders of the political blocs in Parliament, there were no clear statements of support except from the Kurds, who strongly backed the pact." Peter Graff and Mariam Karouny (Reuters) reported that the first attempt at consolidated support on Sunday failed with only support from the Kurdish faction. When that happened, though it's not pointed out in the bulk of the coverage, that meant even al-Maliki's own Shi'ite backers were not supporting the treaty. One of the sticky points was over US immunity which the Shi'ites raised. How serious was the upset? Gemma Daley (Bloomberg News) reported Nouri al-Maliki's planned and announced trip to Australia Tuesday has now been placed on hold. Alissa J. Rubin and Suadad al-Salhy (New York Times) explain today that Nouri al-Maliki's adviser Sami al-Askeri "said that two provisions particularly worried the Iraqis. The first is an option that would allow the Iraqi government to extend the American presence beyond 2011 if the government decided it wanted the soldiers to stay. The Iraqis woory that the Americans might press a new Iraqi government to extend the American presence. The second is a provision setting up a committee that would review suspected crimes of soldiers and determine if they should be referred to Iraqi courts." Because the Post got it right last week about the 'withdrawal date' being "aspirational," they don't have to play catch up today and instead Mary Beth Sheridan and Ernesto Londono explain, "The change sought by the influential United Iraqi Alliance would harden the withdrawal date for U.S. troops. A draft bilateral agreement completed this week would require American forces to leave by December 2011 but would allow for an extension by mutual agreement." Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) do their best to track the 'process' (the process is meandering away from what it's supposed to be), "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki had emphasized that the agreement should be debated by the Political Council for National Security before being sent to the Cabinet for approval. The council met Sunday night, but the meeting ended with neither the main Shiite Muslim nor Sunni Arab factions endorsing the pact. Nonetheless, it was decided that discussions would begin Tuesday before the country's Cabinet, the final stop before a vote in parliament. Further muddying the waters, one senior official, Nasser Ani, the chief of staff of Iraq's presidency council, said the council would continue to review the text." As for the immunity clause, CNN interprets it: "U.S. troops or contractors who commit "major and premeditated murders" in Iraq while off-duty and outside U.S. facilities would fall under Iraqi jurisdiction, according to a copy of a draft U.S.-Iraq agreement obtained by CNN. All other crimes -- including murders committed inside U.S. facilities or by on-duty forces -- would fall under American jurisdiction, according to the draft, which would govern U.S. troops' presence in Iraq."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left seven wounded while two others wounded six people, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded six family members.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 civilian shot dead by Iraqi police in Diyala Province, 3 "gunmen" shot dead by police in Diyala, 2 suspected members of al Qaeda shot dead in Diyala, 1 "member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party" shot dead in Mosul and 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse discovered in Diyala Province.
Aws Qusay (Reuters) notes, "A U.S. marine died in a non-combat related incident at the al Asad base in the western province of Anbar, the military said in a statement without giving further details on the incident." The announcement brings to 4186 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
Turning to the US race for president. Barck Obama is the Democratic presidential candidate. Sarah Palin is the Republican presidential candidate. Mark Mooney (ABC News) belongs to the Eternal Clueless (he's not lying, he just doesn't know better): "The ABC News/Washington Post poll found that the constant barrage of attacks is hurting McCain, particularly when he targeted Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a founder of the 1960s radical anti-war group the Weather Underground." No, that's not what the poll is showing. The William Ayers issue? Mooney doesn't even grasp it. "Anti-war"? Thai Jones, A Radical Line: From the Labor Movement to the Weather Underground, One Family's Century of Conscience, pp. 215:
He had an explicit political goal, and a congressional report described it accurately when it referred to Weatherman's "intention to build a small, tough, paramilitary organization designed to carry out urban guerilla warfare to bring about the revolution."
Thai Jones (who wrote an amazing book) is not attacking Weather (he is not anti-Weather), he's noting reality -- in the book he's telling his family story -- his parents are Weather members Eleanor Stein and Jeff Jones. In 2005, he told Shaina Fineberg (The Brooklyn Rail), "But the Weather Underground are despised by the right and the liberal left. They were seen as a slap in the face to the mainstream left. They were the far left group on the spectrum. They were openly dismissive of people whose commitment level was not the same as theirs. They felt that if you're not going to die for the cause, you're just wasiting your time. They were very combative: Going to peace marches and pulling anti-war signs from grandmother's hands. But it is important to remember that the Weather Underground is just one of thousands of groups. Their PR maching was better -- so people remember them still." But their goal was not ending the illegal war. That had been a goal in SDS and in the early days of Weatherman. Weather Underground saw itself as bringing about and leading an armed class struggle in the United States which would result in many deaths and this is where Bernardine Dorhn (leader of Weather) first begins referring to herself with the phrase "oven Jew." The 'left' today is so eager to elect to Barack (enshrine?) that they allow Weather to be distorted yet again. Sadly, we have no left historians -- despite various pretenders to the role -- who will step up and correct the falsehoods. Michael Falcone (New York Times) notes the Christian Broadcasting Network's interview with Palin to air on the 700 Club tomorrow. We'll note this section (CBN link has text and video) which is Palin responding to David Brody's question of whether she'd hesitate to use "palling around with terrorists" again to describe Barack and Bill Ayers: "No I would say it again, I would say it again because again it, it, according to the information that we have, the association that he's had with Bill Ayers wasn't just one or two time sitting on a board together where, No, there's been quite a few associations and events and meetings and discussion and emails and calls and to not disavow that too, I think is troubling." As for McCain being 'hurt' by any of this -- what is this load of crap? Every other day Barack's King, God and Lord Supreme. If McCain's hurting himself as badly as the press keeps insisting, why is the race still a dead-heat? Why can't the Christ-child pull it out in this alleged year for any Democrat? Whether it's Ayers or Palin, it hasn't hurt McCain in the least and has provided very real excitement for his campaign. And it's why Catty Barack can't stop sniping at Sarah Palin such as here: "And you know, you really have to work hard to violate Governor Palin's standards on negative campaigning. You gotta work hard." Palin does know about working hard. Barack? It's hard work to keep those nails so spiffy. Say Anything Barack is caught by Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller (ABC News Political Punch) in Tampa telling the Rays he's backing them ("I was going to cut my hair in a Mohawk in solidarity, but my political advisors said they weren't sure how that was going to play with swing voters.") while "earlier this month in Philadelphia -- in another battleground state, Pennsylvania -- he said that since 'my White Sox are gone . . . I'll go ahead and root for the Phillies now'."
While Barack roots for anyone who will vote for him, Colin "The Blot" Powell always sets his own end up so be very scared when the man who lied to sell the illegal war endorses Barack Obama's run for the presidency. No word on whether or not other War Criminals, past or present, will come forward to make endorsements. But Powell made his endorsement on NBC's Meet The Press yesterday -- link has video. For transcript of the segment, you have to go to CNN ("Reporter" in the CNN transcript is Tom Brokaw). Collie Powell declared of his Iraq War Crimes, "I'm well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn't get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I've never blinked from that. I've never said I didn't support a decision to go to war." Huh? Let's go back to 20/20 on ABC Sept. 9, 2005 where Barbara Walters reminded Collie, "However, you gave the world false, groundless reasons for going to war. You've said, and I quote, 'I will forever be known as the one who made the case for war.' Do you think this blot on your record will stay with you for the rest of your life?"
Powell: Well it's a, it's a, of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United Nations, uh, United States, to the world. And it will always be uh, part of my, uh, my record. Walters: How painful is it? Powell: (shrugs) It was -- it was painful. (shifts, shrugs) It's painful now.
Apparently it was a temporary pain because he's all over it and back to lying again. He claimed on NBC yesterday that his rol in the Iraq War was "very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war." LIAR. Damn and damnable LIAR. Collie wanted to get a little sympathy three years ago and try to save his image so he pretended he was haunted by his lies to the UN (if nothing else). Yesterday, he's back to singing his own praises and 'goodness.' It was a sort of 24-hour-viral, mini-mea-culpa. Joe Mowrey (Dissident Voice) provides more 'great' moments in Collie Powell history:
Powell is the guy who, as a bright young 31 year old Army Major, did his level best to keep information about the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam from becoming public. Specifically, he was charged with investigating a letter from a whistle-blowing soldier giving detailed accounts of many of the atrocities committed by U.S. military personnel in Vietnam under the auspices of the Phoenix Program. That program was a lovely little package of war crimes intended to "identify and neutralize (via infiltration, capture, or murder) the civilian infrastructure supporting the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (the Viet Cong)." In other words, it was a U.S. and South Vietnamese death squad operation which rampaged through the country side slaughtering civilians and burning down entire villages. You know, capturing the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. Powell summed up his investigation of the whistle-blower's accusations by saying, "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."
Well that's enough for me. If Powell endorsed the rousing success of the Phoenix Program, what more do we need to know? Queried about his participation in the attempted white wash of My Lai, some 40 years later Powell said, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again..." Personally, I think he sounds really sorry. And he's seems to be bashing Republicans these days, so I like him a lot.
[. . .]
And while we're at it, let's catalog of few of Barack Obama's progressive qualifications to be next President of the United States of Imperialism. Well first, there's his adamant condemnation of the war in Iraq. Why, he was against it from the very start. Of course, that hasn't prevented him from voting continually to fund the Occupation. But hey, he has to get elected before he can implement all his wonderful changey policies, right? You know, like maintaining a presence of 50,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq, along with a dozen or so permanent military bases and the world's largest foreign embassy. Then there is his pledge to escalate the "good war" in Afghanistan. We've only killed about 10,000 or so innocent civilians there in the last few years. I won't feel safe until we can push those numbers much higher. And Pakistan? Sending robot drones out to drop bombs on people is my kind of progressive war. Obama has assured us he'll continue that policy and actually increase the number of illegal violations of that country's sovereignty. Right on.
Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports Governor Palin is currently the most accessible to the traveling press, "In the past two days alone, Palin has answered questions from her national press corps on three separate occasions. On Saturday, she held another plane availability, and on Sunday, she offered an impromptu press conference on the tarmac upon landing in Colorado Springs. A few minutes later, she answered even more questions from reporters during an off-the-record stop at a local ice cream shop. By contrast, Biden hasn't held a press conference in more than a month, and Obama hasn't taken questions from his full traveling press corps since the end of September. John McCain--who spent most of the primary season holding what seemed like one, never-ending media availability--hasn't done one since Sept. 23." Meanwhile Ruben Navarrette Jr. (Pajamas Media) observes of the current climate between the two major parties, "It seems like just yesterday that the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy was talking about income equality and civil rights and worker protections and going to bat for the little guy, the blue collar laborer, the everyday Joe the Plumber. Now, the well-to-do elites who run the Democratic Party -- and their surrogates -- greet these people with brickbats. They insult them, talk down to them, and even try to destroy them. Isn't that the sort of war on the working class that Democrats are always accusing those greedy and heartless Republicans of waging?" Navarette is now with the San Diego Union Tribune and has been with many other papers (including the Dallas Morning News). A friend asked for that link and reminds that Ava and I were supposed to cover a documentary that Navarette appeared in. We haven't forgotten and we'll attempt to do so on Sunday.
Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney will appear Wednesday October 22nd on NPR's Talk of the Nation and Saturday October 25 on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday. The Indigenist Intelligence Review explains of Cynthia:
She sees tribal sovereignty, treaty obligations, and religious and cultural preservation as intertwined. The U.S. government has "selective amnesia" and never intended to honor the treaties, but it is obligated to do so without question, McKinney said, and also to adequately fund programs for the betterment of American Indians and affirm their religious rights. "How can a people survive, let alone thrive, absent their religion, spirituality, culture, language and sense of place? I support and strongly encourage religious and cultural preservation in Indian country and urge protection of sacred sites, whichever side of the map boundary they fall upon." On IHS funding, McKinney said that the Green Party's call for universal single-payer health care would provide medical, mental and dental benefits to everyone within the United States, including Native women and veterans. She also embraces traditional indigenous medicine and healing. "Health care needs to be treated as a human right and removed from the economic gaming field. Until such time as indigenous peoples are covered under such a policy, we Greens support generous IHS funding, including recognition of both Western and non-Western methods of healing. Western medicine deals quite well with trauma, but has much to learn from 'energetic/spiritual' traditional methods recognizing the implicit agreement between seen and unseen aspects of reality." McKinney said that the rampant substance abuse on reservations is part and parcel of a legacy of oppression and dispossession. "It offers the hollow promise of filling the void left by cultural obliteration. The sacred has been replaced by the profane. 'Treaty' dictates have enforced a substantial and abrupt end to traditional lifeways. For all of these reasons, it is incumbent upon the U.S. government to support IHS."
Ralph Nader is in the independent presidential candidate. His running mate is Matt Gonzalez. Team Nader's Toby Heaps explains how much easier it is to book Ralph on British television than on American airwaves:
Nightline vs BBC: No wonder Ted Koppel voted with his feet
Ralph is going to be on BBC's version of Nightline, which now employs Ted Koppel. Ralph said the international media were showing up the US media. So I tried booking him on Nightline again and a senior producer at the show said 'no thanks.'
I asked him if he had covered the main two candidates. He said 'yes.'
I asked why he didn't cover the guy polling in third place. He smugly said: 'We tend to profile the people who have the greatest chance of winning.'
I asked him if he felt there might be a catch-22. He said with a chuckle, 'You think he would win if we put him on the program.'
I can see why Ted Koppel moved over to BBC.
But Ralph will be on NBC Nightly News this evening:
Ralph Nader is at 5 percent in The Show Me State -- Missouri.
And he's moving on up.
That's according to the most recent CNN/Time Missouri poll.
The poll shows Nader at 5 percent last week, up from 3 percent at the end of September.
We believe that this shows that with just a little bit of visibility -- we have an active Nader/Gonzalez group in Missouri -- Ralph will move up in the polls.
That's why we're encouraging all of our supporters in Missouri and around the country to buy and wear -- during the last days of the campaign -- our hot selling heavy duty 100 percent cotton Nader '08 Buffalo T-Shirts (men's or women's).
(Pictured here -- Nader/Gonzalez road warrior Matt Zawisky and the Obama Girl, both wearing Nader 08 Buffalo T-Shirts in front of our favorite mascot in downtown DC last month.)
We sold out of our first stash of 600 in less than 24 hours this weekend.
So we ordered another 1,000.
And in less than 12 hours, we've sold over 250.
There are only 750 left.
At our current sale rate, we'll be sold out by Thursday night.
So if you don't have one yet, buy one now (men's or women's), before it's too late.
And wear it with pride.
At $30 a shirt (men's or women's), it's a deal.
If you have one already, buy one for a friend, relative or colleague (man or woman).
In case you haven't heard yet, Ralph will be profiled on the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams tonight.
Hope you get a chance to watch.
And just for fun, check out our spooky Nader/Gonzalez Halloween video.
We're firing on all cylinders.
Mainstream media.
On the ground get out the vote drive.
Nader/Gonzalez videos.
And Nader Buffalo T-Shirt drive.
It's a sprint to the finish line.
Onward to November.
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
ruths report
sickofitradlz
iraqthe new york timesalissa j. rubinsuadad al-salhy
the washington postmary beth sheridanernesto londono
the los angeles timesned parkersaif hameed
scott conroycbs news
nprweekend editioncorey flintoffsahar issamcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
corinne reilly
karen deyoung
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)