Friday, November 17, 2006

Ty, Jess and Ava filling in for Elaine

Tonight, Elaine's out with Mike for a film and then they have their Iraq discussion group. What do you have? Ty, Jess and Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review filling in. If you're surprised, we think Elaine may be as well. Although we think she assumes someone is guest posting for her. C.I. asked her for the password and she didn't even ask C.I. why; so she may be on to us.

We're currently trying to figure out who'll be working on Thanksgiving weekend and Christmas weekend and want to be sure that everyone gets a break that wants one. But we also know Mike and Elaine need some time together and away from computer screens. They have some exciting plans for tomorrow and we don't want either of them to have to log on tomorrow morning and do an entry. Jim's covering for Mike and the three of us are working on this post. Hopefully, that will mean when they wake up tomorrow and Trina and Rebecca (who are 'in the know' about what we're doing) tell them, they'll be relieved, happy and able to start their day without ever booting up a computer.

Jim said he was going to do a talking post partly because he knows the community enjoys them but also because he didn't want to "blow my wad" on a topic we are hoping to address in Sunday's edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review. We never know what will make the cut. Anything we work on can (and does) go into the print edition. But we try to pick the best for the online edition. "The best" is judged by many things including, but not limited to, writing. It can be the worst written thing in the world but if we feel it's important to say, we'll put it up online.

We write collectively (on everything except the TV reviews) and we enjoy that process for a number of reasons but we'll stop right there on that because that is a potential topic for this weekend. We've got a list of twenty things right now. In addition to that list, other ideas will come at the last minute based on what's going on and, of course, Dona's cry of "We need a short feature! Everything's long!"

Dona's smoking like a chimney throughout each edition. (Rebecca smokes as well but unless everyone's together, we're not around her smoke.) (That's not a complaint about Dona's smoking.) If she gets up to three packs during the writing session for the edition one of us (Ava) and C.I. will usually point that out in a "we need to wind down" kind of way.

None of us mind Dona's smoking but we do worry about her health (short term and long). She'll indulge us in that about every few months. "Mr. Let It All Hang Out" Jim will sometimes smoke one or two cigarettes if it's an extremely long session. Between candles and incense (Kat has the best incense), it's really not a problem (we usually have a window cracked as well). But when we look back on these editions years from now, we'll remember Dona with a cigarette in hand or mouth, brow furrowed, shaking her head, fretting over whether we've got anything worth sharing with anyone (she's fond of saying, "Even my grandmother wouldn't fake a smile after reading this!") (fond of yelling that). There's a myth that Jim's the editor-type. He may very well be but in our editions, Dona's usually more the editor and Jim's more of the publisher.

We say that because Jim will get lost in style. He'll want to offer suggestions on style. Dona, we can picture her in a newsroom barking out orders left and right. They're an interesting contrast because Jim can be laid back (and we think living in California has brought that trait to the surface for him) (and we don't see that as a bad thing) but Dona is very much Type A.

In the roundtable's, readers know, she's the one who usually calls "time" and brings it to a close. We think you can see Jim and Dona's personalities in those roundtables. Jim's always interested in the idea someone brings up that no one's expressed yet. He's interested and willing to explore it. Dona's watching the clock and thinking, "We have to finish this! Now!"

That's her outside of the roundtables as well. Jim's the same outside as well. We could see Jim, for instance, years from now editing an erudite monthly (say Harper's). We could see Dona running a daily paper. In fact, we could see her doing that during a newspaper strike.

We're not calling her a "scab" who wouldn't honor a walk out. But we could see her writing and editing a daily paper during a crisis. When the paper was put to bed, as dawn was breaking, we could see her lighting one more cigarette, cursing under her breath and stumbling home.

We mention that because people always have these ideas about Dona. There are readers who e-mail to say, "She's a real bitch." There are many more who e-mail to say how much they love her (we fall in the latter camp). She's just really amazing. And you have to be to go head to head with Jim. We love you, Jim, we really do, but you can be very stubborn.

Dona's talked about how, when she worked on her high school paper, she was pretty much the only woman there. We're not sure if she's shared this part at our site but there were many attempts to shove her into a "soft" slot because she was a woman. She wouldn't take that. Not then and not now. She learned how to be heard long ago and no one is going to push her around.

So we wanted to talk about that side but we also wanted to note something that comes up in the e-mails quite often. People who get a response from Dona are always shocked by how nice she is in those. That's her as well. When there's a job to be done, Dona gets it done. She's focused on that and she accomplishes it. But there's also another side that's very sweet and some readers may not get that due to the fact that they really just know her from what goes up at the site.

Jim's no slouch either. As we've noted, he is the most stubborn. And he's the most committed to 'big journalism' and their code. When that conflicts with Dona's desire to get the edition done, the rest of us just sit back and let them go at it. You don't want to get caught in that crossfire.

Sometimes, with the TV reviews, a quick read will be requested. The concern (of C.I. and Ava's) is, "Can you follow it?" If Jim looks over it, he'll zero in on one paragraph and say, "That's the review. Trash everything but that paragraph and expand on it." Dona will look at it and say, "Pargraph three lost me, paragraph seven needs an additional sentence." Dona's very aware of the deadlines. Jim's taking more of a "what do we have here" approach.

Having dished on Dona and Jim, we'll now each share a secret about ourselves.

Ava: People always think Jim and I hate each other. We don't. In fact, we have a child together. Okay, that's a lie. But we don't hate each other. There was a period when I really did not want to be around Jim, shortly after we started the site. Jim had no idea there was a problem. Which Dona said, "Typical Jim." But Dona said, "Stand up to him." I did. When I started doing that, I realized the problem was me. I can tell Jim, "Shut up." I can say, "No."
It's not the end of the world. Jim really doesn't care. I don't mean he doesn't care about your feelings. I do mean, he really is "Mr. Let It All Hang Out." As soon as I started expressing myself, Jim didn't bother me. I don't mean he changed, he's Jim. I mean that I changed. There was nothing buried inside. I wasn't nursing a grudge. We really do get along and laugh quite often. When there's a comment from me in "A Note To Our Readers," regardless of what it is, Jim's laughing with it, even if it's about him. A number of readers see those statements and think Jim and I must be on the verge of tearing each other apart. We're not. We really do get along. That's not because he changed, and I wouldn't want him too, I appreciate him as a friend now. It is because I changed. I am not an all nighter person and I do not enjoy the 13 plus hours spent or the sun coming up when, if we're lucky, we're finishing the edition. If I keep that inside, buried, I am angry all week. Now that I don't, we have no problems. And credit Elaine for that because she really did work on that with me. If I ever go into therapy, I want Elaine!

Jess: While Dona's some readers' idea of the "bad girl," they all tend to see Ava as sweetness and light which she is. But she's got a surprising side. Nobody knows how tomorrow ends let alone the future. However we are both agreed that we're longterm. She blew me away last week when she said, "You know, I don't think I ever want to get married." That's the sort of statement that some readers would expect from Dona.

Ava: Who, for the record, already has her baby names picked out for when she has kids.

Jess: That's true. And she can also tell you every detail of what her wedding will be like.

Ty: You weren't hurt by that, were you?

Jess: No. I didn't see it as a rejection.

Ava: It wasn't. I do see us a longterm and hope that's how it ends up. Jess is much more mystic than I am. When I say I see us as longterm, I mean it with no qualifiers. But I just don't see marriage as something I want. That's partly due to the fact that same-sex couples can't get married which I do find myself focusing on more and more as I think about what marriage really is. But I don't want that, at least not today, for myself. I'd rather us be lovers for fifty years than married.

Jess: You even told your father that.

Ava: He was more shocked than you. My mother and aunt calmed him down. Now his attitude is, "Well think of all the money I'll save." Meaning since he doesn't have to pay for a wedding.

Ty: On weddings. Members of the community know this already. I've talked about it in roundtables at the gina & krista round-robin and considered writing about it at The Third Estate Sunday Review but didn't want it to be like "the announcement." I'm gay. My family knows, my friends know. One of the things Jim's father and C.I. both pointed out about sharing at the site was that the more you shared, the more that could follow you around. Jim's father is a reporter and knows I could end up stuck with "gay beat." They were both very supportive as I went back and forth about noting that in something at Third. When I ended up deciding I wanted to go into the entertainment filed, the first thing C.I. said, "Well now you don't have to worry." That really is true. No one cares. If I was trying to be an actor or something, they might. What I found interesting about Jim's dad and C.I. was that they were both saying, "If you're comfortable sharing it, share it." I had a professor, and this was one of the reasons I was so glad to leave New York, who told me that to admit it would mean I'd either have to work at a gay publication or cover 'gay topics' for a paper or TV news. Jim's dad talked about the work required to overcome that if I got stuck with people who would just see gay as bosses. But he was very clear that it could be overcome. My ex-professor, who I had a lot of respect for, didn't think there was any 'overcoming.' I'm not saying he's wrong, I feel he is, but maybe he's not? But I am saying that it was probably the last nail in the coffin for me and journalism. Just to hear someone whose opinion I respected so much say that I needed to stop sharing it with friends because the more people who knew, the more likely someone would learn later.

Jess: I never liked that guy.

Ty: Yeah, you called him right. Jess said I was his 'pet project.' Jess said his attitude was, "He's Black and he can write! Look how wonderful I am to applaud him." And he always was encouraging about my work and real supportive until he found out. Then I started getting stuff back marked "This is a little too gay." Or "That's really more suited for the bathhouses." Maybe it was, I've never been to a bathhouse. But I was doing my assignments the exact way I was doing before I mentioned my sexuality to him. I think the moment he knew, he started looking for "gay" in anything I wrote.

Ava: I was neutral to him, the professor. He seemed full of himself more often than not. But let me note that Jess has the best insticts about people. If Jess' radar starts warning him, I've learned to trust it.

Jess: Thank you. Let's deal with an e-mail question since Ty's noted his sexuality. Do we call it "coming out"?

Ty: Community members knew already but yeah, we can call it my coming out online in a public forum.

Jess: Congratulations on your coming out. When Mike and Elaine were first becoming a couple, C.I. knew. You can't put anything past C.I., if we're talking about radars, let's note that. But it almost came out in a roundtable Mike was doing. In a roundtable we did at our site, Ava talked about how she wondered if it was --

Ava: If what C.I. stopped Mike from talking about in that roundtable.

Jess: Right, if that was about her and I being a couple. In the roundtable at our site, she shared that when she found it wasn't, she tried to figure out who the couple was?

Ty: And she thought maybe it was Mike and Wally. And, did e-mails come in after that. Is Wally gay? Why would she think he'd be with Mike? Is Mike gay or bi?

Ava: It had nothing to do with that. I understand why some readers went there. Mike and Wally would make a sexy couple, my opinion. But, no, they've never given any indication that they were gay. But sometimes you don't know. I didn't know about Ty until he told me.

Ty: And I just figured Jess had told you because Jim, Jess and I were roomates.

Jess: It was in the vault. Everybody's personal details go in the vault.

Ava: But I wasn't insulting them. I don't think gay is an insult. I did check with them, after Ty told me about the e-mails that were coming in. They thought it was funny. They weren't offended. But since we're talking about sexuality, to clear it up, they're not involved. They've never been lovers. Wally's farily serious about a woman at his school and they've been involved for some time now. And of course Mike was with Nina and is now with Elaine. The reason I thought of them was that Wally had spent part of the summer with Mike. Who ever Mike was involved with was someone he'd spent the summer with. I didn't think it was Betty because she sees Mike as this big puppy dog. I couldn't believe that Kat would hook up with Mike and not tell me. So I thought, "Well Wally has been spending several weeks at Mike's . . ." I don't think being gay is a bad thing or an insult. I certainly wasn't trying to paint them as gay to those who do think it's a bad thing. Did that clear up the record?

Jess: Yeah.

Ty: I think so. We done?

Jess: Now, because Elaine loves CounterPunch, we have a highlight.

"A Down-to-Earth Disengagement Plan: George McGovern's Return to Capitol Hill" (Kevin Zeese, CounterPunch):
One of the excellent additions McGovern and Polk bring to the discussion is their effort to put the choices in perspective. They note we are spending $10 million per hour, $246 million per day in Iraq. Their program, which includes funds for a managed withdrawal, funds for rebuilding and funds for a stabilization force, would cost approximately $13.2 billion ­ compared to between $300 and $400 billion in costs for the occupation over two years. The U.S. would save 97% of the current cost of staying in Iraq. Of course, the human costs are also staggering. "Every day, every hour, increases all of these costs," noted Polk.
Gael Murphy of Code Pink raised the point that no one in Congress ever asks the question ­ is there a relationship between the growth of the insurgency and the presence of U.S. troops. In response Polk began by noting that people do not want to face reality. But people at the Army War College have said U.S. troops are the cause of the insurgency. And, George McGovern added that the most recently released National Intelligence Estimate indicated that Iraq had become a recruitment ground for terrorists because of the U.S. presence.
Aseel Albanna of Iraqi Voices for Peace expressed the concern of many Iraqis about the existing government ­ how it was corrupt and really did not represent Iraqis ­ as well as that many Iraqis "roll their eyes" when there is discussion of the U.N. sending a peace keeping force. In response Polk pointed out that in every guerilla war the government installed by the occupiers falls when the occupying army leaves. He pointed out how Bush says that the Iraqis picked this government through elections, but this was also true with the South Vietnamese government. They were voted into office by wide margins but after the U.S. left that government disappeared. Polk expects that when the U.S. leaves there will need to be a new government. The U.S. should not try to control the selection of a new government. Iraqis are intelligent people who are capable of governing themselves. The U.S. should stay out of the process. No doubt there will be jockeying for power but a consensus will develop.

We think that's a pretty important highlight. We think the last one is too. Since we're at Elaine's site, we're trying to follow her unofficial style manual.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, November 17, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; Bully Boy's long journey to Vietnam is complete (you can refer to the various stops since Tuesday or you can take it back to his days in and out of the National Guard);
Ehren Watada's father Bob wraps up his current speaking tour Friday night; Tony Blair may have lost a supporter; war resister Kyle Snyder still needs support; and the US military has all sorts of announcements and numbers including 57,000 US troops to deploy to Iraq next year.

Starting with yesterday's kidnappings -- there were two.
Reuters cover this: "Passengers from up to six minibuses may have been abducted after being stopped at a fake security checkpoint in the capital, police and local residents said" from yesterday and, in addition, there was a kidnapping in southern Iraq.

C4 reported on the mass kidnapping in Baghdad one of the few that did.* Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) noted: "Much of the day's other violence was directed at Shiite Muslims. Gunmen erected fake checkpoints in a Sunni neighborhood and seized Shiite passengers off minibuses." Alastair Macdonald (Reuters) noted: "Six missing minibuses were mostly carrying Shiites when gunmen, some in uniform, pulled them over for bogus security checks, police sources said."

The dickering over this kidnapping among Iraqi's various members of government follows the pattern after Tuesday's mass kidnapping which
Kirk Semple (New York Times) observed was being seen (by Jalal Talabani, Iraqi president) as a potential "complete collapse of the government"). Queried by Jon Snow, of England's C4, as to whether "you think there are other ministers in the government who are complicit?" in the kidnappings, Iraq's minister of Higher Eductation, Abd Dhiab, stated he did believe that and, while refusing to answer whether he personally believed the police could be trusted, he noted that "the people" do not feel they can be.

Jon Snow: You seem to be describing a situation of anarchy here?

Abd Dhiab: Anarchy clearly, nobody can deny that.

Jon Snow: But, I mean, if you feel you have to resign then in a way we're beginning to see the disengration of the government?

Abd Dhiab (in a rambling answer) agreed.
Kirk Semple noted Mohammed Bashar al-Faidi (Muslim Scholars Associaton) declared on Al Jazeera TV, "I don't know how to describe it, but it represents the bankruptcy of the sectarian government following one scandal after the other." The willingness of officials go to public with their own stark observations about Iraq comes as Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, is in Turkey. Louise Roug (LA Times) reports that al-Maliki believes the matters can wait until next week to be resolved in a meeting of his cabinet.

Bully Boy believes that the answer for a 'win' is, as
Simon Tisdall (Guardian of London) reports, "a last big push" that could result in increasing US troops in Iraq -- not withdrawing them. Tisdall also reveals that sources say "Bush family loyalist James Baker" and others on the supposed independent Iraq Study Group are now doing the bidding of the Pentagon and will include the following points as "victory strategy:"

1) Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to secure Baghdad and allow redeployments elsewhere in Iraq.

2) Focus on regional cooperation with international conference and/or direct diplomatic involvement of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

3) Revive reconciliation process between Sunni, Shia and others.

4) Increased resources from Congress to fund training and equipment of Iraqi security forces.

David Jackson (USA Today) reports that Bully Boy declared in Hanoi that "he was unaware of a British newspaper report that he is considering an additional 30,000 troops in Iraq."
20,000 and, if Bully Boy's denying, chances are it's true. (Flashback to his performance of "My Guy" to Rumsfled right before the election and then, after the election, his rendention of "Hit the Road, Jack.") The
AP reports that Bully Boy has compared Iraq to Vietnam yet again and offered, "We'll succeed unless we quit." Not quite as catchy as "stay the course" but certainly many of lemmings will show up, possibly in face paint, at his domestic gatherings to change "We'll succeed unless we quit." Of course, the reality is you suceed unless you lose and, more reality, the illegal war is lost.

CNN reports it's whack-a-mole time again "as 2,2000 more Marines are being deployed to Iraq's volatile Anbar province". Interviewed by Joshua Scheer (Truthdig), US Congress Rep. Dennis Kucinich noted of al-Anbar that it's "a place which was already declared 'lost' for the purposes of military occupation. Why are we sacrificing our young men and women? Why are we keeping them in an impossible situation? Why are we stoking a civil war with our continued presence? We have to take a new direction in Iraq, and that direction is out."

This as
Al Jazeera reports Rabah al-Alwan of "the Union of Lawyers in al-Anbar governorate in western Iraq" is asserting that 211 families have been thrown out of their homes in Al-Anbar Province so that the US military can occupy them. Among the homes seized is al-Alwan's and he states: "Ten months ago, the US army seized my house and dozens of houses in the neighbourhood where I live. Residents were not allowed take any of their savings, jewellery, furniture or clothes. . . . They [US snipers] killed a lot of people, such as Ayad Mutar and Muhamad Ayad, for approaching their [own] houses to try to get some of their families' clothes and belongings." al-Alwan tells of promises to compensate families for their homes with money that never got handed over, of attacks on the homes now that the US military is lodged in them, and the continued occupation of the home have led former occupants to join the resistance.

Hearts and minds? Or are they supposed to take comfort in the empty words mouthed by the Bully Boy, as
noted by Mark Tran (Guardian of London), "One lesson is that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while."
A while? What is known is that the illegal war hits the four-year anniversary in March of 2007 -- four months from now.

What is known also includes the fact that yesterday's other kidnapping, in southern Iraq, resulted in the kidnapping of at least five people. The
BBC reports that the abducted were four Americans and one Austrian. Will Weissert (AP) reports that two of the abducted turned up: an Austrian who was dead and an American "gravely wounded" -- in addition, Weissert notes that "[n]ine Asian employees" were kidnapped and that they have been released. Xinhua reports that 14 people were kidnapped and that the area was under the control of Iraqis having been turned over to them by Italy in September. Kirk Semple (New York Times) identifies the site of the kidnapping as the Nassiriya. AP places the location as Safwan. Edward Wong (New York Times) reports that searches are ongoing to find the abducted but that there are denials of any of the kidnapped being released or found.

In other reported violence . . .


Reuters notes that four police officers were shot dead outside a bank in Baghdad, that two brothers are dead from a Baghdad attack, that a civilian was shot dead in Kirkuk and "his baby daughter" injured and, in Baquba "Lieutenant Colonel Sattar Jabar, chief of police media" was shot dead. Aref Mohammed (Reuters) reports "the British military said a British private security guard was wounded in a clash with Iraqi police. The police said two policemen and another Westerner were killed" and that Zubayr was where "police said colleagues stopped an unmarked car. Western in civilian clothes inside opened fire, killing two officers and wounding two women passers-by. Police returned fire, killing one of the Westerns and wounding another." The 'Westerners' may or may not be British or American.


Reuters notes two corpses were discovered near Falluja and and two near Numaniya. CNN reports that 25 corpses ("bullet-riddled") were discovered in Baghdad today.

Also today, the
US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier attached to 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, was killed by small arms fire Thursday during combat operations in Diyala province." The total number of US troops who have died thus far this month to 45, and to 2865 since the start of the illegal war. This as Donna Miles announces on behalf of the Defense Department that 57,000 US troops will being deploy to Iraq (8,300 to Afghanistan). The 57,000 will be part of the rotation to keep the total number of US troops on the ground in Iraq at 144,000 -- the increased number that was put in place last summer for the now-cracked-up Baghdad crackdown.

In other signs of the dissention in the puppet government,
Hannah Allamn and Mohamed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) report that the Shi'ite dominated Interior Ministry "issued an arrest warrant for one of the country's most prominent Sunni Muslim clerics, charging him with violating antiterrorism laws." The BBC notes the cleric, Harith al-Dhari, is the head of the Association of Muslim Scholars and that he is currently in Jordan. Ross Colvin (Reuters) notes that the reaction to the warrant (issued while both al-Dhari and al-Maliki were out of the country) has been intense with the largest Sunni political party (The Islamic Party) calling it a "mercy bullet" that would put the dying government down. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) notes that the Association of Muslim Scholars is requesting "Sunni politicians . . . quit Iraq's government" in response to the arrest warrant and notes that: "The move came as cracks emerged within Iraq's six-month-old unity government over the numbers of government employees taken in a mass kidnapping on Tuesday and whether some were tortured and killed." In addition to the above support, Al-Dhari also received support from Sunni clerics and, as Will Weissert (AP) reports, from one of Iraq's vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, who stated that the warrant "is destructive to the national reconcilliation plan." And CNN updates to note that the Iraqi government has backed off ("clarified") the warrant which they now maintain was never to arrest al-Dhari but merely to "check security files linked" to him.

In other news,
Mike Corder (AP) reports that De Volkskrant, Dutch newspaper, has reported that "Dutch military interrogators abused dozens of Iraqi prisoners in 2003, dousing them with water to keep them awake and exposing them to high-pitched noises and strong lights" and conducted by "members of the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service in November 2003 in buildings of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Samawah, 230 miles southeast of Baghdad." Alexandra Hudson and Nicola Leske (Reuters) report that the report, which emerged Friday, has already resulted in announcement from the Dutch Defence Minister Henk Kamp that he knew abuses were possible but an earlier investigation had not turned up anything -- now he's "announced an independent investigation into the earlier study by military police and his own conduct in the affair." As the BBC notes, the revelations come "days before the country's parliamentary elections."

Meanwhile, in England, the
Guardian of London reports that Margaret Hodge has created a stir in England. The MP Hodge is seen as an ally of Tony Blair so it came as a surprise to some when it was reported that she called the illegal war Tony Blair's "big mistake in foreign affairs" while speaking to the Islington Fabian Society where she also noted that she accepted pre-war claims because "he was our leader and I trusted him."

In peace news, Vietnam war resister
Gerry Condon has posted a letter at Soldiers Say No! on Kyle Snyder. To recap, Snyder, on October 31st, turned himself in at Fort Knox only to self-check out again after discovering the military had lied yet again. Since then Snyder has been underground, surfacing to speaking out against the war.

Condon is requesting more calls supporting to Snyder:

Thanks to all of you who have made calls to the Commanding General at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The phones have been ringing off the walls there. Now it is time to make the phones ring at Fort Leonard Wood. Say hello to Fort Leonard Woods's brand new commander, Major General William McCoy, Jr., recently returned from the U.S. occupation of Iraq (you can read his emotional address upon assuming his new command at
Here are the numbers to call at Fort Leonard Wood
Office of the Commanding General (that's how they answer) 573-596-0131
Public Affairs Office, tel. 573-563-4013 or 4105, fax: 573-563-4012, email:
We want to deliver one clear message:

Kyle Snyder is a US war resister and part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes people such as Ehren Watada, Joshua Key, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Agustin Aguayo, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, and Kevin Benderman. That's just the ones who have gone public. (Over thirty US war resisters are currently in Canada attempting to be legally recognized.)

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at
Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Appeal for Redress is collecting signatures of active duty service members calling on Congress to bring the troops home -- the petition will be delivered to Congress in January.

Bob Watada, father of
Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq, is wrapping up a speaking tour he and Rosa Sakanishi (Ehren's step-mother) have been on to raise awareness on Ehren Watada. The tour winds down tonight, a full schedule can be found here, and this is the final date:

Nov 17, 7PM, Atlanta, GA, Location: The First Iconium Baptist Church, Sponsor: Veterans For Peace Chapter 125, The Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition/Atlanta, Atlanta WAND, Contact: Debra Clark, 770-855-6163,

In addition, to Atlanta,
Gregg K. Kakesako (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) reports this event on Sunday:

The Honolulu chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League will hold a symposium surrounding the actions of Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who is the first military officer to face a court martial for refusing to fight in Iraq. It will begin at 3:30 p.m. Nov. 19 at the University of Hawaii's architecture auditorium. The featured speaker will be Watada's father, Bob; Jon Van Dyke of the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law and Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz.

iraqehren watadabob watada
kyle snyder
the new york timeskirk semple
the washington postsudarsan raghavan
gregg k. kakesako
joshua scheer
edward wong

[*Thank you to a friend at C4 for calling -- repeatedly -- to pass the C4 interview on.]