Jeremy Hammond, Shut up!

That's little Jeremy Hammond, Honky 'helper'. Honky 'Helper' Want to Talk Racism to advance Barack.

Honky, shut up.

He writes a really bad article at Dissident Voice and our own Martha calls Honky Ham on it:

1. Martha said on November 4th, 2008 at 8:47am #

   A new outlet agrees to keep a source’s name private it does not agree to hide documentation backing their story. The problem is the Los Angeles Times’ problem and it’s a damn shame Hammond’s more interested in carrying water for Barack Obama.
   What the paper has done is appalling.
   Barack Obama and John McCain’s back and forth isn’t the issue. The issue is the paper.
   And Hammond, I’m guessing you’re White. Do me a favor and stop screaming “racism” everytime it helps your candidate, White boy. This African-American is damn tired of it.

2. Jeremy R. Hammond said on November 4th, 2008 at 9:35am #

   Martha,

   I find it curious that you should conclude that this piece somehow is written in support of Obama since I include him in my criticism of prejudice against Palestinians. I did not vote for Obama. He is not “my candidate”. I don’t understand at all how you arrived at THAT conclusion.

   You’re simply wrong on journalistic ethics with regard to the tape. If the agreement that was made was that the tape itself wouldn’t be made public, then the LA Times would disgrace itself to RELEASE the tape. It’s not as though we were talking about evidence of a crime being committed here, so proper ethics in this regard is not even controversial. It’s perfectly elementary.

   You got one thing right. I’m white. However, I wonder if you wouldn’t yourself regard it racist yourself were I to refer to you as “Black Girl”. Perhaps you’d be fine with that, but I can’t help but sense a double-standard here.

   I call racism as I see it. In this case, it couldn’t be more apparent. Contempt for and prejudice against the Palestinian people is very deeply ingrained. The only ounce of credit I give to Obama is that at least he’s willing to acknowledge his own bias. But as I say in the article, that’s not nearly enough.

   It’s odd indeed after I get finished saying Obama is NOT FIT FOR THE PRESIDENCY that you write this comment suggesting I wrote the piece just to defend “my candidate”.

   Perhaps you should actually READ a piece before commenting on it. Just a suggestion.

3. Andy Best said on November 4th, 2008 at 10:11am #

   Jeremy has gone to great lengths here to include good information and analysis while avoiding prejudice. He clearly wants to highlight and tackle racism and also frames his “pro-Palestinian” observations in equality. That is equal standing for Palestinians and peaceful solutions.

   Comments like Bob’s have no place here.

4. Martha said on November 4th, 2008 at 10:59am #

   Sorry White boy, play your Hammond elsewhere, ain’t no Billie Holiday on this end and I won’t be silent while my culture’s ripped off.

   You write:
   *Earlier this week, John McCain once again attacked his presidential campaign opponent Barack Obama on the basis of his association with another individual.
   *McCain himself lashed out at the L.A. Times for choosing to not release the videotape, accusing the paper of bias and comparing the dinner to a “neo-Nazi outfit”.

   “Lashed out,” “again,” etc. You stack the deck to one side. Don’t bore me with your nonsense. The issue is LAT has a responsibility to release a tape it reported on. If it was not able to release it, it shouldn’t have reported on it.

   Sources can be protected. Video tapes? Notes? I don’t believe the courts have seen it that way and how nice of you, Hammond, to ignore the fact that I said your failure was in refusing to take on the press aspect.

   LAT wants to cover a videotape (back in April) and wants people to take their word for it. No.

   They should have released the tape or not reported on it.

   Also true is that LAT — at their own site — has offered 4 different reasons for refusing to release the tape.

   Repeating, read your language. You go out of your way to attack one side.

   I’m not buying your nonsense. The issue was the press.

   And you do stack the deck in favor of Barack.

   The only mistake I made was in reading your bad writng.

If Jeremy's dance seems familiar, it's the same crap Kat called Kevin Zeese out on:

You obviously do not get my criticism of you.

So let me try to break it down slowly.

In the past, you did some strong stuff. There were members of the community who really supported you.

But that was then.

This is now.

I don't care if Barack groupies think you are 'tough' on him.

I know reality. I know counter-insurgency guru Sarah Sewall is one of his advisors. I know Samantha Power was (she actually still is but I'll leave that to C.I. on whether or not to out Power). The myth is Power was a good and wonderful person. The reality is that she supports counter-insurgency as well. Check out the field manual. Power blurbed it for her friend Sewall.
That alone means Barack is not a peace candidate.

Counter-insurgency may be see as benign today but that's only due to the fact that people today really don't know what it is. I will assume you know just how destructive counter-insurgency is and who the victims are. I will assume that because liars like Amy Goodman made a big-to-do about Hillary's advisers and gave Barack's a pass you aren't aware of just how involved in the campaign Sewall is.

If you read "Editorial: Nader's a real candidate with real stands," you will find links and quotes from CNN at the start of the month, where Barack's explaining (as Power did to the BBC back in April) that when he says he'll withdraw (combat troops only -- which is meaningless), he doesn't mean it. As she told the BBC months ago, he told CNN this month. He'll make up his mind on what to do if he gets into the White House.

The DNC convention hasn't even taken place and already Barack is saying there is no end to the illegal war.

So when I say you need to take off the training wheels (I actually prefer C.I.'s "kick off the training wheels"), I am referring to the reality about Barack. I am referring to the fact that your idea of a fair critique is to pile on John McCain, weakly note he and Barack are similar and that's supposed to be criticism.

They are similar. Yet the construct you use in your critiques implies a difference that is not there. It does not matter that for a few sentences you tell a little truth. You continue the lie that on Iraq (or Israel for that matter), Barack and McCain are vastly different.

They are not. I am voting for Ralph Nader in November. I am voting for him because he is different from both of them and he will end the illegal war.

Will he get elected? He could. But it's going to take honesty from people wise enough to know it and, yes, Kevin Zeese, you are wise enough to know it. It may not get you all the links in the world or all the hey-hey-nah-nahs of praise and shout-outs online. But you're an adult and you know the truth. Your past work didn't pull punches. Today you do and I'm referring to your construct.

A long, long time ago, Jess explained to you what has ALWAYS concerned us about who is on board with Barack and Barack's statements. They want bases in Africa. Africa has oil (among other things). Bully Boy is not able to get bases in Africa. We think a degree of the press love for Barack is the same press love that sold the illegal war only, today, they want war in Africa.

Kevin Zeese, do me a favor before you write again and tell me who insisted that the Iraq War could not be labeled a mistake because that would hurt future conflicts and interventions. (Wars, but the Barack adviser was making it sound so high minded.) Tell me that.

Ava and C.I. did another amazing article this weekend, "TV: Strength greeted with confusion, attacks & silence." I'll be real honest, I'm disgusted with the people who will not call out the sexism. It's amazing but they are silent because the 'left' participated in the sexist attacks as well. That's not really surprising. The Nation magazine published only 149 women in 2007 but managed to publish 491 men. Let's not pretend the sexism just emerged with Hillary's run.

Jeremy's doing the same thing. Going after McCain with a hatchet and after Barack with a kleenex. Martha was right and Jeremy and the other Honky 'helpers' better get used to the fact that African-Americans are not in the mood to be used by them.

I'll write more about this tonight.

Jeremy's the exact reason you shouldn't vote for Barack. He's a liar and a bad writer.