This Associated Press account interprets al-Zawahri's latest communique as calling for Sunni-Shi'ite unity against the US and Israel, taking a tip from the cementing of the Hamas-Hezbollah conjunction since the Lebanon crisis. If so, al-Zawahri's followers in Iraq don't seem to have gotten the word. From AP, July 28:

Al-Qaida's No. 2 expands call for holy war

CAIRO - Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader called yesterday for Muslims to unite in a holy war against Israel and to join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq."

Hamas may be rallying around Hezbollah at the moment, but the Sunni-Shi'ite lovefest sure doesn't seem to have extended to Iraq. From AP, July 28:

Rockets strike an upscale Shi'a district, killing dozens
Rockets and mortars rained down an upscale, mostly Shi'a area of Baghdad yesterday, collapsing an apartment house, shattering shops and killing at least 31 people -- part of the rising sectarian violence President Bush has vowed to stop.

We noted in March 2005, when US troop levels in Iraq were boosted to around 150,000 ahead of the elections, that they were up from 123,000 a year earlier, and were supported by some 26,000 more coalition troops. This was also an increase from May 2003, when Bush initially declared "victory" in Iraq. Then the US had 135,000 troops in Iraq, and officially planned to reduce that number by over 100,000 over the next four months. Now, the Washington Post informs us July 28, US troops in Iraq are being raised by 3,000 to 135,000 in response to growing sectarian violence: in other words, the same level they were at when Bush declared "mission accomplished" in May 2003. Is there a light at the end of this tunnel?

A communique from the Federation of Worker Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI), July 27:

Killers of the employees of the Tasloja Cement Factory must be brought to justice

On July 27,2006, the police and security forces of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan opened fire on 700 workers of the Tasloja Cement Factory near the city of Suleiumanyia in the Iraqi Kurdistan. Three workers were killed and sixteen more were injured in this cruel attack. The workers came under attack because they launched a strike asking for [a] wage rise and that 300 workers previous fired by the administration be reinstated in their jobs. The response of the security and police forces in Suleimanyia to these demands expressed peacefully was to open heavy fire on workers as if they were facing an enemy entrenched in a battlefield. Incidents like this [in which] 20 workers are killed or maimed at working place for stopping work are rare even in countries ruled by oppressive regimes. An authority serving a capital owned by militia only cannot tolerate stopping production for a moment even when it is decided by the workers themselves.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the left-populist Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) raised the stakes in Mexico's electoral standoff July 26 by declaring himself "the president of Mexico." Cesar Nava, a spokesman for candidate Felipe Calderón of the ruling National Action Party (PAN) dismissed the claim as "messianic." (Seattle Times, July 27)

From Mexico's La Jornada, July 24, via Chiapas95, our translation:

The Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) and the narco-traffic in Chiapas "are factors that affect the national security," says an internal document of Superior Center of Naval Studies (CESNAV) of the Secretary of the Navy.

From Mexico's El Universal, July 24, via Chiapas95:

OAXACA, Mexico - Gunmen attacked a university radio station that has backed efforts to oust the Oaxaca state governor, as violence flared once more in protests that has driven many tourists from this colonial city.

Here we go again. Israel's envoy to Norway complains that a cartoon goes "beyond free speech." What the hell does that mean? Beyond good taste? Beyond acceptable discourse? Beyond what should be permitted in a free society? Where are these lines to be drawn and by whom? Why can't the offended (Muslim or Israeli) protest offending images without calling for their censorship, either explicitly or (worse, because it is more insidious) implicitly? Maybe this kind of sloppy and censorious speech is worse than hate speech? From BBC News July 26: