Dona: Betty, Desperate Housewives ends next month, for good. Your thoughts?
Betty: I started blogging about it last season and that was because Vanessa Williams joined the cast. I've now watched two seasons. It's an awful show. It will not be missed. Teri Hatcher is extremely talented and in the entire two years I've watched, they've failed to come up with a storyline for her. Meanwhile, the show's so racist and backward that it's not even Plessy v. Ferguson. It's just separate. There's nothing equal about the way Vanessa's Renee is treated. And it's obvious she was just added to draw attention to the show. They've had no interest in treating Renee like a main character. She usually gets two scenes an episode. It's disgusting.
I think they've been very racist in how they've used Renee, as I've noted here. Having her sing at Mike's funeral, for example. Like it's 1943 and she's Lena Horne. "Don't let her mix! We'll give her an onstage number!" I hate that show. I was willing to give it a chance for Vanessa but they really showed just how racist they were on that disgusting show.
And we talked about Whitney. I'm going to include Kat's response right before us because I love me some Kat and also because it'll allow me to have links:
Dona: So that's Revenge. We're also joined by Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Ruth of Ruth's Report; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. Let's move quickly to Kat because she's participating in another roundtable which starts as soon as we let her go. Kat, you were among the ones who posted about Revenge returning Wednesday night and included the screen snap. In that entry, you wrote about McMillan & Wife. That was a TV show from the early seventies that starred Rock Hudson and Susan Saint James. You wrote about watching it in real time with friends and snacking and getting stoned. And it was a very popular post with several people who contacted us to ask why don't you write about TV more often?
Kat: As I say in that post, if I were home during the week -- instead of on the road with Ava, C.I. and Wally -- I'd be watching TV and probably writing about it. But instead I'm on the road. We either get back to the hotel or C.I.'s home in the DC area and I turn on the TV and click and click and click until something interests me. Or I pull something up on the laptop. I'm not home, I'm not in one time zone. It's impossible to follow a TV show. For me, it's impossible. I did watch The New Adventures of Old Christine and loved that show. But I was able to watch that because Ava and C.I. would watch it. If we missed it, we'd stream it. And if I'd forgotten, I'd remember the next morning when they were talking about it and I'd say, "Shh! Shh! Haven't seen it yet!" And then I'd stream it that night and we'd talk about it the next morning. I'm not a TV snob. I'm a TV junkie. The TV's always on at the house unless the stereo's on. There are many shows that interest me today -- Being Human, Alphas, Whitney, Revenge, I could go on and on. But I just don't have the time to watch and it's too hard to keep up when I'm at home on the weekends, California, and then Tuesday I'm in Florida, or Georgia, or some other time zone. It's just too much.
Ty: Alright. And I loved your post, Kat. Now as Kat leaves us, she mentioned a TV show, one that three people in this community cover. Ann noted something last week about the show she, Betty and Marcia cover. Ann?
Ann: We cover the NBC sitcom Whitney. We suddenly stopped writing about it. We did that because it's finished it's 22 episodes. The first season concluded with the wedding that wasn't between Whitney and Alex.
Ty: Will it be renewed?
Marcia: No word yet but it should be. It drew a bigger audience than 30 Rock and Community. In fact, it was NBC's only sitcom success this season. The Office crashed and burned in the ratings. Up All Night did okay-ish on Wednesday nights but when it was swapped with Whitney, the thinking was that this is where Whitney fails and Up All Night takes off. That wasn't the case. Whitney considered to deliver an audience on Wednesdays -- and was NBC's highest rated program that night week after week despite leading off the night -- while Up All Night lost viewers in the move. Whitney's NBC's success. And that was with nothing but sexist attacks on the show.
Betty: Which was the main reason we started blogging about it. Back in October, Ava and C.I. wrote " TV: The perverts still drool over Shirley Temple" and that's what really prompted Ann, Marcia and myself to write about the show, to blog on it every week.
Dona: You felt it was treated unfairly?
Betty: Absolutely. The reception to this show was so hostile and so hateful. And Ava and C.I. called it, this was sexism running wild. The Water Cooler Set is men and women who want to please men. So there was no one to defend this wonderful sitcom until Ava and C.I. did.
Ty: That piece, " TV: The perverts still drool over Shirley Temple," is both the most commented on of this TV season and also the most read. It's hugely popular and the bulk of the e-mails on it are from TV critics for newspapers, TV stations and online publications. A growing number of which agree with Ava and C.I. that the show got a raw deal, critical reception wise, due to sexism.
Marcia: And that article popped up everywhere. You'd visit a newspaper's blog and the blogger would mention it or it would be in the comments. This happened over and over. That article that Ava and C.I. wrote really helped end the public stoning of Whitney Cummings and her TV show. Make no mistake, that wasn't criticism that was being handed out, it was a public stoning.
Ann: And it's a hilarious show. But it's a show that allows women as much space and time as men. I asked C.I. about Friends and how it was reviewed? When it first came on, the show was considered lightweight, too much was made of the women's looks with the implication being that they were too pretty to be funny -- that's Courtney Cox, Jennifer Aniston and Lisa Kudrow -- and it was just dismissed. But what the middle-aged critics couldn't grasp was that Marcia's generation embraced the show. It was their life on the screen. The Office isn't any woman's life. Sorry, boys. It's funny that when a show tries to focus on the lives of women and men or of just women, it gets trashed and attacked and then ignored.
Betty: Which is what happened with The Adventures of Old Christine. The Water Cooler Set attacked that show and refused to note it or include it. After we were calling that out, Ken Tucker did note it finally, the show, that the show was still funny, and I'll give him credit for that but that was about three or four days before CBS gave it the axe. Imagine if Ken and other men had used their platforms to focus on something other than all-male shows?
Marcia: And the bulk of the women critics are just as bad because they don't want to be seen as "women." Heaven forbid. So they refuse to call out the sexism and then the men will point out that none of their female colleagues see any sexism or they'd be writing about it. It's the circle jerk of life.
Ann: But one thing I've noticed, and Betty and I've talked about this again this week, more and more women are writing pieces on TV in the last weeks that mention Whitney in a sentence or two here or there. They're not trashing the show. Sometimes they're praising it. But it would appear that some of the female TV critics have realized that a funny and solid show was trashed because it threatened a bunch of sexist pigs.
Still on TV, Jessica Wakeman has a really good post about "Whitney." And be sure to read Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Why Revenge resonates" which is just amazing.
P.S. I found out via Jessica Wakeman's post (using links) that Ms. magazine's blog trashed "Whitney." How typical. How typical and how shameful.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday,
April 23, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri gets tight(er) with
Tehran, Nouri continues to have problems/make problems with Turkey,
Barzani calls for caution on the F-16 deal with the US, Senator Patty
Murray gets documentation that the VA wait times are as feared (and will
address the topic in a Wednesday hearing), and more.
Starting
in the US, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee will hold a hearing
Wednesday on "VA Mental Health Care: Evaulating Access and Accessing
Care" starting at 9:30 am EST in the Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Room 138. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans
Affairs Committee. Her office issued the following today:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, April 23, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224 - 2834
Murray Statement on IG Report Showing Major Delays in VA Mental Health Care
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, released the following statement after the
Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General released a report
that she had requested on the time it takes the VA to complete mental
health care appointments for our nation's veterans. The report
concludes, as Sen. Murray has repeatedly warned, that the wait times
faced by many veterans far exceeded that which the VA has previously
reported and the time the VA mandates. Murray will hold a hearing on Wednesday, April 25th to seek answers to these problems. The VA Inspector General will testify at that hearing.
"This
report confirms what we have long been hearing, that our veterans are
waiting far too long to get the mental health care they so desperately
need. It is deeply disturbing and demands actions from the VA. The
report shows the huge gulf between the time VA says it takes to get
veterans mental health care and the reality of how long it actually
takes veterans to get seen at facilities across the country.
"Getting
our veterans timely mental health care can quite frankly often be the
difference between life and death. It's the critical period, not unlike
the 'golden hour' immediately after a traumatic physical injury. Yet
this report clearly shows that the VA is failing to meet their own
mandates for timeliness. Clearly the VA scheduling system needs a major
overhaul. The VA also needs to get serious about hiring new mental
health professionals in every corner of the country.
"What's
particularly disappointing is that this report shows that the VA is
failing many of those who have been brave enough to seek care. It is
hard enough to get veterans into the VA system to receive mental health
care. Once a veteran takes the step to reach out for help we need to
knock down every potential barrier to care. Providing timely mental
health care is a cost of the decade-long wars our veterans have fought
and it is a cost that Congress and the American people are willing to
meet."
###
Matt McAlvanah
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834 - press office
202--224-0228 - direct
A
number of e-mails came in wanting the Petzel VA issue included in
today's snapshot. If there's room, it'll be at the end in full, if
there's not room, it'll be edited. I'll try to keep in the points that
veterans and veterans' family members e-mailed saying they wanted
included in the snapshot.
Today the UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) released the following statement:
BAGHDAD,
23 April 2012 -- UNICEF condemns an attack that took place yesterday
on a secondary school that killed two children and injured one near the
northern Iraqi city of Tikrit.
"UNICEF
condemns this attack in the strongest terms" said Maria Calivis, UNICEF
Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa. "The killing of
children is unacceptable. Attacks on schools, which are meant to provide
a safe learning environment, is a grave violation of children's
rights."
According to several reports,
five armed men stormed into the school, two are said to have entered a
4th grade class and opened fire on the students, killing 16-year-old and
17-year-old boys and injuring a third aged 16.
UNICEF
calls on the Government of Iraq to take the necessary measures to bring
to justice those responsible for this attack and take swift action to
ensure that measures are put in place to guarantee the safe access to
schools to all children in Iraq.
The violence never ends in Iraq. Alsumaria notes an attack to the northeast of Baquba in which unknown assailants shot two police officers leaving them injured and they note
that 2 intelligence service officers were shot dead (pistols had
silencers), a Salah al-Din roadside bombing left a police major and a
police captain injured and a roadside bombing west of Samarra left 1
person dead.
Meanwhile how bad
are things between Iraq and the US currently? So bad that the White
House is really trying to spin. In other words, the administration
finally gets that portraying Iraq and Iran as close friends doesn't work
for the Barack Obama re-election campaign.
In
desperate need of an answer to "What the hell is going on?" -- a
question, please note, not asked by the timid press, but by those
concerned with national security -- the White House tried to turn a
minor meeting into an event. First, they issued a press release noting
that a low-level Iraqi deputy (Huassain al-Shahristani) had met with
Daniel Poneman (US Deputy Secretary of Energy) and Carlos Pascual
(Special Envoy and Cooridinator for International Energy Affairs). Some
will wrongly tell you that he's the former Minister of Energy. No, he
wasn't. To have that post, he would have to be confirmed by the
Parliament. He was never confirmed for that post. he did previously
serve as the Minister of Oil. He was nominated for that post by Nouri
and the Parliament voted him into that post. From Minister to one of
many deupties, that's a demotion. And that demotion took place despite
the fact that al-Shahristani has been loyal to Nouri and is a member
of Nouri's political slate State of Law.
The
US bragged about spending (since 2003) $6.7 billion to help Iraqi energy
production ("$4.6 billion to the power sector and $2.1 billion to the
oil sector"). They then sent all three officials out for a photo-op and
press briefing. Again, the whole thing took place, this sudden 'event'
because of the fact that the White House is facing tough questions from
national security types and they have no answers.
Let's
go to the weekend and then come back. Over the weekend, Nouri went to
Iran to dialogue with officials in Tehran. That included the country's
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iran Independent News Agency notes,
"Iraq no longer needs any help from the United States, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki on Sunday as he offered to strengthen ties between the two
neighbouring countries, which were once at war." Pakistan's The Nation adds:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday at the start of a two-day visit to boost relations between their Muslim states. "If Tehran and Baghdad are strong, the region will have no place for the United States and the Zionist regime," Ahmadinejad said, quoted by state news agency IRNA, in reference to Tehran's arch-foe Israel. He said there was "no limit to the strengthening of political, economic and cultural ties" between them.
Such moves would serve to "boost stability and security in the region," chimed in Maliki, who also held talks with parliament speaker Ali Larijani.Maliki was also to see Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili.
Dar Addustour notes the public remarks Ahmadinejad made with Nouri by his side about how the region was no place for enemies of freedom like the US and Israel. The Tehran Times has Ahmadinejad calling the US and Israel enemies of the free world. (It's "Zionist regime," but he's referring to Israel.) RTT News observes, "Observers believe Iranian leaders intend to enhance their influence in Iraq after the pullout of U.S. troops by strengthening ties with Prime Minister Maliki who, like a majority of Iranians, is also a Shia Muslim."
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday at the start of a two-day visit to boost relations between their Muslim states. "If Tehran and Baghdad are strong, the region will have no place for the United States and the Zionist regime," Ahmadinejad said, quoted by state news agency IRNA, in reference to Tehran's arch-foe Israel. He said there was "no limit to the strengthening of political, economic and cultural ties" between them.
Such moves would serve to "boost stability and security in the region," chimed in Maliki, who also held talks with parliament speaker Ali Larijani.Maliki was also to see Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili.
Dar Addustour notes the public remarks Ahmadinejad made with Nouri by his side about how the region was no place for enemies of freedom like the US and Israel. The Tehran Times has Ahmadinejad calling the US and Israel enemies of the free world. (It's "Zionist regime," but he's referring to Israel.) RTT News observes, "Observers believe Iranian leaders intend to enhance their influence in Iraq after the pullout of U.S. troops by strengthening ties with Prime Minister Maliki who, like a majority of Iranians, is also a Shia Muslim."
Generally speaking, the US
government doesn't reward that sort of behavior. Call it petty or pin
it on vanity, but US leaders don't usually reward (or ignore) that sort
of public display. Now the official reason from the administration is
"Iraq's going to help us with Iran on the nuclear thing!" That's
nonsense. Iran's no where near building a nuclear weapon. That's the
talk of serial fabulists, But to briefly inhabit the world so many in
the administration do, let's pretend that they are on the verge.
There's nothing Iran's going to do that it doesn't want to do. That's
true today, that will be true when May 23rd rolls around as well. I
spoke today to two who gave Barack's 2008 campaign the 'gravitas' it so
sorely needed. They'd discussed this with the White House, Nouri's
shoulder-to-shoulder as the US is verbally attacked. They explained
that the White House's actions are seen as pushing Iraq into the arms
of Iran. They explained how vulnerable Barack still is on foreign
policy issues.
Because of those
conversations (and there were others raising the issue with the
administration today), a minor non-meeting was pimped as an event. It
wasn't an event, it wasn't significant. It took place today. Friday,
did the US State Dept's press briefing note the scheduled meeting?
Nope. In fact, Iraq wasn't even mentioned on Friday.
The
State Dept has a regular press briefing today. Did Victoria Nuland
raise the meeting in the press briefing? Nope. We'll note the Iraq
section -- reporters did ask about Iraq -- later in the snapshot but
this meeting was noted or brought up. Because it was a minor,
do-nothing meeting. It got inflated and pimped because repeat
complaints to various members of the administration today made clear to
them that they have an image problem that could hurt the 2012 election.
Please note, they're convinced that getting Nouri to meet with Iran for
the nuclear talks is a great thing for knowledge. But the complaints
made them see there was political fallout so this minor meet-up was
promoted as an event to try to say, "We're still close!"
He says: What do words ever reveal?
He says: In speaking one can be so false
We're so close we have a silent language
We don't need words at all
-- "We're So Close," written by Carly Simon, first appears on her album Spy
FYI, that is an incredible song (link on song title goes to video) and, as Kat noted,
last week the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
(ASCAP) warded Carly the prestigious ASCAP Founders Award -- a very high
honor -- others awarded the Founders Aware previously include Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Stevie Wonder, Ashford & Simpson (Valerie Simpson and the late Nick Ashford), and Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart.
Marina
Ottaway: Finally -- and this is the last comment that I want to make
in terms of agency -- you also have to look at the neighboring
countries. And here I -- and here I truly disagree with the previous
speaker. I think the situation in the region is going to make the -- is
going to aggravate the internal problem that Iraq is facing -- because,
like it or not, the regional -- the politics of the region is moving in
the direction of sectarian -- of sectarian conflict. The -- talk about
the -- you know, the Iran, Iraq, Syria -- one should say, Hizbollah,
more than Lebanon -- sort of arc, if you want; the Shia crescent of
which King Abdullah of Jordan spoke at one points -- which is coming
back with a vengeance. And I would argue that the polices of most
countries -- of neighboring countries towards Iraq are colored, and are
determined essentially, by this -- by the sectarian perspective. The
Gulf countries have resisted embracing the new government in --
essentially embracing Iraq, because they are perceiving Iraq as being a
pawn of Iran. Whether or not it is true, they are certainly
contributing to pushing -- to pushing Iraq in the arms of Iran. But
there is no doubt that the policies of the Gulf countries towards Iran
-- excuse me, towards Iraq -- are driven by this perception of what is
the relationship between Iran and Iraq.
That's Carnegie Endowment For International Peace's Marina Ottaway speaking at The State Of Iraq
conference last February. If she's correct (and she quite often is),
the weekend love-fest really didn't help Iraq draw closer to all their
other neighbors.
And it's not like Iraq doesn't have problems with its other neighbors. UPI notes,
"Iraqi officials announced Monday they summoned Turkey's ambassador in
Baghdad in reaction to disparaging remarks made last week by the Turkish
prime minister." What's going on?
Friday,
Nouri al-Maliki abandoned his brief 13 day attempt to be nice. He
lashed out declaring Turkey to be an "enemy state" of Iraq. Saturday Ayla Jean Yacklery (Reuters) reported,
"Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday regjected charges he
sought to inflame sectarian divisions in Iraq with recent criticism of
its government and accused his Iraqi counterpart of trying to gain
'prestige' in an escalating war of words between the neighbours." Al Jazeera added:
"We don't differentiate between Sunnis or Shias. Arab, Kurd or Turkmen, they are all our brothers," Erdogan told reporters in comments reported by the NTV news channel.
"If we respond to Mr. Maliki, we give him the opportunity to show off there. There is no need to allow him to gain prestige."
Turkey, which is majority Sunni, has been seen as a key ally and even a role model for Iraq, because of its secular constitution and close relations with the West, including membership in NATO.
Iraq is Turkey's second largest trading partner after Germany, with trade reaching $12 billion last year, more than half of which was with the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region.
"We don't differentiate between Sunnis or Shias. Arab, Kurd or Turkmen, they are all our brothers," Erdogan told reporters in comments reported by the NTV news channel.
"If we respond to Mr. Maliki, we give him the opportunity to show off there. There is no need to allow him to gain prestige."
Turkey, which is majority Sunni, has been seen as a key ally and even a role model for Iraq, because of its secular constitution and close relations with the West, including membership in NATO.
Iraq is Turkey's second largest trading partner after Germany, with trade reaching $12 billion last year, more than half of which was with the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region.
With everything else Iraq is
facing, you'd think Nouri al-Maliki would have the brains not to also
antagonize one of its neighbors.
Iraq came up in today's US State Dept press briefing. There were three issues. We'll note the third one first.
QUESTION:
Toria, just a quick follow-up to this, but Maliki had really harsh
words for Turkey. And now both of them are your allies, you have
invested a great deal in Iraq. I mean, they're -- he's pushing the
envelopes. You don't have any comment on that?
MS.
NULAND: We have, for almost a decade now, encouraged increased
dialogue, increased direct contacts between Iraq and Turkey. There are
mechanisms for them to work through their issues together which we have
endeavored to facilitate, and we encourage them to continue to use them
to work through the issues that they have.
Alsumaria reports
that Iraqiya has stated that the visit Nouri's made to Tehran is not in
Iraq's national interest and that it leads to intervention in Iraq's
internal affairs. Hermione Gee (Rudaw) offers:
Middle
East observers are expressing concern that the row between the two
neighbors is a sign of growing Sunni-Shiite tension in the region, as
predominantly Sunni Turkey lines up against Maliki, Iran and Bashar
al-Assad's violent suppression of Syria's mainly Sunni population.
Mehmet Seyfettin
Erol, head of Ankara's International Strategic and Security Research
Center (USGAM), says that Maliki's recent comments must be viewed in the
context of his government's alliance with the Shiite regime in Iran.
Maliki, who is currently on an official visit to Tehran, "is paying
lip-service to Iran, which is trying to implement Shiite political
dominance in the region," Erol told Turkish daily Today's Zaman. In
response, he said, Turkey is being forced to protect Sunni rights in the
region.
Let's go back to Carnegie Endowment For International Peace's Marina Ottaway speaking at The State Of Iraq conference last February.
Marina
Ottaway: In Iraq today, I think it's becoming more and more
appropriate to speak not of the Iraqi government, or even of a
Shia-dominated government, or even a Dawa-dominated government -- but
rather of a Maliki regime. This is the newly dominant force in Iraqi
politics; these are the Malikists. They're an analog to the Saddamists
in many way -- or the Saddamiyoon, as Iraqis knew them. And so I'd like
to coin the term today, the "Malikiyoon." I think this is something
that Iraqis will recongize. And these are the officials and the
operators who have enabled Prime Minister Maliki to consolidate control
of state power and gradually marginalize the other political blocs as
they've done it -- while neutralizing, one by one, the checks and
balances that the Iraqi constitution was meant to contain on just such a
consolidation of power. So I'd like to talk a little bit -- to dig
down a little bit and talk some about where we can find the
"Malikiyoon," who they are, how they behave and what policies they'll
follow, and what that will mean for Iraq and the rest of us, my best
guess. So, first in aquiring power in Iraq, the "Malikiyoon" have
focused on the security and intelligence apparatus, the coercive arms of
the state. And this is where you can most easily find them. You can
find them at the top of the ministry of defense, at the top of the
ministry of the interior, at the top of the intelligence services. You
will find them in control of the Iraqi special operations forces and in
the police commandos. And any forces that can -- that, really, they
have coalesced into a new sort of coup-proofing set of forces -- almost a
new Special Repbulican Guard. Now, next, who are they individually?
Well, individually they are not really the Dawa party. This is not
really the Dawa party. They are at the center. They're Maliki's
family, including his son and son-in-law most significantly. They're
his personal advisers, both official and unofficial -- so those that are
in the prime minister's office and those that are -- that are in
Maliki's house, you know, in the diwan late at night making decisions.
Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Kurdish region president Masoud Barzani returned yesterday night to Arbil province at the end of his external visit to Bulgaria, USA, Hungary and Turkey, sources said here. Barzani discussed with the Turkish president Abdulla Gul the relations between Kurdistan and Turkey, as well as the situation in Iraq and Syria."
The visit was a success for Barzani. It became an embarrassment for Nouri al-Maliki who first attacked Barzani early last week and cattily insisted that Barzani had Kurds who 'speak ill of him.' Alsumaria reports that Barzani has declared he could meet with Nouri to dicuss the political crisis 100 times and it would change nothing. In addition, he states that the Kurdistan Region is in danger and that he is going to begin talks immediately with Kurdish parties and Iraq President Jalal Talabani on the topic of independence. Rudaw speaks with Barzani and reports:
"I
have met with Maliki many times. I don't have any personal problems
with him. I have respect for him. But my experience with Maliki is that
even if I met him 100 more times, it wouldn't bear any fruit because he
has not implemented any of his promises," said Barzani in response to a
question by Rudaw.
"Nothing
but dictatorship threatens the territorial integrity of Iraq,"" warned
Barzani, speaking to journalists in his office in Salahaddin, a resort
town northeast of Erbil.
Relations
between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad authorities
have been tense recently over a range of issues, especially the
unsettled oil and gas disputes.
"If
all the people of Iraq are happy with this situation, they can do as
they please. If the people of Kurdistan and all Kurdistani parties are
content with the current situation and don't see any threat, I have no
personal problems. But I must clear my conscience with my people,"
Barzani said about his recent strong remarks against Baghdad
authorities, especially PM Maliki.
Yesterday Ofra Bengio (Jerusalem Post) explored previous times when Barzani had made the call for independence. Iraq did come up at today's US State Dept press briefing when spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked about Iraq. Let's go to the second issue raised:
QUESTION:
About the -- just a follow-up about an oil agreement made by
Exxon-Mobil and KRG. Since it's an American company, the Exxon-Mobil,
this agreement is excluding Baghdad Government's role in the use of oil
in KRG region. Do you have any comment? How do you see this agreement?
Is it threatening to unity of Iraq, or how do you see Exxon-Mobil and
KRG oil agreement?
MS.
NULAND: We've talked about this issue many times. Our position on it
has not changed, that we think the lack of a comprehensive oil agreement
is holding Iraq back, that we've called on all sides to continue to
work through what is necessary to come up with a national oil policy.
And we also regularly counsel our companies, including Exxon, about the
fact that there isn't such an agreement. So I think we'll have a little
bit more to say on the issues of Iraq and energy later today. We're
going to have -- we have the U.S.-Iraqi energy dialogue going on, and
we'll have some folks briefing later this afternoon on those things.
Thursday
the International Crisis Group noted that Iraq still had no oil &
gas law and the need for one in a typical ICG report -- meaning
one-sided with lots of bowing and scraping to Nouri (that's a nasty
habit of ICG's). From the Executive Summary of "Iraq and the Kurds: The High-States Hydrocarbons Gambit:"
But
the Kurds face a problem. While they pursue an independent oil policy
and have taken important steps toward that end by drafting their own oil
law in 2007 and signing over 40 contracts with foreign oil companies
without Baghdad's input or approval, they lack the means to export their
oil without Baghdad's help and therefore its permission. To date, the
federal government has used its control over the national pipeline
network, as well as its hold on the treasury and budget, to rein in the
Kurds' ambitions.
Hemmed in by
Baghdad and anxious to become economically self-sufficient, Erbil is
turning its eyes to another potential outlet for its oil: Turkey. Masoud
Barzani, the Kurdish region's president, reportedly told foreign
visitors to his mountain redoubt that if Maliki remains in power beyond
the 2014 parliamentary elections, the Kurds would go their own way. Not
coincidentally, 2014 is when the Kurdish region expects to complete
construction of its own strategic oil pipeline, one that skirts (federal
government) Iraqi territory before reaching the border with Turkey. For
Kurdish leaders, economic dependency on a democratic neighbour with an
attractive window on the West is far preferable to a continued chokehold
by a regime displaying authoritarian tendencies -- all of which raises
the question of what Ankara would do if the Kurds ask it to take their
oil without Baghdad's approval.
For
the record, Nouri's making no moves on resolving the disputed
territories. Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution calls for him too
but he ignored that call in his first term as prime minister. I would
assume the Kurds are being advised to take action and, more importantly,
advised that if they do not, with the issue being unresolved and no
action on the Kurds part, there is a strong possibility that an outside
body would award the region to the central-government based in Baghdad.
Legally that could happen. I would assume the Kurds are familiar with
this -- I know they're familiar with the repeated calls over the year
for an international body to step in and resolve the issue -- and that
this is what's prompting them to act. But the ICG always sides with
whom they see to hold power and they're not usually very skilled in the
law.
Today, AFP reported that Barzani has also stated that he opposes the US sale of F-16 fighter planes to Nouri and that, "The F-16 must not reach the hand of this man. We must either prevent him from having these weapons, or if he has them, he should not stay in his position."
The value of the F-16s on the world stage includes the fact that the US and its allies are the ones who know how they work. Nouri's close relationship with Tehran should be seriously factored in before the sale moves forward. If Nouri has F-16s, it's a pretty good conclusion that Tehran then has all knowledge of F-16s. The issue of Barzani and the F-16s was the first of three issues the press raised at today's US State Dept press briefing.
QUESTION:
On Iraq, KRG President Maliki criticized an arms sales which will be
made by U.S. to Baghdad Government -- about the F-16 sales. And he said
to freeze the sales until there will be a solution between KRG and
Baghdad Government because he's suspicious that the Maliki government
can use this F-16 against KRG. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. NULAND: I'm sorry. Who made these initial comments?
QUESTION: President Barzani.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: KRG president.
MS. NULAND: I'm
not going to get into the middle of intramural efforts between the
various Iraqis. I think you know where we are on this, that we want to
see the disagreements that they have with each other also settled
through dialogue and through a big roundtable process that they've all
pledged to join but that still needs to get off the ground.
QUESTION: Is that F-16 sales will go on?
MS. NULAND: I don't think there's any change in our policy.
Intramural? Well that's about how serious the State Dept takes the issue.
Last week, Gretchen Gavett (PBS' Frontline)
discovered the issue of the VA's decision to employ an additional 1,900
workers for mental health and she cited the Undersecretary of Health
Robert Petzel. She didn't know, apparently, that the House and Senate
Veterans Affairs Committees had repeatedly urged and suggested more
workers and were repeatedly told that there were enough -- this took
place over and over in open hearings. Nor did she grasp, apparently,
that Petzel wasn't suddenly doing something because he'd realized there
was a shortage, he was doing it as a result of the actions of Senator
Patty Murray who chairs the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. As her
office noted last week in a press release:
Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, made the following statement after the VA announced that it would be moving to hire 1,600 mental health care professionals. The announcement comes just days before the findings of a major VA Inspector General report that Senator Murray requested on long wait times for VA mental health care are expected to be announced. VA's action is welcome news to Senator Murray who has held multiple hearings over the past year on overcoming barriers to VA mental health care. Murray will hold a third hearing on this subject in order to hear the Inspector General's findings on Wednesday, April 25th.
Robert
Petzel isn't someone worth citing -- as a number of members of the US
Congress have learned. I count 18 members who have strongly called him
out in public hearings since 2009.
He's been called out
for his management or 'management' and he's been called out for his
testimony. The House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing May 3, 2011
about the VA infecting veterans who came in to be treated. This was a
very serious issue. We're noting this exchange between Petzel and
Ranking Member Bob Filner and we're noting it in full because it was a
serious issue -- veterans going to a VA facility for care were at risk
of illness or disease (including AIDS).
Ranking
Member Bob Filner: Dr. Petzel, you're here as the representative of the
VA. We've gone through this before, sir. It seems to me your job here
should have been -- and we have Congress people from all the districts
that have been effected -- was to begin to restore some trust and
confidence in your institution. I'd hate to take a poll. If I did, and I
said, "How many people now have confidence everything is fine in your
VA hospital?," I doubt if anyone would raise their hand. You said
everything is fine. It's not true. Simply not true. You talk about all
of these transparent procedures and these-these Journal -- New England Journal
best practices, and yet every time something happens, we have
disaster. We don't have a way of communicating. We don't have a way of
dealing with the personal concerns. We don't have any knowledge that
anybody's been reprimanded. Now you've got three. We've been going
over this for years and now we've got three. And we still -- You have
never told this committee those figures before as far as I know. But,
Dr. Petzel, we've gone through this before. We've raised concerns in our
opening statements. You read your opening statement as if we never
said anything. So you never addressed issues of accountability, you
never addressed issues of communication -- whether within your agency
or with veterans or with this Committee. I-I-I-I've gone through the
time lines with almost every one of these [Congress] members here and
their hospitals. You say panels get together to decide "should we
disclose, what should we disclose, who should we --?" It looks to many
of us like they get together to decide "What do we keep secret from our"
-- You know, you keep shaking your head "no." But why did it take 8
weeks at St. Louis -- where Mr. Carnahan will raise the issues -- why
did it take 8 weeks for that panel to decide, we're going to tell people
that we have almost 2,000 people infected -- possibly infected with
HIV? It took two months before you guys decided that. I would have --
And the Secretary [of the VA, Eric Shinseki] wasn't notified, as far as I
know, in his words to me, in that whole period of time. So it sounds
like you're sitting there deciding, "What's the minimal amount of
information that we can give out so people don't get upset with us?"
Rather than the maximum. I would have -- that first day -- I would have
had the Secretary had a press conference that said, you know, "We have a
possibility of X-hundred or thousands of people, we're going to get to
you right away, we want to make sure this is happening." And put
pressure on yourselves to become public. Because there's no pressure
for you to do anything. We didn't know anything. The Secretary didn't
know anything. I don't know if you knew anything. Because these
guys are going, "How do we keep this secret for as long as possible?
Maybe we don't have to disclose at all?" Because your question was:
"Should we disclose?" Not how to do it. And then, as I said, your
whole disclosure process is as if everybody knows all your acronyms and
your-your initials for everything, all these SPDs and RMEs, as if the
patients know what's going on. They get a letter. I've seen these
letters. It says basically -- it's not this bald, but almost -- "You may
have HIV." They get a letter. It may have even gone to a wrong
address. For 1500 people, as I said to you earlier at a hearing, you
should have had 1500 of your 250,000 employees, assigned each one to
somebody, call them, call them, go visit them, find out where can they
come back, when can they get their blood tests, treat them as if they
may have HIV. And they're scared to death they're going to die and you
send them a letter. And there's no one there necessarily to answer a
phone call when they call back cause you don't have people working this
like case managers and one person to five people. I think you should do
one-on-one. But what you described as this open, transparent process
does not come through. And everyone of these people [points to members
of Congress] has constituents which I bet confirm what I just said.
And even if it's perception and not reality, that, that's just as bad.
That you took forever, you weren't very personal in your notification,
you weren't very clear about what it is that they might have, you didn't
follow up in a way that was very quick and then we don't know anything
about accountability. We know nothing from basically what you said
today. And you guys have got to develop a new system. Whether it's
talk -- You know, we just killed Osama bin Laden and they notified 8
members of Congress and the Committee and they kept that. Well maybe
you should notify all the Chair and Ranking Member of the Veterans
Committees about what you're doing about your personnel. But there is
no sense that you have done anything. And we don't know -- Nobody in
Dayton, nobody in St. Louis, nobody in Miami, nobody in New Jersey,
nobody in Tennessee knows anything about that accountability. And I
doubt anybody in the system knows anything about it, so they don't think
there's any accountability. So I wish you would address these issues.
We've gone over them for several years. You and I have gone over these
exact issues several times in hearings and you do the exact same thing.
You give me a prepared statement. 'Everything's fine.' You move the
discussion into these arcane things about SPDs and RMEs and you neglect
the basic issues of communications and accountability that are at the
heart of the confidence that our people have in your system. You may
comment in any way you want.
Dr. Robert Petzel: Uh, thank you, Mr. Filner. The, uhm . . . What I want to do is, uh, first talk about our, uh, notification process. The, uh, the process by which we determine who ought to be notified or who might be at risk, as I said before, is an industry standard. I will stand by that process under any circumstance. It takes some time but it is transparent and it is weighted heavily in the favor of --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: Nobody knew about St. Louis for 8 weeks.
Dr. Robert Petzel: I'm --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: Eight weeks.
Robert Petzel: Sir.
Ranking Member Bob Filner: And I'm if that's industry standard, we shouldn't be following industry standard.
Dr. Robert Petzel: Sir, I'm not talking about the communication, I'm talking about the process that we go through. It is very thorough and it's weighted on the side of being abundantly cautious to be sure that we take into account every possible risk. The process by which we disclose to patients involves letters, phone calls and case managers. Particularly in the instance of St. Louis, every single individual that was effected was called, they were offered a case manager, there was a case manager that involved -- in fact, in some instances, the leadership of the medical center. I will admit that we've learned figuratively since --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: Sir, that conflicts exactly with what you said to me at St. Louis. The Chairman was there, Mr. Carnahan was there, Mr. Lacy -- Clay [US House Rep William Lacy Clay] was there, sorry, sir. Mr. [John] Shimkus was there. You never mentioned the word case manager, you never mentioned mentioned that they were called. Is that right, Russ? [Carnahan nods his head in agreement.] We-we went through this discussion with you. The first word I said to you was case manager. I said to you, "Why don't you have case managers?" You said, "Yeah, we'll look at that." We're both going to review your testimony in St. Louis because it's contrary to what you just said now.
US House Rep Phil Roe is also (medical) Doctor Roe. This is part of what he had to say in that hearing:
US House Rep Phil Roe: One of the things that we have to sell in medicine is trust. Our patients need to trust us. They need to trust the VA that that's where the quality of care and transparency, Mr. Filner is absolutely 100% correct. I can assure you that when I had a problem go wrong in my shop when I practiced medicine, not the clerk that answered the phone made the call to the patient, I made the call to the patient. I called them up. I explained to them. I had them come in and tell them what was going on. And I can tell you, with 1500 people, that could have been in a large institution with multiple people, I would have had the highest level people contacting someone when they think they have HIV or a potential life threatening condition.
That's Petzel. He should be gone.
Mike Vizena (Director of Michigan Association of Community Mental Health Boards) wrote a Saturday column for the Battle Creek Enquirer Saturday which included , "According to veteransandfamilies.org, 18 veterans commit suicide each day, and a CBS News investigation uncovered that the suicide rate for veterans is twice that of other Americans. These numbers are far too high, and we as a community should come together and strengthen the safety net of support for our veterans in need of treatment."
And the numbers aren't really going down. At some point, department heads are going to need to tie in accountability. They're going to need to set goals and they're going to need to fire those -- at the top the deputies -- who cannot meet those goals because the American people are sick of this across the board. In fact, if Barack Obama or anyone else wanted a winning talking point, that's what they could propose. It would probably work better for a Mitt Romney, Jill Stein or Ron Paul or anyone else who hasn't been president for the last four years, but it would work for Barack as well.
