Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Naomi Klein and other idiots

I loathe the idiot Naomi Klein for a number of reasons.

But, as a Black woman, all it really takes is the photo with this bad column she's scribbled.

I am so sick of the North American Blondes showing up after anyone starts something and the North American Blondes claim credit.

Look at her standing over the activists who started the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Did no one have the sense to tell her to shut up?

Did no one have the guts to tell her to try listening?

Instead, she showed up with her ready-made-speech (that may or may not have applied to what the protesters felt) and decided to tell them things.

When does the Blonde shut the hell up and learn to listen?

Obviously not any time soon.

That photo illustrates not only Naomi Klein's problem but the problem of so much of the left. Instead of going to listen, they go to give speeches. That's why they never know what is going on.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, October 11, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, John Glaser makes an election year prediction, Iraqi women continue to be rendered invisible by the press, 'withdrawal' issues continue to swirl, Jalal Talabani runs off at the mouth, and more.
John Glaser (Antiwar.com) offers his take on how the upcoming 2012 election season will play out:
The Obama administration's so-called shift in war strategy -- from country-wide military occupation to targeted special operations and training missions -- is Orwellian claptrap for more of the same. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, in remarks in Washington in mid-September, said that by 2014 "the US remaining force will be basically an enduring presence force focused on counterterrorism." The technocratic pedantry obscures the reality that the war will continue.
Yet, watch and see in the upcoming 2012 campaign how much Obama will use this 2014 date as a stump speech to coddle gullible Obama voters into casting their ballots -- again -- for a reincarnation of their supposed nemesis, George W. Bush. See if Obama gets reelected on a promise that the war in Afghanistan has nearly ended (that is, if recession-conscious Americans can conceive of going to the ballot box with any intention other than voting themselves other peoples' money).
As a matter of fact, watch how much Obama's similarly broken promises vis-a-vis ending the Iraq war will be completely stricken from the presidential debates. The Obama administration has spent years badgering the Iraqis into accepting a large contingency of US troops and contractors to remain in Iraq beyond the December 2011 deadline for a full withdrawal. To push this through, Maliki circumvented the Iraqi Parliament to make the decision dictatorially. Now that Obama has succeeded in strong-arming the continuation of the US occupation of Iraq, they are demanding US soldiers maintain immunity from Iraqi law.
Sadly, John Glazer's prediction is sound, based on past actions and highly likely of coming true. Al Mada calls it the largest US occupation since the Marshall Plan, the US State Dept's intent to send 16,000 employees into Iraq. Approximately 80% of these 16,000, the paper notes, are not State Dept workers but instead are contractors. It's noted that the prospects of graft and corruption are high due to the size of the mission (which will include training Iraqis). Al Sabaah notes that Jalal Talabani met with a number of editorial boards to discuss various issues including the decision to approve 5,000 US troops to stay in Iraq beyond 2011 (that's last week's decision). Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "The statement, which appeared in most Iraqi newspapers Tuesday, is the first by any American or Iraqi official to detail the size of the U.S. training contingent that the Iraqis have requested. It seemed to make clear that there were no further discussions likely on the thorny issue of immunity, something U.S. officials have always said was a non-negotiable condition of leaving American troops in Iraq."
Really?
Is that what it seemed?
Because eight hours before McClatchy found it, when I was commenting this morning, I was being nice and moving right along.
What did it seem?
It seemed like Jalal was shooting off his mouth again and trying to make himself look important. What am I referring to? His inflation of his duties as High Commander of the Iraqi military. It's a title, that's all it is. And if Jalal doesn't get that, he must be one of the many Iraqi politicians who's never read the country's Constitution.
Let's quote it. Chapter 2, Article 70, Section I, "Perform the duty of the Higher Command of the armed forces for ceremonial and honorary purposes."
That's the Constitution. If we're going to go off into the world of what-it-seems-like, then let's be realistic about what it seems like -- as opposed to using "seems" to cover for our own wishes and desires.
Jalal Talabani can't stop bragging about himself. That was key to his first term, it remains the hallmark of his second term. What stood out the most in his comments would be his inflating his non-existent powers into somehow the equivalent of the commander-in-chief powers that Nouri al-Maliki currently holds as prime minister.
If we accept that Jalal doesn't have the powers he said he has, that he was (as usual) stroking his own image, then anything else he says is filtered through that prism as well which would negate the so-called "seems" that McClatchy wants to exist.
Meanwhile Al Sabaah reports that Nouri is publicly floating the idea of obtaining military equipment from France or Russia and Nouri notes that negotiations with the US are ongoing. Walter Pincus wonders "So what's the goal of our being in Iraq again?" (Washington Post):

It's been more than eight years since Saddam was deposed, yet Iraq — and even Baghdad — remain a war zone for Americans. Along with those 5,000 private contractor guards needed on the ground, the State Department is now looking to hire a contractor to provide drones for aerial surveillance.
In addition, last Wednesday, the Swedish defense group Saab AB announced that it had received a $23.7 million order from State to buy its Giraffe multi-mission radar system and related services. Two units owned by the U.S. Army are now on loan to State to protect the U.S. Embassy and other buildings in Baghdad's Green Zone. State had to buy its own drones now because the units take 15 months to build. Then it will return the others to the Army.
The embassy area is "the target of rocket and mortar attacks on an almost daily basis," according to a State document justifying the purchase. The Giraffe system provides 360-degree coverage with a single unit, says the document, and the capability "to detect, sense and warn of prospective rocket, artillery and mortar attacks." State even believes it needs protection against "ordnance launched against U.S. personnel via unmanned aerial vehicles, an identified high-risk potential for future attacks," according to the document.

Sahfiq Qazzaz asks a similiar question, one that can be summed up as "What have the Kurds gotten out of this?" (Rudaw):

Amid all of this, the feeling of helplessness among American officials with regard to the situation in Iraq is coupled with their concerns about the dangerous conditions in a country that was expected to fare better.
A report by veteran politicians James Baker and Lee Hamilton in 2006 emphasized the need for a "strategic shift" in Iraq, asserting that Iraq can convince Kurds to lower the bar on their demands only through a strong centralized system, winning the public's loyalty and establishing a united national identity.
To put it in another way, the report's recommendations called for a government in Iraq that can save the country from falling off a cliff. This would have provided the opportunity or the Bush administration to have a speedier withdrawal less marked by defeat.
The events of the last few years showed that the report's strategy was not realized. Eight years after the liberation of Iraq, Professor Michael Gunter says, "Most Shias and Sunnis try to restore the situation to the past… and there are some in the Kurdistan Region who believe it's better for them to militarily confront Baghdad sooner rather than later lest in the future the balance of power would be less in Kurds' favor."

Dan Zak (Washington Post) reports
from Anbar Province and quotes the head of the Security and Defense Committee for the Province, Eifan al-Issawi, stating, "The Iraqi police and army forces are in dire need of aid from the U.S. [. . .] We need continuous support for our forces because al-Qaeda is not an easy enemy and should not be taken lightly."
BridgingDivide posted a video to YouTube last month entitled "Iraq - Interview with a Battered Woman."
ASUDA Women's Shelter
Suleimaniyah, north IRAQ
interview with a battered woman
code name
SHIREEN
Since my childhood I have lived a miserable life. I grew up in a small village, coming from a poor family. My father's economic condition was very poor. When I was a child, I had so many dreams that never came true. I had hoped that marriage would mean a prosperous new life for me. But, on the wedding night, when people usually talk about where to spend a pleasant evening with family, instead my husband spoke about all the people whom he had robbed and murdered. So I regretted getting married to him from the first day. Even when I went home to my parent's house, three days after the wedding, everyone in our family, even the neighbors could see how clearly sad I was. They all asked if there was a big problem, like if I wasn't still a virgin. Or that maybe I had a physical disability or something. I was very depressed, and cried a lot. I knew that my life had been ruined. I knew that none of my dreams would come true. One of the reasons my life was ruined was my mother. One of my cousins wanted to marry me, but my mother did not agree because he was not very good-looking and not very well educated. She negotiated with him as if she were selling an animal and in the end . . . my mother and uncle did not agree on an amount of money and changed their minds. My cousin's family was willing to pay only 9,000 Iraqi Dinars, but my mother demanded 20,000. Neither side reached an agreement, so the relationship between our two families deteriorated. So, she decided that I should marry a husband in the traditional way, in an arranged marriage, the bride and the groom not knowing one another before the wedding day. On the day of the ceremony, the groom ran away. He was only brought back with the help of some elderly people who were there at the time, and finally, we were married against our will. When the Mullah had asked him if he agreed to marry me, at first he did not respond. Eventually, he responded "yes." My father and uncle then said that we were still young, and that we would get used to the situation. But after we got married, the situation got worse every day. Our new family never had a nice moment. I had always tried to be very good to my husband, but he always looked for an excuse to abuse me. He failed to find anything positive in my behavior. He would complain about the food or how I did my work. For example, when he felt that I was being too good to him, and he was unable to find any other excuse, he would complain about the way I washed his clothes, or did my other chores. He would start to argue with me, and kick me out of the house. When he would kick me out, I had to go back to my mother's house. My mother would get angry at me, saying that I was shameful for leaving my home, for leaving my husband. She told me that it is shameful for a woman to divorce her husband. While at my parents' house, I was unable to leave or go outside. It was like a prison. It was like when I am here [at the shelter], and I can't go out. It was the same at my parents' house. After a while, I had no choice but to return to my husband. Then in 2004, I had twin girls named Hana and Niga. My husband got very angry because I visited a doctor before delivery, and was told that I was pregnant with twin girls. When my husband found out about the two girls, he divorced me right in front of everyone, saying he no longer wanted me as his wife. Despite this, I kept living with him, as I was no longer welcome at my parents' house. I stayed with my ex-husband for about 9 months, until I delivered the twin girls without a real divorce. When the girls were 9 months-old, I got pregnant again. The baby was a boy. After reaching 5 or 6 months pregnant, my husband took me to a medical assistant paying him $730 to abort the baby. It was December 5th. I will never forget that day. He took me to the medical assistan, who then gave me a lethal injection for the fetus, which put me in a lot of pain. But the baby did not die the same day. It died the next morning between 10 or 11 AM, a Friday. I will never forget that day. At around 12, the baby was aborted from my body, and my disabled baby Niga was laying next to me. After a few moments, she also died. I lost two of my children in the same hour. I called my husband and asked him where he was. He told me that he was out somewhere, off to a public bath to take a shower. I told him that both Niga and the baby had died, but he wouldn't believe that both had died at the same moment. He told me not to tell anyone, not to cry, and that he would come home immediately. When he got back, he buried the aborted baby boy in a little ditch in our garden, and went to tell our neighbors that our girl Niga had just died. They already knew she was not well, as I had been taking her to the hospitals for the last four or five months. The neighbors came and took Niga to the cemetery for burial, while my husband stayed behind to finish burying the baby boy in the backyard. I lived in very difficult conditions during the three or four days of mourning for Niga, and had to be taken to the hospital a few times for internal bleeding. A doctor told me that it looked like my baby had not died normally, that it looked like a surgical operation. He asked me to tell him who had performed the abortion, so that legal action could be taken against the perpetrator. But I was afraid of my husband, and couldn't say anything. I didn't give them the name of the medical assistant who performed the abortion even though I knew him well -- his name is [. . .]. I even know where he lives. He had charged us $730 exactly, then asked for $50 more. When my husband found out that it was a baby boy, he argued with the assistant, and refused to pay the extra $50. He then threatened him, sending him messages that he would tell others that he was doing this kind of work. I am not aware of how this was resolved, as I was very ill. Afterwards, I continued living with my husband anyway, not letting anyone know about the abortion. For this reason, my parents stopped talking to me, and no one attended my daughter's funeral, because I was divorced from my husband. No one came to visit me, so he started telling me that if I had lost two children without any family membmers to pay condolences, he had to take more control over me. I had to say "yes" and agree to his every word, I had to tell him this, because I had nowhere else to go. I continued to live with him this way until March 2nd. At around 6PM my brother-in-law came to my house, asking me to have sex with him. I refused, so he shot at me with a gun. He called my husband to say that he had found me with a strange man in the house. My husband believed him, so I had to run to the neighbor's. He helped me to escape, taking me to a place far from my husband. I stayed the night there. The next morning he handed me over to the army, who brought me to Asuda. I have been living in shelters ever since, in a bad mental state. I have so far, during my three years living in shelters, received no support from the government, not even for the divorce procedures. I still haven't seen a judge, and don't know the legal status of my own divorce. I have seen no good from the legal system. I haven't seen my children in two and a half years.
Today Bushra Juhi (AP) reports on the increasingly bleak picture for Iraqi women as it becomes more and more evident that little will be done to restore their rights. Juhi notes that the World Health Organization estimates that one-fifth of Iraqi women have been abused. Prior to the Iraqi war, they had more rights than any women in the region. The US installed thugs who specialized in ignorance and thuggery and they repeatedly dismantled the rights of women. As MADRE notes, "Despite promises of 'democratizing' Iraq, the US supported Islamist political forces bent on dismantling women's legal rights." Under the US occupation, Islamist militias have waged a systematic campaign of violence against women in their bid to remake Iraq as an Islamist state. There has been a sharp rise in gender-based violence within families, including domestic battering and 'honor killing.' Newly adopted Shari'a laws, such as Article 41 of Iraq's Constitution, have degraded women's rights, making them more vulnerable to abuses." MADRE partners with the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq and, over the summer, Marcia G. Yerman (Women's Media Center) spoke with OWFI's Yanar Mohammed:
Yanar Mohammed cofounded OWFI during the U.S. invasion of her country in 2003. In two rooms inside a burned out bank, she put a sign on the door proclaiming Women's Freedom in Iraq. "One thing led to another," she said, but from day one, the profile of the group reflected the philosophy that "anything military would not lead to a solution for the women of Iraq."
In addition to setting up safe houses in 2004 to protect women from domestic abuse and honor killings, Mohammed fought sexual trafficking and advocated for women who were incarcerated. She runs a newspaper and a radio station under the banner name of Al Mousawat, which means "equality."
Beyond providing services, Mohammed demands parity for women with the men of Iraq and promotes secular and human rights, earning her the antagonism of Islamic fundamentalists -- who have threatened her life. She sees the power of these religious extremists as a direct result of the military occupation of Iraq. "The Americans did more harm than good," she said. "Under Saddam, women were educated." She pointed to how the occupation had left a vacuum for the rise of Islamists -- who wrote a new constitution taking away women's gains. She noted, "In a religious group, there is not moderation. You are not equal to men." Currently, Mohammed sees the popularity of the Shiite leadership waning. "You can't force democracy through a gun."
Mohammed talked about Iraqi mothers who come to Tahrir Square dressed in traditional garb, holding pictures of their missing sons. Beyond being poor, deprived, and desiring social change, they want to know where their children are. It is impossible to penetrate the many layers of security in Iraq, with detainees held in jail without due process as a result of "anti-terrorism" laws.
The International Committee of the Red Cross explains, "According to ICRC estimates, between one and two million households in Iraq today are headed by women. This figure includes women whose husbands are either dead, missing (some since as far back as1980) or detained. Divorced women are also taken into account. All these women were wives at one time, and today remain mothers to their childrens and daughters to their parents, and sometimes ultimately breadwinners and caregivers for all these people." Women for Women International notes:
Our programs in Iraq include direct financial aid, rights awareness clases, job-skills training and emotional support. The one-year program was developed for Iraq's special challenges and demands, and includes vocational training that helps women earn an income and support themselves, through:
Hair-dressing -- capitalizing on the demand for high-quality beauty services in Iraq
Screenprinting -- women learn to operate machines that produce quality designs on items such as mugs, plates, boxes, t-shirts and unifroms
Beauty shops, Aseel Kami (Reuters) explains today, are booming businesses in Baghdad. It's a shame Reuters spent so much time talking to men for this article on beauty parlors. Apparently, it was a struggle -- one they lost -- to find a woman operating a beauty salon in Baghdad. It really is amazing how Iraqi women are reduced, rendered invisible, even when the story should be about them. And am I the only one who recoils at statements from men like, "Iraqi women have suffered from perssures and suppression during the ecoonomi sanctions and even after the 2003 war. Now Iraqiw women are looking to the latest trends"? Seems to me that if Iraqi women are doing that or anything else, they can speak for themselves while doing it. And I really don't need to read paragraph after paragraph abuot how this man opened his story and he trained in Turkey and blah, blah, who gives a s**t? I'm sick of it. I'm sick of stories that should be about Iraqi women being constantly used to ignore the women of Iraq but still somehow manage to find yet another way to highlight the men of Iraq. Yes, boys, tell us about hair glaze and how women love to be pretty and how this and how that. It's bad enough that Iraqi men have been presented throughout the Iraq War as THE experts -- and the only experts -- on Iraq but now they're the go to for what Iraqi women think as well?
Does no one else have a problem with this nonsense?
And before someone at Reuters rushes to insist to me that women are noted in the article -- not women running beauty salons, not women doing hair. Women getting the hair done? Yes, one woman's noted. And a woman who does hair removal gets to speak briefly while a woman who manages a gym/beauty center does at the very end. Either of those women were far more interesting than the men who were made the focus of this article allegedly on women's beauty, grooming and fitness. Next up! Reuters covers breast feeding in wartime! And speaks to 7 men who explain what it's like!!!!
Let's stay with stupidity for a moment but hop over to the US.where Leslie Herod demonstrats that, no, people can't stop saying stupid things. "All American Soldiers Are Worthy of Our Respect" is the headline of her Huffington Post piece. She goes on to gush, "I've always celebrated and honored those who serve and have served this great nation. These men and women stand in harm's way to protect the very principles that make this country great. They will always be my heroes." In America, you can be as stupid as you want to be, as Leslie demonstrates. What principles was the US military protecting in Iraq? What principles? Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan was ever a threat to the US.
"All American soldiers are worthy of our respect" -- really? Steven D. Green? He served in Iraq, didn't he? And didn't he plot and take part in the gang-rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl? And didn't he kill her five-year-old sister, both of her parents and her? And he's worthy of respect? He -- and others like him -- are exactly why the government of Iraq does not want to grant immunity. Steven D. Green was found guilty, yes. However, he killed 4 Iraqis in their own home. Green was not tried in Iraq, he was tried in Kentucky. He was facing the death penalty but, as Abeer's family noted when the sentence was handed down, he wasn't sentenced to death. (I oppose the death penalty. This isn't about that, it's about why Iraqis feel that the US legal system has provided US troops with immunity for their actions in Iraq.) That's not the only war crime during the Iraq War.
Leslie's whole point in scribbling was to score some cheap shots at the GOP presidential contenders. As usual with Leslie, she's several days too late. But she does manage to insult US soldiers who have never taken part in War Crimes and to insult Iraqis who have suffered from the War Crimes of US soldiers. What's really sad is Leslie is nothing but a con artist for the Democratic Party. That's sad but that's what she is. However, she's also a dumb con artist for the Democratic Party. Her little column doesn't help the White House right now. It will anger Iraqis and harden opinions on the issue of granting immunity or not to US troops. If Leslie had stopped to think of that, she wouldn't have written the column because she is intensely Cult of St. Barack.
Stupidity, like the American empire, knows no boundaries. And it's why a foreign wire service (not AFP) is all a buzz over Hillary's "speech" and how she gave it in DC today and how it -- It's not a speech. It's a column she wrote for Foreign Policy (you can also read it at the State Dept's website) which includes:
With Iraq and Afghanistan still in transition and serious economic challenges in our own country, there are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided. Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward -- we cannot afford not to. From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home. For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these "come home" debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again.
No, it's not about sticking your head in the sand, it's about taking your nose out of other people's cabinets and closets. It's about being a good neighbor and not a nosy Gladys Kravitz, always peering over the fence. Hillary's fighting for (among other things) a budget for the State Dept that would allow it to do what the White House wants it to do. But in a time of economic crisis, there should be cuts and this should be the time for the State Dept to return to its original mission as opposed to continuing down the path of becoming an Armed State Dept with its own military.
Turning to today's reported violence, Reuters notes a Shirqat roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left four more injured, 1 Sahwa was shot dead outside his Garma home and, dropping back to last night, a mayor was shot dead outside of Mosul.
Turning to economic issues, Rebecca Bundhun (The National) speaks with Bahaa Mayah, the adviser to the Minister of Tourism and Antiquities, and reports Iraq is still struggling to obtain antiquities spirited out of the country throughout the long war. Mayah feels that if they were able to get the treasures returned that would increase tourism which would increase jobs. Michael S. Schmidt and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) also note jobs and at least 5,000 Iraqis who have held them with fraudulent qualifications. As they explain, Dr. Rahif al-Essawi, college dean, was threatened by Iraqi police who had claimed to have diplomas, when he said he wouldn't lie, they beat him up and arrested him. The ongoing war assisted in faking credentials because many records were lost or destroyed during the violence. Schmidt and al-Jawoshy note, "Education fraud has become so widespread that Parliament is considering legislation that would send people to prison for 6 to 12 years if convicted of lying about their education. They would also be forced to return all of the money they had earned while employed as a result of phony education documents. The proposal would also provide amnesty for lower-level government workers who voluntarily admitted that they had used false certificates or diplomas."

Staying on the topic of corruption, Fars News Agency reports that Parliament's Integrity Commission has declared that the are starting an investigation into corruption charges against the Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi. The source of investigation? The article notes a home remodel which cost $600,000 and has raised eyebrows and that al-Nujaifi's trips out of Iraq are also grounds for speculation. Charges and outrage refuse to melt away regarding Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's trip to the US to speak at the United Nations. As The Great Iraqi Revolution exposed last month, Talabani's trip was costing $2 million dollars. Dar Addustour reports that Talabani noted the anger over his trip but insists that one million was just for the plane, while a half million was just for gifts to various leaders. And, apparently, half a million was just walking around money.
In the US, Jane Fonda's finished up a promotion leg for her new best selling book Prime Time. In "Joni Mitchell & Bonnie Raitt," she shares details of her book tour, photos and more. Excerpt: "I managed to tweet out this photo of myself Bonnie and Joni, which people just loved! Afterwards, Joni, Bonnie and Richard [Perry] got down with music discussions such as the beauty of 'open G chord tuning.' I've known Bonnie for almost 40 years…as activist, friend, generous performer of benefit concerts -- but not really seen/heard her talk as musician. Imagine what it was like with these two brilliant women guitarists!" Again, Prime Time is the new book, it's not only a wonderful read, it's something you'll constnatly reach for long after you've read it because it's a rich resource.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Desperate Housewives

Monday means a comic and Desperate Housewives. Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Education President"

the education president

I love that cartoon. I look forward to a sequel to it if possible.
The Obama administration drafted a secret legal memorandum last year claiming that the president had the power to order the killing of an American citizen without a trial, a power that was exercised ten days ago with the drone missile murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, an Islamic radical cleric born in the United States of Yemeni parents.

Awlaki and three other men—one of them also an American citizen, Samir Khan—were blown to pieces by a missile fired from a CIA-operated drone in northern Yemen. The Obama administration claimed, without providing any evidence, that Awlaki was a high-level “operational leader” of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and justified the killing as a preemptive military action, using almost the same language as the Bush administration before it.

The details of the legal memorandum were reported on the front page of Sunday’s New York Times, in what appears to be an effort at damage control by the Obama administration. The existence of the document was reported October 1 by the Washington Post, which described it as “an attempt to resolve, at least internally, a legal debate over whether a president can order the killing of US citizens overseas as a counterterrorism measure.”

Killer on the loose. There's a killer on the loose.

I'm thinking of The Doors song. But, yes, Barack is a killer on the loose. It is appalling to me that this killing of an American citizen hasn't been more alarming for most Americans.

Okay, Desperate Housewives was on ABC last night.

Vanessa had some nice scenes with the gay couple's daughter. I'm sorry to say "the gay couple." I should know their names but I didn't watch the show over the summer and it was the first time the blond was back on. But the dark haired one wasn't on. So the daughter needed a bra (her first) and Renee was asked to take her for one. Renee wasn't excited about it but once they got to shopping, she loved it.

Then the daughter was too close to Renee and the Papa snapped at Renee for that.

And I realized something. Renee's not a "Housewife." Neither is the blond gay man (or the brunette one). Which is why they aren't on as much and don't get storylines.
They're the extras. The background players. I think Vanessa's wasted as background but I am slowly getting that her whole character goes against the show's theme.

Lynette is dull and will always be dull. Her sister (played by Sarah Paulson from The WB's Jack & Jill) was on. I liked the sister. She was searching for something.

Lynette really thinks she knows it all. I loathe Lynette.

That's enough on Lynette. But Sarah Paulson was good.

I was going to ask, "When did Gabby have an affair?"

Last night, she was helping Bree and bragging about all the skills she had (breaking and entering, I think) and asked by Bree how, Gabby said you learn a lot from an affair.

I was thinking, "Who did she cheat on Carlos with?"

Then I remembered it was that man with the manboobs everyone makes fun of. He's got some boobies, alright. He used to be on Passions. (As Miguel if I remember correctly.) I don't know his name on Desperate Housewives because I never watched back then but I do remember the 'oh my' in the office back then when he was on. (And as for his manboobs, they actually make him more approachable, if you ask me. He was too much of a glossy statue on Passions. Great to look at, but what woman would talk to him without feeling ugly, you know? And he may not have his manboobs now. I remember after he was off the show, everyone in the office, this is back in Atlanta, was forwarding around pictures of him in the park -- playing touch football? -- and laughing at his manboobs.) (If you're wondering, I didn't laugh and siad what I said here, that I thought the little defect in the otherwise perfection made him approachable and human.)

But that was a detour, wasn't it?

So Bree and her cop. Gabby's pissed that Bree didn't keep her word and break up with the cop. Bree tells Gabby that she thinks he might have sent the letter. Gabby wants to know why and Bree ends up going into last week's story including what Paul told her -- leading Gabby to point out that she shouldn't be talking to Paul.

So Bree is snooping and finds a photo of her hand in Paul's briefcase as well as an envelope with her name on it (a cardboard envelope, like a Priority Mail envelope only much smaller).

She tells Gabby who says they must have left a hand print when burying Gabby's step-father and now the cop is trying to prove it and maybe the envelope is the step-father's cell phone or something they dropped while moving the body? (Gabby's step-father abused her as a child. On the last episode last season, he entered Gabby's home -- without her permission or knowledge -- and began threatening her. Carlos, Gabby's husband, came home in time to see what was happening and pull the asshole off Gabby. In the process of defending Gabby, Carlos accidentally killed the step-father. Bree, Susan, Lynette, Gabby and Carlos agreed to bury him and not say anything.)

So she tells Bree she'll get into the cop's apartment (Gabby will) and find out what he's got on them. (That's when Bree asks her about her 'skills.')

Well guess what?

Did you already see this?

I did.

The cop was wanting to propose.

But before he can tell Bree that at dinner, Gabby grabs the envelope from his jacket and they find a ring. Bree tries to break up with him at the table and he gets really angry and begins attacking her verbally. He accuses her of cheating on him. He tells her that they are through and that she has made an enemy for life, that if she's ever in trouble -- and he says he's sure she will be -- he won't help her, so don't call him.

Then he storms off.

Now let's go to Carlos and Susan.

They'd make such a good couple, they really would.

Okay so Susan sneaks out at night to talk to Carlos about the guilt they both feel over the death of the step-father. Susan recommends the book To Kill A Mockingbird and notes that the community service she's sentenced to is helping her with her guilt.

The next day, evening, Susan's walking in with groceries and telling Mike how hectic it was at the store and he stops her and tells her to stop lying, that he knows.

Of course, she's thinking that he knows about the murder.

He doesn't.

He knows she's doing community service because they called the house.

She says she was embarrassed and that she argued with a police officer about a ticket and things got out of hand.

He's not done.

He knows she had Carlos pick her up.

And he tells her she doesn't even like Carlos and has always made fun of him and called him "Ricky Ricardo."

Susan says she was wrong about Carlos and then Mike hits her with he saw them walking together late last night.

Is she having an affair?

Mike asks that. That's what he thinks is going on. She denies it and says they're just friends. He tells her to stop seeing Carlos.

The next day Carlos comes by her community service (painting over obscene graffiti) and asks her to lunch. She says she can't because Mike found out some stuff and is convinced they're having an affair. Carlos ends up doing community service with her so they can talk. And they do. And guess who drives by?

Mike.

As he's turning his car around, Susan and Carlos run to the van and hide inside it. ANd then Susan realizes how stupid this is (and also thinks Mike is gone). So she says they should get out. They open the door and Mike punches Carlos and storms off.

When we next see Mike, he's at home. Susan and Carlos walk in together. They explain they didn't mean for it to happen and Mike says 'spare me,' he just wants to know how long it's been going on.

And Carlos blurts it out about killing Gabby's step-father . . .

Then we see them next while the voice over's going on and we can't hear them but Mike looks at Susan and Carlos, gets off the couch and storms out of the living room.

And that's the end of the show.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, October 11, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, tensions increase between the KRG and Turkey, Nouri can appoint a Minister of Electricity -- even if he can't do the same with the security ministries, US troops hum the Clash's "Should I Stay Or Should I Go" (negotiatons to extend the war continue), immunity remains a question mark, Cindy Sheehan shares an important story, Heidi Boghosian reports (on Law & Disorder Radio) from the Occupy Wall Street NYC protest, and more.
The editorial board of the Arab News has a few comments and a question, "America's audacity is breathtaking. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has demanded that Iraq provide total immunity to the US troops staying on beyond the scheduled pullout later this year. First, the US must invent a pretext to maintain its military presence in Iraq, not to mention thousands of 'advisers,' private security contractors and mercentaires, notwithstanding President Barack Obama's promised withdrawal from the Arab country. And now it has the temerity to deman 'immunity' from Iraqi laws for its forces. Talk of adding insult to injury. The question is: What are America's brave soldiers afraid of if their hands are clean?"
The general offered no apologies
He said, "The soldiers erred in judgement
They should have hired a hooker"
No apologies
to the outraged Japanese
No "Sorry little girl"
The pigs just took her
Tire skids and teethmarks
What happened to this place?
Lawyers and loan sharks
Are laying America to waste
-- "No Apologies," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Taming The Tiger
Joni's song is based on the comments of a US general following the September 4, 1995 gang-rape of 12-year-old girl by three US troops. In June of 2001, as another rape case was getting attention in Japan, ABC News noted, "Okinawa is home to most of the 50,000 U.S. troops based in Japan, and crimes committed by soldiers against Japanese there have raised public outcries in the past. The biggest case involved the gang rape of a 12-year-old schoolgirl in 1995 by two U.S. Marines and a sailor, which sparked the biggest anti-U.S. demonstrations in Japan in decades." Sailor Marcus Gill and Marines Rodrico Harp and Kendrick Ledet first abducted the young girl, then tehy beat, then they tied her up before beginning the gang rape (Kendrick Ledet has always asserted he was just 'pretending' to take part in the rape) -- Gill would enter a plea of guilty to the rape while Rodrico and Ledet would plead guilty to conspiracy. (In 2006, Lauren Cooper was found dead in her apartment in Kennesaw, Georgia. She had been beaten, sexually assaulted and choked to death. Also in the room was the body of Kendrick Ledet who had taken his own life after, presumably, raping and killing Lauren Cooper.) These actions and others like them are why immunity is a sticky issue for some countries.
Saturday Chelsea J. Carter (CNN) reported US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was speaking to US sailors in Naples Friday and, asked about the issue of whether or not US troops would stay in Iraq (as US troops under the US Defense Dept -- as opposed to under the State Dept umbrella or NATO) without a guarantee of immunity, responded, "If they want the benefits of what we can provide, if they want the assistance, if they want the training, if they want the operational skills that we can provide, then I think they have to understand that they've got to give us some protections in that process. [. . .] If you're going to play a large role in dealing with another country where it requires, as I said, a large group of troops to be on the ground and to be dealing with that country, I want to make damn sure that you're protected."
The problem for the Arab Times editorial board is that they fail to address all the issues. Yes, some US troops have behaved not just poorly but criminally while stationed overseas. That is an argument against immunity. But Iraq isn't Japan, nor is it Germany or Spain or any number of functioning countries. Not only is it among the most corrupt [PDF format warning, Transparency International ranked it fourth most corrupt on the globe in their latest study] it does not have a functioning legal system.
That is among the reason Iraqis have been protesting for most of 2011. Let's drop back to the April 1st snapshot:
The Great Iraq Revolution reports Iraqi security forces attempted to disperse protesters. As usual and, as usual, barbed wire is roped around to stop mobility and hinder access and the press are being harassed. Alsumaria TV reports that they were "calling for the release of detainees and urging to end unemployment and corruption in Iraq mainly in governmental institutions. Protestors urged to provide them with ration cards." Chanting and carrying banners (video here) what appeared to be thousands occupied Liberation Square. Al Mada reports that many more attempted to join the protesters but Iraqi forces surrounded the scene of the protest and blocked access. As with last Friday, those protesters who had family members imprisoned carried photos of their loved ones. They were easy to spot amongst the crowd with their photos and generally clad in black.
[. . .]
Kitabat has multiple videos on their home page of today's protest in Baghdad. One woman holds photos of four missing men. She yells out for Allah to help her while others around her note that [Nouri al-] Maliki does nothing. In another video, twenty-one women dressed in black and holding photos gather together chanting while one woman wipes her tears with the back of one hand, displaying the photo of her missing family member with the other hand. A woman, Um Ahmed attempted to set herself on fire, the Great Iraqi Revolution notes. They explain she is "the mother of a detainee" and the other protesters prevented the fire and rescued her.
The two main groups behind this protest were the Youth Movement of Liberty and the Coalition of the Revolution. The Youth Monument of Liberty states, "We are not asking, we are calling for the immediate trial of all detained Iraqis who were not brought before a judge within 24 hours of their arrest because that is a violation of the Constitution's Article 19's thirteenth paragraph." That paragraph reads:
["]The preliminay investigative documents shall be submitted to the competent judge in a period not to exceed twenty-four hours from the time of the arrest of the accused, which may be extended only once and for the same period.["]
Leaving aside Pentagon press releases, the Iraqi legal system has won no praise in recent years. At the end of 2008, Greg Bruno (Council on Foreign Relations -- link is audio) interviewed The Century Foundation's Michael Wahid Hanna about the system and Hanna noted the forced confessions (among other problems). In December 2008, Human Rights Watch published "The Quality of Justice." For a discussion of the special issues female prisoners face click here (link is video). Many outlets have reported on the Iraqi legal system over the years but Ned Parker and the Los Angeles Times have owned the issue with repeated filings on the legal system, on the prison system and on the secret prison systems (click here, click here, click here, click here, click here, click here, click here, click here, click here, and here -- among other reports). Outside of the Los Angeles Times, Michael Gordon had an interesting article in July 2007, "Justice From Behind the Barricades in Baghdad" (New York Times).
And those are among the reasons that there are concerns about immunity. (Though, to be clear, the US government always expects other countries to grant US troops immunity.) Those concerns aren't addressed or acknowledged in the Arab Times' editorial. They are not minor concerns. We don't note 'confessions' here -- check our archives -- unless it's to question them. The Iraqi legal system is infamous for forced confessions. The system is infamous for torturing prisoners. Muntadar al-Zaidi was not a violent person or someone who needed to 'confess' -- he's the reporter who threw the shoes at Bully Boy Bush. That was on tape. But he still got tortured while awaiting his trial. The Iraqi legal system is a joke and were the White House to make a deal without immunity, they'd risk anger some Americans and, if something went wrong, they'd risk angering even more.
Aswat al-Iraq notes Moqtada al-Sadr declared "today that the continued presence of occupying forces under the pretext of training police and military force is 'an organized occupation in new attire'." This morning Suadad al-Salhy had a report for Reuters billed as an "exlusive" and it's apparently so exclusive that other Reuters reporters filing this morning missed it. al-Salhy reports Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri "Maliki told Reuters U.S. troops could be attached to the existing U.S. embassy training mission, or join a broader NATO training group, rather than seek a bilateral deal requiring U.S. immunity that would fail to pass Iraq's parliament." That Nouri said it is the news factor. We've covered those options Saturday and last week. These are options both the White House and the State Dept have been weighing seriously since Wednesday. And those are only two of the options. Dan Zak (Washington Post) reported late Saturday, " A State Department official said Saturday that while Iraq is not likely to budge on its resistance to military immunity, there are other paths to continuing the U.S. training mission in the country." Iraqi MP Mahmoud Othman is quoted stating, "Americans misuse immunity. They've had it for eight years. They made a lot of violations . . . Sometimes they killed people, attacked people, captured people, and no one could tell them anything. Iraq doesn't want a repeat of that." In addition, Camilla Hall and Anna Fifield (Financial Times of London) report this afternoon that Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh stated today that they could use "commercial" trainers -- meaning something other than US military personnel. He is quoted stating, "We are ready to discuss the options available without immunity and a different definition for the trainers." However, Aswat al-Iraq cites a statement from the Ministry which states that US security forces will not be replaced with "private security companies."
It would be interesting to see Nouri get private trainers into Iraq and most interesting to see just how long that would take. This morning Dar Addustour reported that Nouri was going to announce Abdulkarim Aftan as Minister of Electricity, following yesterday's vote in Parliament to confirm Aftan. (AFP notes that the announcement took place and provides background of Aftan.) Raad Shallal al-Ani was the Minister of Electricity until questions arose about what the Iraqi press dubbed "phantom contracts" which appeared to enrich individuals while robbing Iraq.

For some, that was too long, the two months to name a new Minister of Electricity. But if Nouri had only taken two months to name a Minister of National Security, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of Defense, many would be applauding him. Instead, those posts remain empty. Per the Constitution, Nouri was supposed to nominate individuals for those posts and Parliament was to vote on the nominees. And this was to take place before he could move from prime minister-designate (a post to last no more than 30 days during which the prime minister nominee proves he or she is up to the job by creating a full Cabinet) onto prime minister. Per the Constitution, when Nouri was unable to do that after 30 days (the end of Decembe 2010), a new prime minister-designate should have been named.

When Nouri got wavied through Political Stalemate II began. The Erbil Agreement -- hammered out by the US and Iraqi political blocs -- allowed Nouri to become prime minister-designate after over 8 months of Political Stalemate I. It also promised things to other political blocs. Nouri became prime minister-designate and then prime minister and trashed the Erbil Agreement, refusing to follow it because he got what he wanted. At the end of December 2010, Nouri, 'informed observers' in the US press assured us, would name ministers for those three security positions in no time. It's over nine months later and he hasn't named them.

While the US press insisted it would be just a little bit before these ministers were named, in the foreign press, Iraqis could be heard voicing the opinion that this was, in fact, a power grab on Nouri's part and that he had no intention of naming people to head these three ministries. They may have indeed been right about it being a power grab. (Nouri would argue that he named two ministers, he named "acting ministers" -- they have not been approved by Parliament. Without being approved by Parliament, the 'acting ministers' are nothing but Nouri's rubber stamp, they can be removed at any time by Nouri and Parliament can't protect them. Anyone in such a position is not independent nor do they have any real power.)

Again, the Minister of Electricity is replaced within two months. Nouri was supposed to have named the ministers of the security councils back in December, at the end of December. He didn't. Nearly ten months later, the spots remain empty.

And Al Mada reports that the defense of Iraq's borders is weak. Today the ministries of Communications, Defense, Interior and National Security are supposed to brainstorm today on ways to increase defense. One problem said to be facing Iraq is that security forces for the Interior are allegedly engaged in smuggling weapons across the border -- this according to senior Interior agent Adnan al-Asadi. If security's a real concern, Nouri should have named the heads of the three security ministries over nine months ago. If Interior has a problem, it might stem in part from the fact that it has no head. In related news, Alaa Ahmed (Al Mada) reports that there have been assassination attempts on six intelligence officers in Baghdad. Alsumaria TV notes that one of the six was Maha Al Dori, an MP with the Sadr bloc, who was shot at last night in Baghdad.

In other news, Trend News Agency reports, "Turkish authorities within the framework of cooperation with the U.S. and Iraq on fight against terrorism, has begun evacuation of Kurdish Separatists Camps of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the newspaper Vatan reported. According to the plan, 8 camps with 11,000 residents will be evacuated. Ninety percent of all residents are Turkish citizens. The evacuation will be carried out in cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the Kurdish regional administration in Iraq. The evacuation should be completed until the end of this year." Hurriyet's report appears to indicate this is in the talking stage and has not yet begun. They note the Makhmour refugee camp which was set up by the United Nations "between Arbil and Mosul in 1992 for nearly 12,000 Kurdish refugees who fled to northern Iraq in the early 1990s following clashes in Southeast Anatolia." Aswat al-Iraq notes, "The Iraqi Parliament called on the government to exert efforts and political and diplomatic means to convince the Turkish parliament and government to cancel the continuation of military operations, according to a statement released by the Parliament." The paper also explain, "Kurdistan border areas are under Iranian and Turkish fire under the pretext of chasing anti-Iranian PJAC party and anti-Turkish PKK party, which led several killings, immigration of civilians and material losses."
The PKK is one of many Kurdish groups which supports and fights for a Kurdish homeland. Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described them in 2008, "The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these are now at risk." The Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq has been a concern to Turkey because they fear that if it ever moves from semi-autonomous to fully independent -- such as if Iraq was to break up into three regions -- then that would encourage the Kurdish population in Turkey. For that reason, Turkey is overly interested in all things Iraq. So much so that they signed an agreement with the US government in 2007 to share intelligence which the Turkish military has been using when launching bomb raids. However, this has not prevented the loss of civilian life in northern Iraq. Aaron Hess noted, "The Turkish establishment sees growing Kurdish power in Iraq as one step down the road to a mass separatist movement of Kurds within Turkey itself, fighting to unify a greater Kurdistan. In late October 2007, Turkey's daily newspaper Hurriyet accused the prime minister of the KRG, Massoud Barzani, of turning the 'Kurdish dream' into a 'Turkish nightmare'."


Still on the KRG, Alsumaria TV reported over the weekend, "The meeting of Kurdish delegation with Iraqiya List and National Alliance resulted of many statements that stressed on close views between political parties. During the meeting with National Alliance, Kurdistan delegation stated that Baghdad talks are not restricted to meet the demands of the delegation only. The National Alliance stressed the necessity to resort to dialogue in order to resolve unsettled issues on all levels." The Kurds have objected to Nouri's oil & draft proposal, to the refusal to implement Article 140 of the Constitution (nearly six years after the Constitution was ratified) and the failure to implement the agreed upon Erbil Agreement. Dar Addustour reports that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has refused to meet with the Kurdish delegation. Alsumaria TV adds that his spokesperson "accused Iraqi officials of failing to stop violence and demanded to form a strong intelligence system capable of breaking through terrorist groups."
Reider Visser (Gulf News) examined the legislative branch Saturday and found it lacking noting that Parliament couldn't even hold a session due to the fact that they couldn't reach a legal quorum. "Meanwhile, Iraqi politics remains in its usually messy state. Everyone shouts they will agree to anything that is in accordance with the constitution. (Few of them know what is actually in it). Ammar al-Hakim garners widespread praise for a supposed initiative of five principles for dialgue that have nothing substantial to them. (This is precisely why everyone thinks they are wonderful.) The Kurds declare that Maliki has agreed to implementing the Arbil agreement (Again.)"
Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left five people injured (three were police officers) and claimed 1 life, a second roadside bombing injured three people, four police officers were wounded in an attack on their Mahaweel check point, and, dropping back to Sunday for these last two, a Khaldiya sticky bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and 1 corpse was discovered in Kirkuk (an Iraqi contractor). Aswat al-Iraq notes 2 Iraqi soldiers were shot dead in Mosul by assailants using "weapons equipped with silencers". Rebecca Santana and Nabil al-Jurani (AP) note a series of Baghdad bombings which claimed 10 lives and left nineteen injured.
On this week's Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI (didn't air today due to a WBAI pledge drive) and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) -- topics explored include terrorism with Saul Landau and a report from Occupy Wall St. by Heidi and producer Geoff Brady. We're about to do a long transcript of the report. It's an excerpt, it's not in full. And I will bring it back around to Iraq. But we do note Law & Disorder and we do note Heidi often. Equally important, Law & Disorder didn't air on WBAI today. And I caught a few seconds of the stream. Amy Goodman doing pledges. Live. From a studio. Begging for money. Insisting "Only with you." Why the hell wasn't she outside? Why wasn't she proving that WBAI has meaning by taking her ass out of the studio and onto the street to interview people about the protests?
Heidi and Geoff did that. They weren't live, but they went out and they reported. And they didn't just do a bunch of glowing remarks. They interviewed all walks of people -- some who weren't impressed with the protests (the excerpt includes two of those people). It was a real, chips fall where they may report. If you're able to benefit from streaming, you should listen (go to Law and Disorder Radio). But Geoff and Heidi did a great job. (Heidi's done segments where she's reported on the spot for Law and Disorder before.)
Heidi Boghosian: We just ran into Michael Leonard, a member of the National Lawyers Guild. He's not wearing a legal observer outfit today rather he's in a suit. Michael, why are you here on your lunchbreak?
Michael Leonard: I have been coming down here for the last week and a half or so, on and off, and I sometimes have the opportunity to work in downtown Brooklyn and there was a mix up on a case so I came here during my lunch break.
Heidi Boghosian: So you're headed off to court after a stop here?
Michael Leonard: That's right. Headed back to the ring.
Heidi Boghosian: And what does the sign you're carrying say?
Michael Leonard: This was a sign that I picked up on the steps and it says: "The crisis is capitalism." And I thought that was-was-did the trick.
Heidi Boghosian: Have you been talking to a lot of people here over the last two weeks?
Michael Leonard: Well I've had the opportunity to talk to some people today standing on the steps -- just getting into some positive dialogue with those people who were asking the protesters why they were here and what is it exactly they-they want.
Heidi Boghosian: What kind of answers are you getting to those questions, Michael?
Michael Leonard: Well those have been questions that have been posed to me. I think that the-the protestors as a group -- and I realize I can't really speak for them -- but have been slow to articulate actual demands. And I think that in part is due to a real respect and reverance for the process and for gaining consensus among the -- among the group. I've been involved with this work for a number of years now and I think that what we are seeing is a lot of grassroots, bottom-up decision making and I think that's really, really wonderful.
[. . .]
Heidi Boghosian: Good morning. What have you seen over the last two weeks?
Man 1: Pandemonium from all these people, just crowding up the block, getting in our way, they aren't really proving a point but we understand that they're mad about maybe not having jobs but I personally think none of these people would work if they had a job opportunity. I just don't think they're here for a purpose, they're here for a party.
Do you agree with that?
Man 2: Yeah, for the most part. I don't see them making any progress about anything. I don't hear about all I hear is they're holding up the crowd. They're holding up signs and nobody's listening.
Heidi Boghosian: Some people are saying their demands aren't clear enough that --
Man 2: Who are they really bothering except pedestrians? Everyday pedestrians? They're not really getting a clear message to Wall Street when Wall Street is down a couple of blocks. They should be over there and blocking doorways and stuff. Not --
Man 1: Not crowding the park.
Heidi Boghosian: Have you seen deliveries coming in in the early morning hours? Food and water?
Man 2: Well they're definitely getting deliveries. I don't know what time though.
Man 1: Yeah. I haven't seen it yet but this place has been growing rapidly daily. And it's in the morning when you see it. I come out here for lunch and we used to sit down at the benches here which was a nice, clean, beautiful park --
Man 2: It should be all construction workers just for the time being --
Man 1: It's just -- it's like a shanty town.
Heidi Boghosian: What do you think should be done though to protest what's happening with the economy?
Man 2: Uhm. Well, for our sake, we're in the union so we do our own rallies and we go -- We make a message across, we're talking and we're getting chants going so it's pretty obvious what we're getting across. These people are playing drums and it's like -- It's just like a hippie convention for the most part. It really doesn't seem like these people are trying to get a clear message across to anyone in Wall Street or
Man 1: I have a feeling if you talk to half of them, they don't even know why they're here.
Heidi Boghosian: But a lot of the unions are supporting this effort, aren't they?
Man 2: There are, don't get me wrong.
Man 1: I support that they're standing for a cause and that cause would be jobs. I just think they're going about it the wrong way. All I see is that they're crowding the park. And go to the powers that be. They're not talking to anybody over here. Go stand on [NYC Mayor Michael] Bloomberg's steps or something. Go set up a tent in front of his house and I guarantee more would get done. All they're doing is crowding the park here.
[. . .]
Woman: I'm from western New York. I have been here on-and-off for about ten days.
Heidi Boghosian: And were you on the Brooklyn Bridge?
Woman: Yes, I was. I was arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge.
Heidi Boghosian: Did you feel that the police were literally leading you onto the bridge?
Woman: Yes. There's been like -- There's been questions whether or not they made an actual announcement of you go on the Brooklyn Bridge that you would get arrested. I heard no such announcement; however, I did talk to people who said the announcement was made on a very, very muffled bullhorn so that they could have it on film that they said it but that it was not audible to the people standing right in front of them.
Heidi Boghosian: Have you been in other arrest situations and how did this compare in terms of police treatment of protestors?
Woman: I've been arrested for other protest-related things. Not in New York City. As I said, I'm from western New York. But this -- this was not good but not bad. I feel that being cuffed on an MTA bus for six hours with no food and no water isn't the best treatment but I was in no way physically harmed directly by the cops. I do feel like I have a little bone bruising on my wrists from the flexi-cuffs but, you know, I know it could be a lot worse. There were other arrests in this occupation where people had concussions and were not treated well and left on buses and were not able to get medical treatment. So, in that way, I feel very lucky that I was not treated the way other occupiers were treated but at the same time not being able to eat, not having access to water, except for whatever was in our backpacks is still not very acceptable in my opinion. We're humans too. Whether or not the state or the government agrees with us, we deserve to be treated like humans.
Heidi Boghosian: Are you surprised by how this movement is catching on all around the country?
Woman: Yes and no because I'm -- I am surprised because of the diversity of the people that have been coming out and saying -- I'm very particularly far left personally and was concerned that it would be a group of far leftists that would be construed as another anarchist, militant, violent group of people; however, it has been pleasantly surprising to me the number of people that have come out that are liberal, that are Libetarian and maybe even conservative. But we all share the same view. We are all the 99% and we all have very common goals. What separates the extreme right and the extreme left, I think, is mostly tactics and the dispute comes not from the end goal but how do we get to that goal.
Heidi Boghosian: Process.

Woman: Yeah, process. Definitely.
Heidi Boghosian: Any final words for people who might be thinking of coming here from around the country?
Woman: You know, come out and see what we're all about. Give it a shot. I came out here intending only to spend a week and I am back indefinitely because this is a beautiful movement.
More information can be found at Occupy Wall Street. Heidi and Geoff's report featured more people, featured a speech about how October 15th was global Occupy Wall Street Day with actions going on around the world, featured drumming and singing ("If I Had A Hammer" was a song sung during the report). How do we bring it back to Iraq?
Cindy Sheehan. She's given so much to end the wars and been attacked by some on the right wing when Bully Boy Bush was in the White House and by some on the left wing now that Barack's in the White House. She hasn't stopped calling out war. And in her "Partisan Politics is Off the Table," she shares how political operatives and Nancy Pelosi saw Camp Casey as something they could use for elections. She's offering her story as an example of what Occupy Wall Street needs to avoid. In this section, she's writing about Pelosi calling her on the phone when the two had never met (and Cindy didn't even know who Pelosi was):

Anyway, she called me to express her support and invite me to meet with her when I arrived in DC. I visited many, many Congress people when I arrived in DC, and most of the Democrats I met with, including Pelosi, told me: "Cindy, you help us take back the House an we'll help you end the wars." So, I thought that was a great deal and the movement worked hard to "take back the House."
Consequently, with MoveOn.org, the Democrats proceeded to exploit the energy the Camp Casey movement to regain the majority. Pelosi became Speaker and one of the first things the new Democratic Majority did with their toadies in MoveOn.org supporting them, approved the supplemental funding to continue and expand the wars while NOT holding the Bush Crime Family accountable.
So, I went back to Congress and basically asked the Democrat Members, "what the hell?" I was told, "Cindy, we need MORE Democrats." That's when I left the party.

They used Camp Casey, they used the war. They grand standed on those issues, those life or death issues, just to get a few more seats in Congress. They'll be happy to do the same thing with Occupy Wall Street if given the chance. And, as with the wars, they'll come up with excuses after the election for why they can't help you even though, cross their hearts, they really, really want to.
wbai
law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
heidi boghosian
michael ratner