Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Big Oops

Read this item and then answer a few questions for me.

Kathie Lee Gifford is still on TV?

Who knew.  I certainly didn't.  That's not me being catty.  I knew Kelly Rippa replaced her (I was rooting for Valerie Bertanelli but could tell Regis had a fit when she noted her support -- during the recount -- for Al Gore and knew she wasn't going to be the new co-host).  And I really did think that was it for Kathy Lee and TV.  I thought she was going to be doing a singing career.

And she was drunk on TV?

Is that for real?  The article says so but I don't believe it. 


"The Today Show" wouldn't let her anchor the show drunk.


Poor Martin Short.  I have never seen a photo of his wife but I 'know' the late Nancy 'Short' through his interviews.  He was always mentioning his wife in interviews.  I remember him on "The View" especially while I was nine months and two weeks pregnant and he was talking about his wife, who was an ex-actress, and a trip (cruise?) they had taken.  And I remember thinking, "Meanwhile, I'm pregnant and the father-to-be is on a hunting weekend." (Or cheating.  I suspected cheating but the official excuse was hunting.)

From what I can tell, she wasn't drinking on air.  A chef had made some soup you add vodka to (which Kathie Lee Gifford did).  Whether that left her impaired or not, I have no idea.

I feel very sorry for Martin Short.  I even feel a little sorry for Kathie Lee. She's apologized for her mistake but that won't stop people (like me) from talking about it.

I would just assume that before you interviewed someone, you would take the time to learn about them.  But I will also assume Kathie Lee Gifford most likely skipped that briefing believing she knew everything about Martin Short. I do wonder why they didn't cut to commercial?  That would have been the smart thing to do.  Cut to commercial.  Explain to Kathie Lee what's going on, let her tell (as I'm sure she would) Martin Short she didn't know his wife had passed and she was sorry.  Instead, it appears she didn't even find out until much later in the day. 

If it were me I would've wanted to know right away so I could correct it as it happened.  I would be more than willing to bet the same would be true for Gifford.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, May 30, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, empire gets discussed, Marcy Winograd has an announcement, Talabani doesn't want Nouri to face a vote of no confidence, Tareq al-Hashemi feels the continued drama surrounding him is about to wrap up, I offer my thoughs of (and support for) Chris Hayes, and more.
 
 
The Honorable Jonathan Sumption is not only a judge (Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom), he's also a historian.  Earlier this month, he delivered a [PDF format warning] speech to the London School of Economics' Department of Government
 
The extreme case is of course the choice between peace and war.  In reviewing the military interventions of the English government, the courts have arrived at a position practically indistinguisable from the old non-justiciability rule, although justified on a different basis.  The legality of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was, to put it mildly, a matter of some controversy everywhere outside the United States.  The great majority of international lawyers of repute considered it to be contrary to international law, in the absence of the United Nations authority and did not accept that any of the relevant resolutions conferred that authority.  The United States was inclined to respond to this difficulty in the way that the British had done at the time of the Suez crisis of 1956, by simply ignoring it.  In 1956, the Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller and the Solicitor-General Sir Harry Hilton-Foster, both supported the invasion politically although both believed and told the Prime Minister that it was illegal.  The Chief of Imperial General Staff, Sir Gerald Templer, issued the deployment orders without troubling himself with the legal issue.  These are attitudes characteristic of an imperial power, and we should not be particularly surprised to find them adopted by the United States.  It is a sign of how far the climate of British opinion had changed by 2003 that the Chiefs of Staff  required an assurance from the Attorney-General that operations in Iraq were lawful.  They famously received one that had been prepared on a basis not wholly consistent with his previously expressed views and supported by reasoning which provoked the resignation of one of the Foreign Office legal advisers and was rejected by every serious authority on international law. 
 
 
 
David Swanson: You have left the fold of the Democratic Party and gone to the Green Party and after having been a candidate for Congress in Democratic primaries and done remarkably well against a well funded incumbent as a peace candidate.  Why the -- Why the decision to go to the Green Party?
 
 
Marcy Winograd: David, it wasn't an easy decision and it was one I wrestled with for probably quite some time.  But at the end of the day, the short answer is that I really didn't want to be aligned with a War Party any longer.  Even if you're an insurgent in that war party, you're still in it.  And as an insurgent,  I challenged Jane Harman she was a big Hawk, supporter of the military industrial complex,  I was on the floor of the Democratic Party convention in California introducing resolutions to end the war, the assault on Iraq.  I was shut down, quoroms were called, quorom called, I introduced resolutions to censure senators like Dianne Feinstein when she waffled on whether water boarding was torture. There are many struggles to engage in as an insurgent within a party and I'm not saying that they're not worthy and that they're not of great value but at this point in my life, I really want to live inside my skin.  I want to be authentic. And I also want to look towards the future.  Face it, the American Empire is declining.  This is it.  We are collpasing.  And we are watching the collapse of the US Empire. How long did it take other countries?  Well ou know for some it took a century.  For others it took just a few years.  Look at the Soviet Union.  Two years for the Soviet Union to collapse.  A year for Portugal, 8 years for France.  17 years for Great Britain.  There are historians. I interviewed one on [KPFK] Connect the Dots, Dr. Alfred McCoy who wrote in The Nation magazine who predicts that by 2025 it's over.  Just 15 years from now, the empire will be over. So given that, the US Empire, with its military bases in 3/4 of the countries in the world is just not sustainable.  It's imperative that we look to our future and embrace something positive. We know what we don't want. What do we want?  And that's what attracted me to the Green Party. 
 
David Swanson:  Well clearly the US Empire could end in a variety of ways -- some softer and easier than others.  Do you think that the Democratic Party and, in particular, President Obama are better or worse or about the same in relationship to the Republican Party and George W. Bush in terms of the manner in which the empire is over-extending itself and moving towards its collapse? In other words, would we be better off in these final years of empire to have the Democrats doing it or the Republicans?
 
Marcy Winograd: That's a very tough question, isn't it?  I know that I will not be voting for Barack Obama for president. And I did support him when he ran previously.  But this time I am going to be voting for the Green Party nominee because I really do want a different vision for our country and now's the time for us to speak out and say this is the alternative vision:  a party of non-violence, a party that opposes weapon sales  to other countries, a party that wants to build sustainable communities and invest in our communities, not extract wealth and send jobs to other countries. I think, at the end of the day, that it's very dangerous to have somebody in the White House who people don't necessarily who people don't necessarily know or understand and who may project an image of concilation and partnership but in reality is escalating what began under former President George Bush.  I'm talking about this "war on terror."  Right after Obama took office, he escalated the drone attacks on Pakistan.  We now have an increase in Joint-Special Operations Command Forces in other countries -- from 60 countries under Bush to 75 countries.  We have codified indefiniate detention, extraordinary rendetion and targeted assassination.  We have moved beyond what was considered under the Bush administration as an order for hot pursuit.  In other words, if somebody attacked us or an ally, we could cross a border in hot pursuit.  Now the whole world is a war theater under Barack Obama. So I'm afraid that under the Democratic leadership -- both in Congress and in the White House -- we are not seeing what we think we want to see or what we think we are seeing.  Instead, we're seeing increased militarism.  So I think it's very dangerous to think that this is an alternative path.  In fact, I think under President Obama, we've seen the Democrats able to advance a Republican agenda, at least on the foreign policy side, at least better than the Republicans could.
 
 
"Download or get embed code from Archive.org or AudioPort or LetsTryDemocracy or RadioProject."  I really am surprised by Marcy's news and will assume others are as well.  Who's running in the Green Party for the presidential nomination?  A press release from the Green Party of Michigan answers that question:
 
 
 
For Immediate Release:
Green Party of Michigan Presidential Nominating Convention Saturday
 
Mt. Pleasant) - This Saturday marks the beginning of the Green Party's nominating convention at the university's campus in Mt. Pleasant which will last through Sunday afternoon. Excitement for the event has been building for months as the presidential candidates have been particularly exciting among members this year.
Dr. Jill Stein of Massachusetts has been travelling throughout the country to stand in
solidarity with Occupy movements, to speak at Green conventions and events and has most recently walked with those protesting the PGA in Benton Harbor. A long-time activist and dedicated member of the Green Party, Dr. Stein is currently the forerunner in the nomination pool.
Comedienne and activist Roseanne Barr of California has likewise been a long-time
supporter of grassroots movements. Her rallies in California have drawn hundreds of
supporters. Although she was the last candidate to announce her running, she has made a
strong showing in state polls.
Dr. Kent Mesplay of California was the first to announce his candidacy and has
remained a strong contender as a long-time Green. Having also vied for the presidential
nomination in 2008, he is the candidate with the most experience. As the son of missionaries, he grew up alongside native peoples in a nature-centered environment. This has shaped the focus of his message.
The three contenders for the presidential nomination will be speaking remotely at the
convention on Saturday afternoon. Candidates for state and some local offices will also be
nominated this weekend. The straw poll for the presidential nomination will take place on
Saturday with the results being announced on Sunday. The decision of the straw poll will guide the choice the delegates will make at the National Convention in Baltimore, MD on July 12-15.
Highlights of the convention will also include entertainment Saturday evening by musical
acts Stephen Colarelli, a singer/songwriter, Rope and the Rulers, and Poor Player.
The Members of the Green Party of Michigan have been active in petition drives to have
several critical issues placed on the November ballot including the Emergency Manager repeal which was thrown out on a questionable technical objection and the current ban on fracking petition gaining strength and support throughout the state.
If you are interested in becoming a member of the Green Party or want to learn more
about our key values, see our webpage: www.migreens.org.
###
For more information, please contact
Convention organizer and Green Party Co-chair Fred Vitale: freddetroit@sbcglobal.net
or Green Party Elections Coordinator John A La Pietra: jalp@triton.net
 
 
Your vote is your vote.  Use it as you want.  Like Marcy, I cannot vote for Barack Obama.  I don't reward War Hawks.  As I've stated before, I think I'll just sit out the voting for that office.  That's what I'm doing, you do what you want, if you're voting you're an adult so you should be able to figure out who speaks to you (if anyone does) and vote (or vote by not voting) accordingly.  (And for more on the Green Party race, you can refer to this post by Ian Wilder at On The Wilder Side.)
 
 
Today the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) released "Report on Human Rights in Iraq: 2011."  As with the Iraq section of the US State Dept's 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices released last week, UNAMI's findings weren't pretty.
But it's difficult to tell who's the bigger joke: Nouri al-Maliki or the UN.  Martin Kolber is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Envoy to Iraq.   Having sat through Martin Kobler's presentation to the UN Security Council April 10th and seeing the single sentence that couldn't use the term "gay" but hinted that the targeting of Emo and LGBT youth (and those perceived as such) would be addressed in the report (the one released today), this report's an embarrassment.  That section is the smallest section of today's report, it's buried deep.
 
10. Attacks on persons for reason of their sexual orientation
 
The topic of homosexuality is largely taboo in Iraq. Members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community usually keep their sexual orientation secret and live in constant fear of discrimination, rejection by family members, social exclusion, intimidation and violence.  While the Iraqi penal code does not expressly prohibit homosexual relations between consenting adults, a variety of less specific, flexible provisions in the penal code leave room for active discrimination and prosecution of LGBT persons and feeds societal intolerance.
During the reporting period, UNAMI continued to receive reports of attacks against individuals based on their perceived or actual sexual orientation.  In one case, a 17 year old boy was relocated with assistance from an NGO after his family tried to kill him on the basis of the boy's perceived homosexuality.  The Government takes no action to protect people from violence or discrimination based on sexual orientation, and there are few social services available.
 
And that's it.
 
That's it?
 
As we noted April 11th:
 
 
What pretty words.  What a shame his Special Envoy to Iraq spits on those words, betrays Iraq's LGBT community, stays silent as they're targeted and killed, ignores the persecution.  
 
As we noted yesterday, the Special Envoy Martin Kobler appeared Tuesday before the United Nations Security Council where he yammered away for approximately 20 minutes and also handed in a written report/statement which was 17 pages long.  Though he was supposedly concerned about violence and targeted groups and though he made his focus the first three months of the year, he couldn't bring himself to mention the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community.  He could talk about the so-called 'honor' killings but not in relation to gay men or lesbians.  Ban Ki-moon assured the world's LGBT community just last month that they were not alone.  Just yesterday, his Special Envoy to Iraq, made clear that, in fact, Iraq's LGBTs are very much alone.  Martin Kobler made very clear that the United Nations, as represented by him in Iraq, will gladly and always look the other way while thugs go on killing sprees.  One of the slogan of the United Nations is, "It's your world." But apparently that doesn't apply for LGBTs.  Someone with the UN to address whether Ban Ki-moon was lying or if Martin Kobler just doesn't understand how offensive what he did yesterday was?
 
 
Excuse me, I though Ban Ki-moon was saying LGBT rights were human rights.  But that's not what I got from Kobler's presentation or from this report released today.  Either UNAMI intends to seriously address the targeting or it intends not to.
 
For those who missed it, Emo and LGBT were lumped together.  LGBT is, of course, a sexual orientation.  Emo is more of a social scene.  In Iraq, the two were lumped together and worse.  Worse?  The Iraqi youth were supposedly also practicing witchcraft and also they were vampires as evidenced by the fact that they drank blood.
 
Did they drink blood?
 
Years and years ago, have I told this story, there was a presenation on gangs to a group of concerned lawmakers (state lawmakers).  A friend who works with gangs couldn't make it and asked if I'd fill in.  That's not my area but I was adequate if not good.  But what stood out to me was the guy who had never spoken to a teen in a gang but 'knew' everything.  It was that "Calvin Kline" who was making people gang members because it helped sell his clothes.  It gets better (or at least more humorous), rap artists "like Cindy Lauper" (Cyndi Lauper) were also glamorizing gangs.  This man was completely serious.  He thought he had studied and arrived at logical conclusions.  (Calvin Klein was pushing underwear and baggy jeans at that time, if he was pushing anything.  Cyndi Lauper is not now and never has been a rap artist.)  This man was so uninformed that he made my adequate presentation seem like an informed lecture.
 
And the point here is two-fold.  First, this isn't ha-ha, we're so much smarter than the Iraqis.  No.  Humanity's all basically on the same page with some people in every area reading just a little bit ahead of the others.  Second, a lot of people (in every country all over the world) hear a topic mentioned and think they're an expert.  Emos have been demonized around the world, not just in the MidEast, in Mexico as well. And that panic mind set allows some really stupid things to be said by supposed experts.
 
In the case of Iraq, it was the Ministry of Interior that went into the schools and demonized Emos (who again are also wrongly said to be gay -- you can be Emo and gay, you can also be Emo and straight).  Let's drop back to March 9th:
 
 
Meanwhile Kitabat notes that the Interior Ministry is declaring there have been no deaths and this is all a media creation. That would be the same Ministry of Interior that, please note, was declaring earlier this week that Emo was the number one threat to Iraq. Guess someone got the message about how badly this was making Iraq look to the rest of the world? Now the still headless ministry (Nouri never appointed a minister to head it) wants to insist that it is only a small number of Iraqi youth who are even into Emo. The ministry insists that the only truth on the subject of Emo is that which the government tells. But the Parliament's Security and Defense Commission also spoke to the media on Thursday and they spoke of the discovery of 15 corpses of young Iraqis -- Emos or thought to be -- discovered in one Baghdad neighborhood. Activist Hanaa Edwar also speaks of the large number of Iraqi Emo youths being targeted. Al Mada notes the Parliament committee stated that the security forces have failed to protect the Emo youth. Dar Addustour reports that activists Mohammed al-Kazimi has pointed out that the constitution of Iraq guarantees Iraqis the right to freedom of expression and that Emo youth are not unconstitutional.
 
When this was going on, Iraqi youth were pretty much on their own.  Iraqi groups and activists did speak out but internationally you had a lot of silence.  (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were not silent.) And the US State Dept refused to speak of it but was kind enough to leak an e-mail when pressure was coming to bear on the administration.  If that e-mail had not been treated like something amazing (it wasn't) by the LGBT press in America, the administration might have been forced to make a public statement.  And as silent as the State Dept was the United Nations.
 
Iraqi youths were being killed.  To be really clear, if you are a gay Iraqi youth, that doesn't mean you can be killed.  That's not acceptable.  That's not something the world should ever look the other way on.  But damned if they didn't try, these supposed groups and governmental agencies there to help.
 
There are things in the report that will be noticing this week.
 
But here, I called out Martin Kobler repeatedly for his silence at the UN briefing.  And I heard from UN friends about how it's 'referred' to in the written report.  No, it's noted that this issue will be dealt with in an upcoming report.  That report was the one released today.  Two pathetic paragraphs is not dealing with it.  Failure to even use the term "Emo" is pretty sad. Failure to note the Ministry of the Interior went into schools and asked for names is shameful.
 
I took Kobler to task several days in a row here and only stopped when UN friends swore the report would go into what was taking place.  The report's out today and yet again, YET AGAIN, the United Nations has failed the LGBT in Iraq (as well as those perceived to be).  In failing them, it failed every LGBT.  Because it sent the message that though the UN will give lip service and pretend that they give a damn about LGBT rights, the reality is they'll only mention it in a report if they're forced to and, even then, they'll rush through it and ignore most facts and events.
 
What I've written isn't all that damning (though I'll get phone calls for it).  What's really damning is that the United Nations is supposed to help those in need, those in crisis but, read their report, the only one who got helped was a 17-year-old who was helped not by the UN but by an NGO.  That pretty much says everything that needs to be said about where the United Nations stands today on LGBT issues.
 

 Alsumaria reports Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi states he will return to Iraq soon and that the targeting of Baghdad provincial council member Laith al-Dulaimi (arrested on Nouri's orders by Nouri's forces who tortured him) confirms much of what al-Hashemi has stated about being targeted.  Specifically, al-Hashemi states it confirms what he has stated about human rights, about the lack of justice, about the judiciary being politicized and about torture being a key characteristic of Iraqi imprisonment.  In protest of the proceedings, al-Hashemi's attorneys walked out May 20th on the trial against him.  Like Laith al-Dulaimi, the Vice President is accused of terrorism.  Like Laith al-Dulaimi, the Vice President is a member of Iraqiya.

Iraqiya's big 'crime' appears to be coming in first in the March 7, 2010 elections.  For months before the election, Nouri al-Maliki attempted to demonize them, had them arrested, had them kicked out of the race and someone -- Nouri? -- was also having the assassinated in the lead-up to the elections.  Nouri 'promised' -- the  media swore to us -- that there would be no third term.  But as we have repeatedly noted, that line has been walked back and walked back.  And, no, we didn't fall for the claim when he made it.  We questioned it even then pointing out that in the original assertion, he'd left himself wiggle room.

Among the current issues that various blocs can agree upon is that Nouri should have no third term.  The one that can't agree with that is Nouri.

If you'll think back to the lead-up to the 2010 elections, you'll remember Nouri was convinced his State of Law would win overwhelmingly.  But the reality was they didn't even win by a hair.  It's possible that the attacks currently are part of his attempts for the next round of parlimentary elections (which are now supposed to take place in 2014) or even to influence the provincial elections (scheduled for next year currently).  Nouri does have problems with the provinces.  He's got a war going on with Ethyl al-Nujaifi who is the brother of Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi.  Ehtyl is also the Governor of Nineveh Province and Nouri -- who is so shocked that people are calling for him to step down -- has twice called for al-Nujaifi to step down as governor.

Al Rafidayn notes the real purpose of Nouri's holding the Council of Ministers meeting in Mosul (as opposed to Baghdad) yesterday: He met with tribal leaders in Nineveh in an attempt to shore up support for him as moves are made to push for a no-confidence vote which would, if succeessful, remove him from the post of prime minister.  Nouri also again launched an attack on Osama al-Nujaifi.  Which really doesn't seem smart in the province that elected his brother governor.  But Nouri's not know for his wisdom.

To distract from the push for a no-confidence vote in him, Nouri and flunkies recently announced there was a push for a no-confidence vote in Osama al-Nujaifi.  However, the National Alliance (a Shi'ite grouping of political parties which includes Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc, Ibraham al-Jaafari's group, Nouri's State of Law and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq among others) publicly dismissed that.  They noted that the National Alliance was not calling for a move against al-Nujaifi.  They noted that State of Law had not even made a proposal to the National Alliance about such a move.  And the press kindly let the matter die instead of pointing out that Nouri had been caught in yet another lie. 
 
Today a new reason for the ongoing political crisis is given: Jalal Talabani.  Alsumaria reports that State of Law states Osama al-Nujaifi attempted to call for a no-confidence vote but Talabani stopped it.  If true, that conditional is always needed when speaking of State of Law, it's time for Jalal to go.  Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) also reports that Jalal Talabani rejected the call for a no-confidence vote and cites Kurdish MP Mahmud Othman as the source. 
 
 Press TV reported Saturday that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani was calling for a national conference again.  He's been calling for that since December 21st.  How long he'll continue to call, who knows? 
 
His son, of course, just spent over a million dollars on a DC home (the six bedroom and six bath house -- not all six baths are full bathrooms -- is on Daniel Road in Chevy Chase, Maryland and they closed on it January 27th agreeing to the price of $1,155,000).  I guess if I were a child of Talabani's and I was seeing exactly how ineffective he had become, I think I'd probably decide to spend money on a home in another country as well.  It is interesting that a public servant like Talabani can afford to purchase a home in that neighborhood.  You wouldn't assume that being the KRG lobbyist in the US would pay enough to warrant a million-dollar home. 

I think someone should ask Talabani why his son purchased a home in the US -- you can lease in that area -- and how large of a salary his son draws?
 

He's swearing to Kurds that he's going to stand with them but even PUK (the political party he heads) doubts that.  They're starting to point out the obvious: Is Jalal really in a position to demand that Nouri not seek a third term?  If he takes up that position, doesn't that mean that Talabani can't seek a third term as president of Iraq?

Without that position, he's just the aged head of political party he's led to lower and lower turnout.  The PUK needs new leadership. 

 
Talabani is just Nouri in a ceremonial post.  Why did Iraq have elections?  To get a new speaker of Parliament?  That's really all that changed despite the results. 
 
 
 
In news of violence, Alsumaria reports that a roadside bombing today in Ramadi claimed 1 life and left two other people injured.  In addition, Al Rafidayn notes that a bridge connecting Anbar Province and Salah ad-Din Province was blown up today.  In addition, Alsumaria notes 1 person was shot dead as he left his southern Baghdad home yesterday.
 
 
Lastly, I'm offering my opinion on Chris Hayes.  The short version is, he didn't do anything wrong.  He's apologized for what he stated and I believe that was sincere, he's generally a sincere person.  But what he said before his apology?  If that was a shock to you, you don't really know a wide cross-section of people who've lost a loved one to war.  You may know many, but you apparently only know one grouping.   Chris Hayes' comments weren't at all shocking to me.  I speak to pro and anti and in-between veterans groups and there's a wide range of opinions out there.  I'll assume that those who objected online to what Chris said on his MSNBC program were being sincere.  But I think they would have been better served -- and our national dialogue would have been -- if they'd grasped that their opinion isn't the only one out there.  I'm not the voice of veterans, I don't present myself as such. 
 
Would I have said what he did?  No.  I wouldn't have ventured an opinion on the topic and don't believe I ever have.  I'm more interested in hearing what people think than sharing my own opinions (and I don't have an opinion on everything or rush to form one). I'm mainly weighing in today on Chris because a writer slammed me in an series of e-mails today on how I hadn't come to his (the writer's) defense.  And my reaction to that is, "I don't know your soap opera.  I don't have time to research your last three years and all the people you've pissed off.  But I do know that woman at the New York Times that won't take your calls anymore?  Your rage frightens her.  And she's not the only one."  But being read ___'s attacks over the phone by Martha (who got the 'joy' of being the one to open those foul e-mails -- thank you, Martha for all you do) with their f-you and the rest attacking me for not coming to his defense (over problems I wasn't even aware of -- I didn't even know he was lying about me -- which he also admits in his e-mails -- in 2011 online until today), I thought finally, "You're on your own."  And that made me think, the people who really do care and really don't try to hurt people, those are the ones who deserve support.  And that's the type of person Chris Hayes is.
 
There are a lot of people who don't care.  They go on TV and they really don't care.  It's a party and a game, they say their piece and they go home and don't even think about it again. (For those who take that as a slam on the right -- I know many people on TV on the left and in the center.  I can't speak to the right-wing TV pundits and wouldn't presume to being unfamiliar with them and their lives.)  Whether you agree with Chris or not, he does give a great deal of thought to not only events but to how he impacts them and whether or not he said the right thing or communicated correctly.  He does not set out to be controversial or to hurt anyone.  He's not trying to 'play with the format.'  He's honestly attempting to communicate.  He meant no harm and he was speaking -- whether he knew it or not -- for a group of people around the country who were mourning the fallen and whose feelings about their loved one are just as valid as those who disagreed with Chris.
 
If you were honestly bothered by Chris' opinion -- which he identified as such -- he's offered a sincere apology and if the attacks on him continue, I'll assume you're not sincere but working some political angle or trying to.  He's done everything he can and then some at this point so if you've got a problem, it's beyond Chris and on you.  There are a lot of people I wouldn't vouch for.  When I was making a list of that as Martha read the series of e-mails from ____, I immediately thought of Chris Hayes and how he's someone who is worth vouching for.
 
 
 
 
Posted by at

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

666 Park Avenue

 Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "One-on-One Summit" went up Monday.


one on one summit

I'm sure you enjoy that as much as I do.  I don't know about you, but I just want Nouri out of office.  It would be one thing if he'd been the people's choice.  But he wasn't the people's choice.  That's why Iraqiya came in first.

And why did people even bother to vote if Nouri gets to stay on as prime minister?

Why did they even have elections?

And why the hell didn't Barack just stay the hell out of it?  Instead he had to throw his support behind Nouri al-Maliki.  And this was after Nouri's torture prisons had been exposed.






Barack Obama is a filthy joke.  And I laugh at the idiots who fawn over him.



 
Though most of us took the day off yesterday, not everyone did.  So be sure you read  Marcia's "Barack doesn't win the vet vote" and Mike's "Memorial Day" and Kat's "Kat's Korner: There's nothing cheap about being ripped off" and Ruth's "Ruth's Report."  You'll see that at all the community sites.  What you won't see is this:



C.I. asked that every one note Marcia, Kat, Ruth, Isaiah and Mike.  And every one will.  However, it's worth noting that C.I. didn't take a day off either.  And so I'll note that.

"666 Park Avenue"?  Yes, I will cover that this fall.  That's the new Vanessa Williams show.  It'll air on Sundays and I'll cover it.  I'll also grab "Whitney" again when new episodes start but I was specifically asked about "666 Park Avenue" in three e-mails.  Boomtron notes:

As reported by TV Guide, Williams is set to be playing the stylish Olivia, who is the better half of O’Quinn’s Gavin. The married couple are the owners of the landmark building the series takes place. As we have come to learn, the building they own is seemingly haunted, but it’s possible Gavin and Olivia are also possessed by supernatural forces. In order to be allowed to live in the building, you have to meet with them and soon you are entranced by their very being. Williams describes the couple as being very seductive to a point where you want to be them and live where they live. It’s certainly a creepy notion.
And Digital Spy has a video trailer for the show.  It looks interesting and may be the only new show I'm looking forward too.  My daughter and I watch Vanessa together.  We started that with "Ugly Betty."  I've warned her that the new show will be scary and she'll decide whether she's up to it or not this fall.  (She swears she's up for it.  We'll see.)




"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, May 29, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Bradley Manning -- with no conviction -- spends 2 years behind bars, Iraq's historic sites are at risk, Nouri's targeting Iraqiya again, War Criminal Tony Blair gets called out, and more.
 
 
Starting in the US where Bradley Manning's court-martial is scheduled to begin September 21st.  Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December.  At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial.  Bradley has yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it.
 
Bradley's case was discussed on this week's Law and Disorder Radio,  an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights).  Excerpt.
 
 
 
Heidi Boghosian: Michael, you told us a bit about the trial of Bradley Manning and I understand that CCR is going to be involved on a different level with the case.
 
Michael Ratner: Well CCR has been involved in some ways with Bradley Manning for a long time. We represent WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and I and other CCR attorneys have been going to the Bradley Manning hearings down at Fort Meade as I've reported on this radio show.  One of the outrageous things about the hearing is that even documents that are not classified are not given to the public, are not given to the media.  There's no way to get any of the court orders that the judge actually makes.  You know, such things as pre-trial publicity.  There's no way to get any of the motions.  Although, now, some defense motions are up.  But government motions are not there, government responses are not there. There's no transcript of the proceeding that we can get.  There's one made but no one has access to it of the media or public.  You sit in the court and you can't understand what's going on because you can't read any of the papers. So we now at the Center have for a number of months been trying to insist to the court that these are public filings, Bradley Mannings been denied his right to a public trial and the media and the citizenry is being denied their right to a public trial which is a key part of ensuring that justice is done fairly.
 
Heidi Boghosian: Michael, are the documents being withheld in the name of national security?  And also, is there precedent for this?
 
Michael Ratner: This is a court-martial.  They apparently have different rules that they like to apply about letting the public know about what's going on.  Every court-martial is essentially an ad-hoc tribunal.  They're set up for the specific purpose of whomever they're going to try.  They don't even have a clerk's office or a docket. And the judge has not said she's withholding because of national security.  She's simply not giving the documents.  No court orders. No motions -- particularly of the government's. None of the replies or briefs.  And no transcripts. And there's also a lot of off-the-record hearings that we have no access to.  So this, unfortunately, seems to be a matter of course.  But here you are, in the most important court-martial probably in the century, conceivably, and the public and the media are not getting the materials.
 
Heidi Boghosian: There's an irony in this given that Manning is on trial for the very reason that he made documents public and, in his hearings, things are being withheld.
 
Michael Ratner:  Yes.  In fact, you could argue that the entire proceeding is a justification for what Bradley Manning allegedly did, that this entire country is going down some huge secrecy drain even with documents that the judge doesn't even claim are national security documents and they're not giving them to us.  So what we did a few weeks ago is we filed some letters with the judge saying we want access.  The Reporters Committee on Free Press filed a letter with 47 major newspapers saying we want access. Everything has been denied. So now we are going to the next level of the military appeals, it's called the Court of Military Appeals, and then we go to the Court of the Armed Forces and then, presumably, into federal court. I expect to win the case. 
 
Though he's never been found guilty of anything, he remains behind bars and the Constitutional guarantee of a speedy and fair trial becomes even more of a joke. 
 
Today marks two years of imprisonment of Private Bradley Manning.  Two years ouf of his 24 years is a long time in military prison.  His treatment has been highly controversial, every step of the way.
Following every bit of information available during the first few months of his ordeal made it clear that the US government was going to use Manning as a warning to anyone else who might feel compelled to report on war crimes, or any other crimes they witness from withing the system.  Blow the whistle, goes the warning, and you will be buried alive by the state, shredded by the same secrecy machine a whistleblower would try to expose.
 
Two years now.  And this is under Barack Obama.  He had no respect for the Constitution.  People deluded themselves.  The Voice of Russia sees little hope of Bradley getting a fair shake:
 
All of the facts so far do not point to the possibility that Manning will be given the opportunity to receive a fair trial. He was the chosen scapegoat for what the US characterized as a historic intelligence failure, something conspiracy theorists say was an orchestrated release to tie up the intelligence agencies of the world with disinformation and to serve as the spark to ignite the color revolutions of the Arab spring. According to experts these two things were the only real tangible effects of the release of the information that was attributed to Manning.
[. . .]
The answer is clear, it is not in the interests of the government to assist in the Manning's defense, if he is found innocent and the huge house of cards that has been built up around him comes crashing down many officials at all levels will have to face the piper and while the foxes are guarding the chicken coop assisting someone they accuse is not something that can ever be expected, no matter how much lip service is paid to innocence before guilty.
 
 
Meanwhile in England, the Iraq War is back in the news after Tony Blair got confronted for his War Crimes yesterday.  Samira Shackle (New Statesman) reported that while Tony Blair gave testimony a the Royal Courts of Justice, he was shouted down with a cry of, "This man should be arrested for War Crimes!"  Tom Chivers (Telegraph of London) identifies the truth-teller as David Lawley-Wakelin who made the documentary Alternative Iraq Enquiry. Sam Lister, Rosa Silverman and Brian Farmer (Independent of London) report that Lawley-Wakelin shouted, "This man should be arrested for War Crimes.  JP Morgan paid him off for the Iraq War.  Three months after he invaded Iraq they held upt he Iraq bank for 20 billion.  He was then paid six million dollars every year and still is from JP Morgan six month after he left office.  This man is a War Criminal!" As Connor Simpson's piece for The Atlantic noted, "Tony Blair Can't Escape the Iraq War."
 
Suzannah Hills (Daily Mail) reports that Lawley-Wakelin appeared on James O'Brien's LBC radio program today You go through the metal detectors, any member of the public can actually go in, and I tried to get in through the front entrance of the Leveson inquiry but was evicted as I don't have any press accreditation. But I figured out there must be a back way in as Lord Leveson himself must have one.  When I got there I was surprised to find out that there was no security at all and in fact the door to the court was wide open in the same way that Lord Leveson himself would have got in there."  The Telgraph of London quotes Leveson telling the inquiry today, "Yesterday morning a man by the name of David Lawley-Wakelin interrupted and disrupted the proceedings of this Inquiry for purposes of his own.  I directed that an inquiry should take place and it has now been completed.  Appropriate measures to prevent any risk of repetition have been taken."  Lawley-Wakelin appeared on Press TV (link is video and transcript) today and was asked if War Criminal Blair would ever appear before the Hague?
 
Lawley-Wakelin: You know, whether he ever gets to court that's another thing.  Taking on the American government, Bush and Blair and the British government it's just an enormous thing.  There are lots of websites where you can join petitions to get Blair indicated for war crimes and perhaps one day we can hope that he will be taken down to the Hague but it's a long road and we can only hope that it will happen.  There is plenty of evidence to point towards it.  The sad thing is that the Chilcot Inquiry [so named after its chairman Sir John Chilcot] over here in England which is known as the Iraq Inquiry won't be looking into any criminal activity, they'll only be making inquiry into what went wrong in the decision-making by the politicians and the government and putting guidelines towards that but they won't be looking at all the money that washed around at the time and that Blair is still making.
 
 
In Iraq, the political crisis continues.  In March 2010, parliamentary elections were held.  Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law came in second to Iraiqya (led by Ayad Allawi).  That should have meant Allawi had first crack at attempting to form a coalition government.  But Nouri didn't want anyone else to be prime minister and because he had the US government's backing as well as the Iranian government's, he was able to bring the country to a standstill.  Political Stalemate I is the eight months that followed the March 2010 elections where Nouri refused to allow any governance to take place.

In November 2010, the US government brokers an agreement.  Because they're in charge of the agreement, the US ensures that Nouri al-Maliki will have a second term as prime minister.  To get the other political blocs to sign off on it concessions were made such as an independent national security commission would be created and Allawi would head that.  All of the blocs got various promises -- in writing -- to get them to sign off on the agreement.  Nouri signed it, everyone signed it.  And Nouri used the Erbil Agreement to get his second term as prime minister.  But once he had that, he trashed the agreement.  He refused to honor it.

And because there is no honor among thiefs and liars, the White House pretended they hadn't spent the summer of 2010 coming up with an agreement and as if they hadn't made promises to Iraq's political blocs.  In Iraq, the White House's name is mud because they are known liars who deceived intentionally and went back on their word.

Last summer, the Kurds began publicly demanding that Nouri implement the Erbil Agreement.  Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr quickly joined the call.  Political Stalemate II is the ongoing political crisis.

Throughout, Nouri has targeted Iraqiya.   Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) notes the present crisis is rooted in the 2010 elections but traces it back even further to the creation of Iraq in the the early part of the 20th century.  He observes of today's conflict:

Iraq's political atmosphere was never devoid of dangerous tensions, but after the downfall of the Baathist regime, it has entered a new phase that is threatening to destroy the foundations of democracy.
Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki is at the centre of these developments, and has been targeted by many. He has clashed with fugitive vice-president Tareq Al Hashemi, deputy prime minister Saleh Al Mutlaq, chairman of Al Iraqiya bloc Eyad Allawi, president of the Kurdish province Masoud Barzani and Sadrist leader Muqtada Al Sadr. Al Maliki is probably having problems with those in his own Al Dawa party.
It is difficult to see Al Maliki emerging unscathed from these conflicts as all these forces are closing in on him in a joint attempt to get him out of office.
Playing on the interests of the US and those of regional powers, which served him well in recent years, will not ensure Al Maliki's political survival, as finding a substitute is not very difficult.
 
 
Last week, Nouri found another member of Iraqiya to target.  Laith al-Dulaimi is a member of the Baghdad provincial council as well as Iraqiya.  Nouri ordered his arrest and al-Dulaimi states he has been torturted.  Torture is common in Iraq, especially when securing 'confessions.'   Just last week Nouri's forces tortured four Russian Bikers.  RIA Novosti reports that the  bikers -- Maxim Ignatyev, Oleg Kapkayev, Oleg Maximov and Alexander Vardanyants --  returned home yesterday.  The four were biking through the region when Nouri's forces seized them, accused them of being spies and tortured them.  RIA Novosti notes that the arrest sparked great furor including protests in Russia and promises from Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that the bikers would be released.   The Moscow Times adds:


The bikers were then detained by a military patrol outside Baghdad on May 20 and jailed at an Iraqi military base, where they were beaten and threatened, Vardanyants said. "There was little to be happy about," he said. "They beat us and threatened us, and the beatings had various levels of severity."

The four were imprisoned for approximately five days.  The Voice of Russia states that "they were subjected to physical and psychological pressure."  Again, that's common at the hands of Nouri's forces.  Dar Addustour reported Monday that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is calling for al-Dulaimi's release.   Al Rafidayn notes that Talabani is rightly dismissing the 'confession' that was videotaped and is now being played to the press by Nouri's goons.  Remember last time when they were showing forced confessions and the world condemned them for it?  That was only months ago.  And Nouri's little flunky spokesperson then declared -- lying through his teeth -- that the 'confessions' (against Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi) weren't intended to be played for the public and were only for the court.  Iraq's been airing so-called 'confessions' for years now.  It's become 'reality' TV in Iraq.  Will anyone note that Nouri couldn't even go six months without circulating 'confessions' after swearing, just last winter, that he knew it was a violation of the Constitution to air them?
 
 


How much of a stir has al-Dulaimi's arrest and alleged torture created?  Alsumaria reports the Ministry of the Interior -- over the forces that are said to have tortured him -- is insisting it will conduct a full investigation into these claims.
 
The arrest is drawing so much attention that Alsumaria reports even Nouri is now saying that there needs to be an investigation into the way al-Dulaimi was treated and also into the charges against him.  Kitabat predicted Sunday that this would turn into a major scandal and they were correct.  Kitabat notes that human rights activists are decrying the treatment of al-Dulaimi.


Alsumaria reports that Iraqiya, the Kurdish Alliance, Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and others will meet in Erbil to address the political crisis, the Erbil Agreement and whether or not to go forward with a vote of no-confidence.  This follows the April 28th Erbil meeting (which did not include ISCI) and the Ma 18th meet-up at Moqtada's Najaf home.  Meanwhile, ISCI leader Ammar al-Hakim's beginning to feel the heat from standing so closely to Nouri al-Maliki.  Al Rafidayn reported yesterday that al-Hakim was attempting to create some space publicly between himself and Nouri and declaring it was not his role to mediate on Nouri's behalf with Moqtada al-Sadr or anyone else.  He made these comments, as Dar Addustour also notes, at a press conference with Moqtada.


Alsumaria notes that the move towards a no-confidence vote in Nouri continues to be a strong possibility and that Moqtada al-Sadr denies he is angling for the spot of prime minister.
 
Turning to the never-ending violence, Express News Service reports, "The last rites of the two Indians who died in an explosion on the Syria-Iraq border on Sunday took place in Iraq on Tuesday.  Abbas Manaswala of Pune and Insiya Zakir Kothawala of Nagpur, both from the Dawoodi Bohra community, were among a group of Indian pilgrims travelling to the holy city of Karbala in Iraq by bus when the blash killed them."   Lebanon's Daily Star reports, "The surviving Lebanese pilgrims whose bus was hit by a roadside bomb in Iraq last week arrived in Lebanon Sunday night.  The National News Agency reported that among those who arrived at Beirut airport were nine people who were wounded by the bomb, which killed three Shiite pilgrims near Ramadi, a city west of Baghdad."  While the Lebanese survivors returned home on Sunday, AP reports that a Saqlawiyah roadside bombing hit a bus carrying Pakistani pilgrims and left 24 of them injured. AFP reports 3 of the injured are children.
 
Last week Aseel Kami (Reuters) reported on the State Board of Heritage and Antiquities' Mariam Omran Musa who is suing Iraq's Ministry of Oil over a pipline through Babylon which threatens the existence of the historical Hanging Gardens.  Musa declared, "Oil and antiquities are both national wealth, but I have an opinion: when the oil is gone, we will still have antiquities."  The Travel Channel notes that the Hanging Gardens were considered to be one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.  RT adds:


The magnificent gardens allegedly built for a king's homesick wife in the 6th century BC were one of the Ancient World's seven wonders. Some historians doubt they existed, but they were described in many written sources and were said to have been destroyed by earthquakes.
The remains of the ancient city of Babylon are situated near present-day Al Hillah in Iraq's Babylon Province south of Baghdad. The country has long been trying to get UNESCO to add the site to its World Heritage list, but chances appear to be fading away as authorities plan to lay an oil pipeline there.
Iraq's Oil Ministry plans to extend a strategic route to export oil through six provinces at the center and south of the country.Two pipelines carrying oil products and liquid gas from Basra in the south to Baghdad were built under the ancient site in the late 1970s and early 80s.
Stephane Foucart (Guardian) seeks out expert opinion on the issue:
 
"The pipeline crosses the perimeter of the archaeological site but outside the walls, beneath the so-called outer city," said Véronique Dauge, chief of the Arab States Unit at the Unesco World Heritage Centre. "But even if it doesn't cross the centre of the ancient city, it is in an area that has never been excavated." The site covers approximately 850 hectares, most of which is virgin territory for archaeologists. A spokesman from the Iraqi oil ministry quoted by AFP reported that the land dug up revealed no archaeological remains.
"No one can say right now if the oil pipeline has caused damage," said Lisa Ackerman, executive vice-president of the World Monuments Fund (WMF), a New York-based foundation for preserving architectural heritage, who works on the site with the Iraqi authorities. "But I think it's very likely that it crosses sensitive archaeological zones."
 
 
Meanwhile AFP reports, "Teams of Iraqi archaeologists have discussed 40 ancient sites in the country's south from the Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian periods, an Iraqi antiquities offical said on Monday."  And hopefully the fate of those sites will be better than the currently threatened Hanging Gardens or other threatened sites in Iraq.  Mohamad Ali Harissi (Middle East Online) reports that historical sites discovered near Najaf's airport -- including "the remains of the celebrated ancient Christian city of Hira" -- are at risk, "unexplored and unkempt," due to a lack of excavation funding.  One of the people who led historical digs upon the discovery and in 2009 and 2010 is Shakir Abdulzahra Jabari who states, "The area has historical importance, because it is rich in antiquities, including especially the remains of churches, abbeys and palaces.  But now the antiquities have been neglected for a year, and they do not receive any attention, despite the fact that many Western countries are interested in Hira's history as the main gateway of Christianity into Iraq."
 
 
Monday was Memorial Day.  The following went up on Monday Marcia's "Barack doesn't win the vet vote," Mike's "Memorial Day," Kat's "Kat's Korner: There's nothing cheap about being ripped off" and Ruth's "Ruth's Report" and   Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "One-on-One Summit."  We'll close with this from Revolution's "Drones, Deportations, and Drugs -- The '3 Ds' of why Obama has been Worse than Bush" (World Can't Wait):



Obama has overseen a huge leap in the use of pilotless drones by the U.S. military and CIA to kill people in a growing number of countries. When Obama took office, the war by drones was confined to Pakistan, where Bush had authorized 44 strikes over the previous five years. Under Obama, there have been 260 drone strikes in Pakistan alone as of early 2012 -- almost six times the number ordered by Bush. Obama has expanded the drone war, including to Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran. The drones are deployed from dozens of secret facilities in the Middle East, Africa, and Southwest Asia -- with the operational hubs within the U.S., thousands of miles away from where the drones actually kill people.
While the whole drone program is veiled in secrecy, Obama defended it by saying that the drone attacks are "precision strikes against al Qaeda and their affiliates" and that "drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties." This is either an outright lie, or a cold-blooded expression of utter disregard for human lives, especially in a Third World country. According to a report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in England this February, "since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners."
Obama is now expanding the war in Yemen with loosened-up rules on drone strikes. According to the Washington Post, the "new authority approved by President Obama ... allows the CIA and the military to fire even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known...." This can only mean more civilians murdered in what Obama calls "precision strikes."

Deportations -- the War on Immigrants

The Gestapo-like targeting of immigrants within the U.S. and the intense militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border started before Obama --but he has escalated this offensive to new levels. Statistics released last October revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had deported almost 400,000 people in fiscal year 2011 --the highest number of deportations in a single year since ICE was formed 10 years ago. More than a million people -- mostly Latinos --have been forced out of the U.S. since Obama became president.
A key part of Obama's anti-immigrant offensive is a federal program called Secure Communities, under which local police send the fingerprints of every person they arrest to the Department of Homeland Security. Secure Communities has expanded to about 1,600 local police forces, and Obama plans to spread it to all local jurisdictions by 2013.
Those suspected of being undocumented are sent to ICE detention centers. There is a network of 250 such detention centers around the country. Exposés about these ICE prisons have revealed widespread brutality, sexual abuse, and racist treatment against vulnerable detainees who have no access to lawyers or other help.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by at

Saturday, May 26, 2012

TV things that don't make sense

There are efforts by the press to get Marcia Cross cast as Amanda Clarke's mother on ABC's "Revenge."  I can think of nothing worse.

Cross played Kimberly to perfection on "Melrose Place" and Kimberly was a delicious psycho.  On "Desperate Housewives," she played the Stepford Mom and her distance from reality helped put the role over.  But there is nothing that indicates she would be good as a likeable character. Maybe Amanda Clarke's mother isn't likeable?

Possible.

But I still say no.  Among the names the press is listing, I would go for either Diane Lane or Renee Russo.  Sharon Stone's being mentioned but I just don't see her doing the role.  (Unlike with Cross, I'm not saying that Stone can't act the role -- I think she could and that she'd be great in it -- I just do not see her signing on to a TV series.  She was supposed to do that with "Law and Order" and then didn't.)

I am guessing that the character is hiding a great deal.  For example, she's not dead.  Okay.  Well what prevented her from coming forward?  Especially from coming forward when David Clarke went to prison and Amanda was put in foster care?

Is she an unfeeling person?  Was she incapacitated?  If it's the latter, was she in a mental institution?

I think there are going to be a lot of dramatic possibilities with the role and that Lane or Russo or Stone could nail those possibilities and have you rooting for them.

Marcia Cross not only looks wrong for the part, I don't see her in the role.

Here's another thing I don't understand: Lily Tomlin's new sitcom.

For years, Lily refused to return to TV in anything but specials.  She had many offers to do her own show.  Then she's Kay on the last two seasons of "Murphy Brown."  Okay, she was good in the role and the show was a very funny show.  Then she ended up doing two episodes of "Will & Grace" and I wish she'd done more but was glad she took part in the show because it was both hysterical and groundbreaking.  Then came the awful "West Wing."  She was in 34 episodes in a minor role that wasn't that funny and wasn't that important and now Lily Tomlin was being squandered.

This continued with the bad decision to do a season of "Desperate Housewives" (six episodes) in another role that meant nothing.

But she switched it up by doing Glenn Close's "Damages."  That's an amazing show and for ten episodes, Lily got to be amazing.  More recently, she was hilarious on Lisa Kudrow's "Web Therapy" (as Fiona's mother).

But now comes another puzzler that I hope will not also be a squanderer.  Lily will play Reba McEntire's mother in a new ABC sitcom this fall entitled "Malibu Country." I hope this is a solid effort that's deserving of Lily.

But I have to wonder, why didn't she do her own sitcom all those years ago when she had the offers?

I don't get it.  I think a Lily Tomlin sitcom could have changed television and certainly could have had the whole nation laughing.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, May 25, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, the Russian bikers tortured by Nouri's forces are released, Nouri's brown shirts take to downtown Baghdad as they've done so many Fridays before to stage a faux protest, the US prepares to arm Nouri, Memorial Day weekend is upon us, and more.
 
 
Starting in Russia. Yesterday it was learned that four Russian bikers were grabbed in central Iraq by Nouri's security forces, imprisoned and beaten.  The four are: Oleg Kapkayev of Saint Petersburg, Alexander Vardanyants  and Maxim Ignatyev of Vladimir and Oleg Maximov of Tula.  Russian Legal Information Agency reports that the wife Oleg Maximo spoke to her husband and he told her they were being moved to another location. 
 Dmitry Rogozin is the Deputy Premier of Russian Government tasked with the defense and space industry.

7h
Задержанные в Ираке байкеры уже находятся в Посольстве РФ. Мотоциклы пока не отдали. Спасибо всем, кто помогал
Expand

 
That Tweet reads: 'The Russian bikers detained in Iraq are at the Embassy of the Russian Federation [in Baghdad].  Motorcylces have not been returned yet.  Thanks to everyone  who helped.'  The Moscow Times notes, "[Russian President Vladimir] Putin has been forging good relations with the biker community in the past two years, riding motorcycles and attending biker events."   RIA Novosti adds, "The four men will leave for Russia on Saturday morning, the bikers' lawyer Alexander Orlov, also a member of the Moscow-based motorcycle club Rolling Anarchy MCC (RAMCC), told RIA Novosti."
 
As many are noticing, the US press has ignored the story completely.  That may be due to the fact that there's a detail that's inconsistent -- not on-message -- with Barack Obama's current campaign for a second term as US President.   Ekaterina Saviba (Gazeta) reports  it today:

They came to Iraq on May 17 and were detained by the Iraqi military on May 20. "Our attempt to go towards Baghdad failed because of Yanks in Hummers – they didn't let us in. Our guys decided to go round the American checkpoints and pass north of them," report motorcyclists' friends on the Russian motorcycling forum Ruriders.ru. "They managed to ride several dozen kilometers a day, while having long heartfelt conversations with local authorities, all while the outside temperature was 42 Celsius."

Again, that was also in yesterday's reports.  The Russian bikers, en route to Baghdad, were unable to enter the city and had to go around due to Americans blocking them in Hummers, due to American checkpoints.  The 20th was Sunday and the US may have activated some branch still in Iraq (there are many) to put up checkpoints in advance of the meet-up in Baghdad.  They may have pulled the units stationed outside of Iraq -- in Kuwait for example -- back in to set up those checkpoints.
 
Along with the usual Russian contingent which staffs the country's Baghdad embassy, other Russian officials were in the country this week as Nouri's Iraq hosted talks with Iran about the nuclear program.  Ali Arouzi (NECN News -- link is text and video) reports, "International nuclear talks being held in Baghdad this week with Iran ended inconclusively with both sides at a stalemate."  A stalemate grows in Nouri's Baghdad?  What a complete lack of surprise?
 
The ongoing political stalemate in Iraq could see Nouri al-Maliki face a no-confidence vote that, if successful, would remove him as prime minister.  Alsumaria reports that the 'Badr brigade' says this would be the worst thing that could happen.  The Badr brigade only split or 'split' from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq when it had to (or risk ISCI being outlawed).  They still take their orders from Ammar al-Hakim and the US has been very successful in buying al-Hakim's support for Nouri.  al-Hakim has already made statements like those made similar statements out of his own mouth.  Now he uses the Badr brigade as a megaphone in the hopes that this will give the (false) appearance of a wave of support for Nouri surfacing. 
 
How did things get to this point? 
 
Iraq's currently in Political Stalemate II.  Political Stalemate I followed the March 7, 2010 elections in which Iraiqya -- headed by Ayad Allawi -- came in first and Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law came in second.  Despite herculean efforts on Nouri's part -- some legal but most questionable or outright illegal -- to walk away with the election, he was runner up. But Nouri wanted to be Miss Iraq, he wanted the crown and felt he did very well in the swimsuit competition.  He had the backing of the White House and the Iranian government. for his desired second term as prime minister.  The Iraqi Constitution, the election results and the will of the Iraqi people were all against Nouri; however, Barack Obama doesn't care about rule of law or democracy.  He wants what he wants when he wants it.  And like Bully Boy Bush before him, Barack packed a chubby for Nouri. 
 
So for over eight months things were at a standstill.  Then in November 2010, the US brokered an agreement among the political blocs.  This is known as the Erbil Agreement (because it was signed off in Erbil).   In exchange for giving Nouri a second term, the US insisted, the blocs would receive concessions that they wanted.  This is the agreement that was agreed to.
 
The Erbil Agreement wasn't about all the political blocs saying, "We don't want anything.  Give Nouri a second term!"  To get the blocs on board it was  necessary for them to be offered arrangements that would benefit them.  And with everyone agreeing to the deal -- including Nouri -- and with the US government brokering it and insisting it was sound, the political blocs fel tthey deal was solid.
 
Nouri used it to become prime minister-designate and then, in December 2010, beging his second term as prime minister.  But that's all that happened.  He refused to implement the agreement.  He offered one excuse after another as is his way.  He distracts and stalls and hopes the other side gives up.  He's done that over and over.
 
By last summer, the Kurds had enough of the stalling.  They publicly demanded that the Erbil Agreement be implemented.  Their call was quickly joined by Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr.  And it wasn't implemented.  And it's still not implemented.  April 28th, there was another Erbil meet-up and among those participating were Moqtada, KRG President Massoud Barzani, Allawi and Iraqi president Jalal Talabani.  In their meeting they agreed that Nouri needed to implement the agreement or face a no-confidence vote.  They also agreed that Moqtada al-Sadr's 18-point plan needed to be implemented.  Moqtada delivered the message, implement the Erbil Agreement or face a vote of no-confidence.  As the end of the month gets closer, the number of MPs reportedly  willing to vote out Nouri grows.  This week alone, it's grown from over 163 to 200.
 
A list of potential replacements has been named.  All on the list come from the National Alliance (a Shi'ite group which ISCI, State of Law, Moqtada's bloc and others belong to).  Kitabat reminds that the National Alliance is supposed to be naming a single choice of who should be Nouri's replacement.  But through it all, Moqtada has repeatedly noted publicly that Nouri can stop this at any point prior to the vote.  All he has to do is implement the Erbil Agreement. 
 
Not only does he refuse to, the White House refuses to call that out.  They brokered the agreement, they gave the political blocs their word that the agreement was legal and would hold.  The White House brokered the agreement and swore it would be upheld.  They have betrayed the Iraqi people.  These are the betrayals that lead people to stop trusting the US.  These are the type of betrayals the people of Iran spent decades living with.  It's not smart to betray people, it's not smart to make a promise and not keep it.
 
 
And all those promises
That you made me from the start
Were filled with emptiness
From the desert of your heart
Every sweet caress
Was just your second best
Broken promises
-- "All Those Promises," written by Janis Ian, first appears on her Folk Is The New Black
 
 
 
And now the White House thinks they can act like they're not involved?  Now they want to pretend like they have to stand on the sidelines? 
 
And they're not on the sidelines, they're repeatedly pimping for Nouri.  For example, the US State Dept issued this readout of the meeting between William Rurns, Deupty Secretary of State, and "Iraqi Acting Minister of Defense" Saadoun al-Dulaymi:
 
 
Today, Deputy Secretary Burns met with Iraqi Acting Minister of Defense Saadoun al-Dulaymi, at the Department of State to discuss issues of mutual interest and our shared commitment towards a long-term partnership under the Strategic Framework Agreement.　 Minister Dulaymi is in Washington as lead of the Iraqi delegation for inaugural meetings of the Defense and Security Joint Coordinating Committee between the United States and the Government of Iraq. Deputy Secretary Burns noted the importance of these meetings as an excellent mechanism to build our mutual commitment to an enduring security partnership under a civilian-led process.
The meeting also covered bilateral issues on the security and political fronts and the Deputy Secretary offered our continued support as Iraq strengthens its democratic institutions and enhances the capacity of its security forces to bring greater stability and prosperity to its people.　 On Iraqi political issues, the two discussed the importance of resolving differences through dialogue and compromise and in a democratic fashion in accordance with the Iraqi constitution.
The Deputy Secretary expressed appreciation to Minister Dulaymi for Iraq's willingness to host the E3+3 meetings in Baghdad and noted that, following the successful hosting of the Arab Summit in March, it is another sign of Iraq taking a constructive role in the region and with the international community to reach shared goals of greater regional stability.　 Deputy Secretary Burns assured Minister Dulaymi that the United States would continue to support Iraq in its effort to strengthen ties with its regional neighbors.
 
 
 And the Defense Dept issued this American Forces Press Service story about Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta meeting with al-Dulaymi.  There's no "acting defense minister."  Not per the Iraqi Constitution.  The prime minister nominates someone to be Minister of Defense and Parliament says yes or no via a vote.  That's how it's supposed to work per the Constitution.  But Nouri's never put a name to the Parliament.  The minute he does, he doesn't control the Defense Ministry, the Minister does.  Why are US public servants wasting time and tax payer money meeting with these non-ministers?  If they hadn't lied so much -- the White House -- $500 million wouldn't have already been wasted on the police training program this year.  Most Americans don't realize that the Iraqi police are under the Ministry of the Interior and even more aren't aware that Nouri has never named a nominee for that position either.
 
How do you waste $500 million US tax payer dollars on a training program for a ministry that has no minister?  That's your first clue that the money's going to be wasted.  Nouri was supposed to have named a full Cabinet before he was moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister.  It's a power-grab and the US government enables and endorses it. 
 
Doubt that?
 
The Defense Dept issued the following late yesterday:
 
 
IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 420-12
May 24, 2012
Joint Statement of the U.S. - Iraq Defense and Security Cooperation Joint Coordinating Committee

            The Governments of the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq reaffirmed their commitment to a strong and long-term security partnership between the two countries at the inaugural meeting of the Defense and Security Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC) of the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA), from May 22-24, 2012. 
            The meetings, held at the U.S. Department of Defense following a meeting with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Acting Iraqi Minister of Defense Saadoun Al-Dlimi, were co-chaired by the Iraqi acting minister of defense and by the U.S. Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller, and Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller.  Defense and security is one of the eight areas of cooperation agreed upon by Iraq and the United States under the 2008 SFA to strengthen cooperation in areas of critical interest to both countries.  The establishment of the Defense and Security Joint Coordinating Committee signifies both countries' commitment to strengthen the U.S.-Iraqi strategic partnership and continue coordination and cooperation on these vital issues. 
            During three days of meetings, discussions were held on a number of items of mutual interest, including future sales of military equipment, joint military exercises, and Iraq's strategy to ensure its future stability and security.  In support of an enduring partnership, the United States and the Government of Iraq expanded dialogue on ways of increasing strategic cooperation that would promote stability within Iraq as well as throughout the region.  The United States also reaffirmed its commitment to advancing Iraq's stability through the training, equipping, and enhancing the capacity of Iraq's armed forces for defense against external threats and for counterterrorism. 
            Both sides discussed ongoing and future security assistance.  In addition to an initial purchase of 18 F-16 aircraft in September 2011, during the meetings the Government of Iraq reconfirmed its interest in purchasing a second set of 18 F-16s and the United States reconfirmed its commitment to the sale.  The F-16s and other military equipment will help protect Iraq's sovereignty, meet legitimate defense needs and symbolize the long-term security partnership envisioned by both countries.
            The United States commends the Iraqi security forces for their demonstrated capability to protect the Iraqi people and recognizes the continued sacrifice being made to ensure Iraq's security.  The Iraqi security forces have made great strides in stabilizing the security situation in Iraq and in facilitating Iraq's emergence as a strategic partner that promotes and contributes to regional security. 
            The United States and the Government of Iraq agreed that the next meeting of the Defense and Security Joint Coordinating Committee will be hosted by Iraq in Baghdad this fall.  The purpose of the second meeting will be to build upon the foundation laid out this week, and continue discussions on strengthening defense and security cooperation as part of the multifaceted relationship developed between the United States and the Government of Iraq.
 
I seem to remeber, a few years back, a US Senator talking about the danger that we would arm Nouri with the weapons he could use on his own people.  Maybe that observation doesn't matter because the man is no longer a US Senator -- now he's Vice President of the United States.  Joe Biden knew this was a problem in 2008.  I'm failing to see how anything's changed to make Nouri less at risk of attacking the Iraqi people.
 
Yesterday the US State Dept released 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and here's how the section on Iraq opens:
 

During the year the most significant human rights developments were continuing abuses by sectarian and ethnic armed groups and violations by government-affiliated forces. Divisions between Shia and Sunni and between Arab and Kurd empowered sectarian militant organizations. These militants, purporting to defend one group through acts of intimidation and revenge against another, influenced political outcomes. Terrorist attacks designed to weaken the government and deepen societal divisions occurred during the year.
The three most important human rights problems in the country were governmental and societal violence reflecting a precarious security situation, a fractionalized population mirroring deep divisions exacerbated by Saddam Hussein's legacy, and rampant corruption at all levels of government and society.
 
That doesn't qualify as a ringing endorsement of Nouri al-Maliki.
 
Today the US puppet sent his little cult into the streets of downtown Baghad.  Alsumaria reports that the thug's thugs were out in full force, carrying signs supproting Nouri and insisting that anyone not supproting Thug Nouri was influenced by foreign countries.  They also threatened violence if Nouri was subjected to a no-confidence vote.  Ayad Allawi, leader of Iraqiya, noticed what took place this morning.  Alsumaria reports that he charges Nouri with attempting to take the political crisis into the Iraqi street and to scare people into silence.  Allawi says that if there is any bloodshed, Nouri will be responsible.
 
 
 
"We were preparing a party for her birthday, which was May 11, a party she was not able to enjoy.  She was going to be 26 years old when she died."  That's Ramon Rubalcava speaking about the 2004 death of his daughter Isela Rubalcava.  Spain's wire service EFE notes Isela Rubalcava was born in El Paso to Maria Isela and Ramon Rubalcava and she was killed in a Mosul mortar attack on May 8, 2004 becoming "the third woman of Mexican descent to die on the Iraq war front and the first woman from El Paso to die in combat."  She is one of at least 4488 US service members to die in the Iraq War.  Monday is Memorial Day.  At Huffington Post, Jim Downs offers the origins and history of Memorial Day.  Dora Robles Hernandez (Detroit Free Press) notes that Saturday through Monday will see the Detroit area host 20 different Memorial Day parades.  Though not all metro areas will see that many events -- for example, the states of New Hampshire and Maine will have about that many events this weekend combined -- there will be observations throughout the US.  And because it's Memorial Day, the Sunday chat and chews finally find veterans issues and the Chair of a veterans committee.  Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, Senator Patty Murray (Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committe) will be among the guests which also include Iraq War veteran Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the American Legion's Tim Tetz and Peter Chiarelli who is now a retired general and who has carved out a role for himself advocating on behalf of those with Post-Traumatic Stress and coming up with proposals to allow the stigma attached to PTS to be removed.  It should be a very interesting broadcast.  (I was asked to note this by a friend who endorses Chiarelli's PTS work.)
 
To address veterans issues in a meaningful way that actually helps, bi-partisanship is needed in the Congress -- a point Senator Mike Johanns made Wednesday in a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing entitled "Seamless Transition: Review of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System." Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Committee, Senator Richard Burr is the Ranking Member.  There Committee heard from one panel of witnesses: DoD's Dr. Jo Ann Rooney, GAO's Daniel Bertoni and the VA's John Gingrich.  We covered Chair Murray's questions and some of the report entitled Interim Committee Staff Report: Investigation of Joint Disability Evaluation System in Wednesday's snapshot,   Ava covered Senator Jon Tester's questioning in "How to keep the witness focused (Ava)," Kat reported on Ranking Member Richard Burr's participation with "Senator Burr: I've had too many of these hearings" and Wally  focused on how the VA claiming next year they'll fix things or the next year or the next never does anything but waste the Committee's time and the taxpayers' money with "It's your money (Wally)."  Ava, Kat and Wally covered important aspects of the hearing so please read their reports.  From Kat's, we'll note this:
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr: So we're all in agreement that we're just south of 400 days in the cycle of an applicant being processed?  395, I think, 394.  In May 2011, the Secretary of the Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs committed to revising the IDES [Integrated Disability Evaluation System] so that it could be completed in 150 days and went further and agreed to explore options for it to be 75 days.  Now I-I -- I've had too many of these hearings.  We have them every year.  And we hear the same thing: "Oh, gosh, look at what we're doing."  Now I've heard the most glowing progress report from both of you and then I get the realities of the days haven't changed.  You have met some improvements in certain areas.  I commend you on that.  The timeliness goals in areas have been better.  But the reality is that we've got a broken system and we're five years into it and I hear testimony where 'we're starting to begin to review our business processes.'  Well, you know, why did it take five years to get to this?  What -- What can you convey to me today that's concrete, that tells me a year from now, we're not going to be at 393 days.  When you [Dr. Jo Ann Rooney] said earlier, "We're instituting IT changes this summer that will improve our times by thirty or forty," I thought you were going to say "percent."  And you said "days."   So now my expectations are that if we implement what you just said, we're going to be down to 360 days which exceeds the DES [Disability Evaluating System] and Secretary of the VA by the 110 days over what their goal was for today.
 
 
At its most basic, the VA and the Defense Dept are attempting to make the transition from service member (DoD's role) to veterans (VA's role) seamless and timely.  That's not happening currently.  with respect to Integrated Disability Evaluation System, this is supposed to determine whether or not a service member is able to continue serving.  If the answer is no, the service member then becomes a veteran and VA needs to have a disability claim.  The disability rating will determine the benefits. So it matters.  And the Interim Committee Staff Report noted examples including, "A servicemember with a lung condition who was being treated with steroids and immunosuppressive drugs was incorrectly rated at 0% rather than 100%." 
 
 Not only are there problems with the disability ratings, there's the problem with the length of time they take.  This isn't minor if you're the veteran and you're waiting for a disability check that you've more than earned to come but it's not in the mail.  Committee Chair Patty Murray noted 27,000 have waited over 100 days to go through the system.
 
 
As he questioned the witnesses, Senator Mike Johanns observed, "I don't hear anything that makes me feel 'Gosh, we're going to turn the corner here.'  In fact, I must admit, quite the opposite, I'm going to walk away from this hearing very, very worried that the system is imploding."  Even the issue of supervision was a question mark.  Senator John Boozman wanted to know who was in charge of overseeing the joint-DoD and VA effort?  The best answer he received was that John Gingrich was the point-person for the DoD side; however, he stated he does not oversee the VA effort.
 
Who is responsible for overseeing the full project and not components or pieces?
 
No answer was ever provided.
 
Senator Boozman declared, "I guess I would like to see somebody accountable for the whole system. And you may be that person but it's not fair to you if you don't really have authority to see it through. So I personally think that the two Secretaries need to designate somebody that's got the authority."  Possibly if there was one person responsible for overseeing it, the process would be moving along more smoothly and much quicker.  That was the argument Boozman made and it sounds reasonable.  But did anybody listen?  Will a single person be named to be responsible for overseeing the entire project?
 
 
Senator Johanns wanted to know much longer it is going to take -- "1 year, 2 years, 5 years?" -- for the goals to be met?  No one could provide an answer. "I can't give you a specific time frame," Daniel Bertoni told him.  But he did note that enrollments continue to rise -- 19,000 just last year -- and that this adds to to the delays. 
 
 
We'll close with this from Senate Veterans Committee Chair Patty Murray's office:
 
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, May 24, 2012 
CONTACT:

Murray (202) 224-2834
Collins (202) 224-2523
Michaud (202) 225-6306
 
VETERANS: Murray, Collins, Michaud Applaud Veterans Homes Fix in Military Construction Spending Bill

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME), members of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, along with U.S. Representative Mike Michaud (D-ME), Ranking Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health, applauded the inclusion of an amendment in the Senate Military Construction and Veterans Affairs spending bill which would modify the way State Veterans' Homes are reimbursed for nursing home care provided to veterans. The Senate Committee on Appropriations approved the bill on Tuesday by a vote of 30-0. The amendment, authored by Senator Murray, would result in more flexibility in determining reimbursement rates by requiring VA and the State Veterans' Homes to collaborate in setting rates that accurately reflect the level of care provided. Washington and Maine are home to State Veterans' Homes which require a high level of skilled nursing due to requirements by Medicare and Medicaid. However, currently the VA payments do not cover this level of care.
"This amendment is a critical step to ensuring Washington State Veterans' Homes will not lose out on millions of dollars they need to keep operating," said Senator Murray. "Thankfully we were finally able to move forward to provide this flexibility -- preventing staff layoffs which would have dramatically reduced the number of Washington veterans they serve. I am grateful to Senator Collins and Representative Michaud for their leadership on this issue."
"By granting the Department of Veterans Affairs increased flexibility in reimbursement rates, our goal is to recognize the high-quality of care State Veterans' Homes provide disabled veterans and ensure they never have to turn away any of our veterans because of inadequate reimbursement from the VA," said Senator Collins. "The men and women cared for by State Veterans' Homes defended our freedom, many of them in combat. We must defend their right to the care they deserve."
"Our severely disabled and elderly veterans deserve access to the best possible care and Congress cannot wait any longer to address the shortfalls our State Veterans' Homes are facing," said Representative Michaud. "I am grateful for Sen. Patty Murray's collaboration and leadership on this issue and I look forward to continuing to work with her to ensure that this issue is resolved before the end of the year."
###


 
Meghan Roh
Deputy Press Secretary | Social Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
@PattyMurray
202-224-2834
Get Updates from Senator Murray

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)