Whitney

I have not been able to stop laughing tonight. I was on Netflix and ended up streaming "Whitney Cummings: Money Shot." It was hilarious. Can't watch it with your kids probably.

I wouldn't watch it with my oldest son because I know he'd be embarrassed to laugh and my other kids are too young for it.

But your teenager will probably love it. Just let them watch it by themselves.

Whitney was so funny. I especially loved the part about bras and the underwire bra and how a man had to invent that.

Whitney Cummings stars in NBC's "Whitney" which I love but I had never seen her doing stand up before. So the film was a real discovery.

I wish it were a comedy CD. I'd listen to it in the car when driving to and from work.

And did you ever notice how few women have comedy albums?

Ellen has one ("Taste This," I listen to it regularly all these years later). I have a best of Lily Tomlin on CD. (Her albums were made back during the days of vinyl and I have never, ever seen them on CD at any store I've been at. I even bought the best of on CD hoping it would make the store order some of her other albums.) Whoopi has her first Broadway show on CD. Gilda Radner's Broadway revue (very funny) is usually carried in a store with a large comedy CD collection. In fact, Gilda's often the only one.

You might find Nichols & May (Mike Nichols and Elaine May). But that's really it.

And it's not like women didn't have comedy albums.

But they keep the men in business and bury the women. I may write about that tomorrow.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, November 29, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Joe Biden arrives in Baghdad, Iraq's minorities get some attention, the Bradley Manning Support Network is linking to the publication that has misled on Bradley from the beginning, and more. Mercer Consulting has released its 2011 Quality of Living survey and, out of 221 cities worldwide, Vienna is ranked first for quality of living. And who came in last? Baghdad. Apparently unrelated to the findings, US Vice President Joe Biden arrived in the Iraqi capital today. AP notes, "During his visit, Biden is expected to hold meetings with Iraqi officials over what the future U.S.-Iraqi relationship will look like." Carol E. Lee, Julian E. Barnes and Jay Solomon (Wall St. Journal) add, "While in Iraq, Mr. Biden will chair a meeting of the Higher Coordinating Committee of the Strategic Framework Agreement, a body that was launched to examine the non-security aspects of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship. Boosting Iraqi oil production is an ongoing part of U.S.-Iraqi discussions." Mark Lander (New York Times) explains Nouri al-Maliki and Biden are co-chairs of that Higher Coordinating Committee and that this is Joe's eighth trip to Iraq since being sworn in as Vice President in January 2009. Lander notes reported surprise that Biden was put in charge of Iraq instead of Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State) or Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense until last July). I have no idea who was surprised by the move. It took place during the transition planning (after the election, before being sworn in). Hillary wasn't considered because, at that point, her joining the administration was not a given. Gates was a holdover from the Bush administration and it would have been an early slap in the face of Barack's supporters to put Gates in charge. (The two also pointedly disagreed over the "surge.") Joe had the best relationship with Iraq of any Democrat due to repeat visits to the region, reaching out to the various leaders while serving in the Senate (remember, he chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and more. He also had the strongest relationship with the Kurds of anyone in Barack's administration (during the transition phase or since). Maybe the persons who expressed surprise to Mark Lander are the same ones he refers to in this statement: "Analysts said the United States and Iraq are likely to resume negotiations next year for a small American force that would train a Western-style Iraqi officer corps, manage tensions with the Kurds, and help with counterterrorism operations." Did "analysts" say that? Did they whisper it? Was it pillow talk? I have no idea. I know that PUBLICLY it was stated by US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, stated this month, that negotiations continue -- they haven't ended CNN, you stupid liar -- and that Panetta stated PUBLICLY that he expected a deal to emerge early next year. I know that because we attended and covered the November 15th Senate Armed Services Committee hearing: see the November 15th "Iraq snapshot," the November 16th "Iraq snapshot" and the November 17th "Iraq snapshot" and other community reporting on the hearing included Ava's "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," Wally's "The costs (Wally)" and Kat's "Who wanted what?" ]. And let's drop back to the November 15th snapshot for this exchange from that hearing: Senator Joe Lieberman: Let me, Secretary Panetta, pick up from that point. I've heard from friends in Iraq -- Iraqis -- that Prime Minister Maliki said at one point that he needed to stop the negotiations -- leave aside for one moment the reasons -- but he was prepared to begin negotiations again between two sovereign nations -- the US and Iraq -- about some troops being in Iraq after January 1st. So that's what I've heard from there. But I want to ask you from the administration point of view. I know that Prime Minister Maliki is coming here in a few weeks to Washington. Is the administration planning to pursue further discussions with the Iraqi government about deploying at least some US forces in Iraq after the end of this year? Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are. Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations. We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there. But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together? When Panetta has testified publicly to the Senate Armed Services Committee this month that negotiations continue and that yhe expects additional negotiations, I have no idea why you have to go to "analysts." Panetta's testimony was on the record. Or at least, it was if you paid attention to it. CNN might need to. If they wish to call Leon a liar, have at it and hopefully they can establish why they're making that charge. But until they've got the guts to do so, they need to stop LYING. Negotiations continue, he testified. In addition, many outlets need to catch this part of the testimony: "There aren't zero troops that are going to be there," Panetta testified. "We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be peresent by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there." CNN isn't stupid enough to claim zero US troops will be in Iraq or that all US troops in Iraq will return home. But a lot of other outlets are doing it. At Third Sunday, we took on The NewsHour and Judy Woodruff at the request of a woman who's brother will continue to serve in Iraq beyond December 31, 2011. Since then, a lot of e-mails are coming in from the families of troops who are going to be stationed in countries surrounding Iraq and they are furious that the media keeps saying ALL are coming HOME. I don't know how stupid the media is or if they're deliberately trying to be insensitive. I can't imagine having a loved one who will remain in Iraq or move over to Kuwait, for example, and have to hear on PBS that ALL are coming HOME when I know damn well that my loved one is not coming home yet. It's insulting and it goes to how shallow their pretense of caring about military families actually is. If they gave a damn, they'd tell the truth. They obviously don't give a damn. Still on the silly, these claims of "surprise" visit. That it's today is a surprise. But the Iraqi press has been reporting that this visit was coming since October. It's only the US press that's kept their lips sealed. NBC's Shawna Thomas may be stupidist of all the press, not only does she claim "surprise," she also insists all troops are leaving. What an idiot. Someone might also want to tell her that a reporter does not say "He will also meet with . . ." They say, "He is scheduled to meet . . ." Will implies it will happen. Life can alter events. Reporters are not psychics, something they apparently need to be drilled on repeatedly. Ann Currey (NBC's Today) Tweets: AnnCurry Landed Bagdad lights off, pilots in infrared goggles. about 4 hours ago Ann Curry will have an interview with Joe Biden on Thursday's Today Show (NBC). Biden arrives in Iraq on the day Al Sabaah reports that the Iraqi Parliament's Security and Defense Committee has declared it is close to making an agreement which will put NATO forces on the ground in Iraq, according to a statement read by the Security and Defense Committee Chair Hassan Sinead. Sinead states it will be a one-year agreement and that it can be renewed. AFP is the only outlet that has any knowledge of Iraq apparently. Only AFP notes, "Biden's visit comes after a bloody seven days for Iraq, during which at least 61 people were killed in a wave of attacks." That's the kind of detail that the others should have included. But missed. Demonstrating how little they and their outlets pay attention to Iraq. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) noted yesterday that violence is on the rise in Iraq with over 100 recorded deaths this month in Baghdad alone. (Had McClatchy the wisdom to allow Sahar, Laith Hammoudi or any of their Baghdad correspondents to cover the visit, they might have had a story worth linking to instead of one that I delayed the snapshot for 30 minutes for at the request of a McClatchy friend only to be read the copy over the phone and ask, "Someone got paid to write that crap?" Lesley Clark got paid to write that crap. And, no, we're not linking to it.) Al Rafidayn reports that yesterday's attack on a Taji prison is thought by sources in the Ministry of the Interior to have been carried out by a new al Qaeda splinter group (Eagles Paradise). The sources state the the group operates out of northern Baghdad. Iraqi papers focused more on the Parliament attack than the prison attack. Al Sabaah notes that Osama Nujaifi's office has stated that bombing was an attempted assassination (Nujaifi is the Speaker of Parliament) and that he was the target. They also maintain it was a suicide bomber and not mortars. The article notes a National Alliance insists it was a mortar while a police source states it was a suicide bomber. Sources tell Dar Addustour it was a suicide bomber in a car (black GMC) and that al-Nujaifi was the target. In addition, Dar Addustour reminds that following the April 16, 2007 attack on Parliament, security measures were beefed up. Dar Addustour's report indicates that had the man not raised suspicion by his actions, he would have gotten closer to the Parliament. Alsumaria TV picks up that thread as well, quoting al-Nujaifi's spokesperson Aidan Helmi stating, "The suicide bomber tried to join Parliament Speaker's convoy but Green Zone's guards suspected him and stopped his car. The driver changed his direction and slammed into a high sidewalk before the explosion." Aswat al-Iraq adds, "Northern Iraq's Kurdistan Alliance has expressed surprise towards a booby-trapped car being snuck into west Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, calling for an investigation to uncover 'those responsible' among the security bodies inside the Green Zone, according to a statement made by the Alliance and received by Aswat al-Iraq news agency on Tuesday." Liz Sly's covered Iraq for a number of publications including the Los Angeles Times. Currently her reporting is carried by the Washington Post. On the Parliament attack, she Tweeted today: lizsly Still disputed whether it was a car bomb or Katyusha that hit #Iraq parliament yesty. Mps competing to prove they were the real target. about 8 hours ago Today's reported violence? Reuters notes a Baghdad attack in which a Ministry of Oil official was shot and injured, a Mosul roadside bombing which left four people injured, a Hit truck bombing which injured three people (two are Iraqi soldiers who were the apparent target), a Baghdad roadside bombing which left four people injured, a Mahmudiya sticky bombing which injured one Sahwa, a Tarmiya grenade attack which injured two Sahwas (the target) and three bystanders, a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left two more injured, one police offer was injured in a Mosul shooting and, dropping back to Monday, 3 Kirkuk roadside bombings (apparently targeting a Turkman provincial council member) left 1 person dead and fifteen people injured. Today Minority Rights Group International issued a new report by Preti Taneja entitled [PDF format warning] "Iraq's Minorities: Participation in Public Life" and it notes, among other things, that "the situation for minority women is still largely ignored in policy and media." The 32 page report comes with a list of recommendations for the Iraqi government, Parliament, the KRG and NGOs. Within the report are recommendations as well. Chief among what is needed is "a comprehensive anti-discrimination law and amendments to various laws and policies that dscriminate against minorities, and minority women in particular." Of minorities, the report notes: The Iraqi population is extremely diverse in terms of ethnicity and religion. The three largest groups are Shi'a Arbas, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. In addition, Iraq is home to communities of Armenians, Baha'is, Black Iraqis, Chaldeans, Syriacs and Assyrians, Circassians, Faili Kurds, Jews, Kaka'i, Palestinians, Roma, Sabean Mandaeans, Shabaks, Turkmen and Yezidis. The last eight years of conflict have seen the numbers of minorities diminish as many have fled the country. Others have abandoned their traditional locations for new areas of the country. Statistics on the number of people who have fled, or current populations of minority groups remaining in Iraq, are disputed. Government treatment that set minorities apart under the old regime continues to have ramifications for these communities. Some restrictive legislation remains in force, such as limitations on Baha'is freedom to access basic rights. In other situations, such as in the case of Palestinian Iraqis, old resentments based on perceived favourable treatment by the Ba'ath regime continue to stoke current prejudice. Early on the report notes, "The research highlighted a number of concerns. It emerged that members of minorities are unable to access public services or employment because of ethnic or religious prejudice, or because they do not belong to the right political party." Later in the report, it's noted, "Leading representatives of minority communities, including Christian, Sabean Mandaean, Shabak and Yezidis have reported that access to work, eeducation and employment, freedom of movement and freedom to worship, and access to resources and recreational services are high on their list of concerns. Addressing discrimination, improving participation in and access to government, and achieving greater self-governance, which would all For Iraqi Christians, 2010 was "the worst of years." There was the October 31st attack on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad (in which "56 Christian and 12 others were killed") prompting further displacement of Iraqi Christians with 4,000 to 8,000 Iraqi families fleeing Baghdad -- most for the Kurdistan Regional Government others for the Nineveh Plains and some leaving Iraq all together. And while the minority groups are usually harmed by either the Shi'ite or the Sunni group (Kurds in disputed areas), they can also harm one another. For example, the report notes that Shabak and Christians have long-standing tensions that predate the Iraq War. A Shabak tells the researchers, "When trying to enter into the car park of the Hamdaniyah hospital, I was prevented from entering by the Christian guards and they allowed other Christians to enter." The brain drain is noted -- the war and violence has caused many of Iraq's professional class to leave the country -- and that conditions in hospitals have gone down hill which effects all Iraqis; however, minorities face additional problems and minority women even more so. One example noted, "Yezidis in Sinjar have claimed that there are no women's health services to be found in their area; they must travel to Dohuk in the Kurdistan Region." I believe that's approximately 61 miles (check my math) that they would have to travel. Like the conditions of hospital, the issue of potable water is one that effects all Iraqis; however, here too, minorities are more harshly impacted. 71% of the minorities surveyed "said they suffer from the absence of sufficient water in their area." In addition, there areas are not high priority when it comes to repairs as evidenced by the July 10th attack on the Shabak's Bazwaya village by the Harkia tribe which was attempting to take over "the water and electricity resources" but succeeded only in damaging the plant. The report notes, "Around 12,000 Shabak people have been left without water and, at the time of writing, the authorities still have not addressed this issue." Minorities suffer in terms of access to education. The hardest hit is thought to be the Roma who, as a result, have "the highest rates of illiteracy (29 per cent) and only 7 per cent held a university degree." The areas they are concentrated in are without "primary or secondary schooling." Minorities with access to 'Iraqi schools' suffer as well due to the bais in curriculum "towards 'a sect, nation or bloc, or a reference in favour of certain parties, or against them', according to 90 per cent of survey respondents." I'm using the term 'Iraqi schools.' The report has no term of that kind. But they're referring to schools teaching the state curriculum -- whether they are public or private. I'm calling those 'Iraqi schools' because some minorities -- such as Assyrian Christians -- have their own schools with their own curriculum. Some, not all. It's noted in the report that Human Rights Watch has interviewed "a Sabean-Mandaean elder in Basra [who stated] there are no schools that teach their children in their language, Mandaic." The report notes how much easier life would be for many minorities in Iraq if the national ID card were not noting ethnicity and religion: Some have argued that the Iraqi government should speed up development and issue of national identity cards that do not state religious or ethnic identity;113 ID cards that include this data can easily be used to discriminate in access to rights, and even to target people for violence. Including towns and villages of residence or birth on such cards can also be an indicator of religion or ethnicity. The benefit of disaggregating data by minority in any research and evaluation of their situation cannot be underestimated. Only then can a clear picture of the situation for each group, and for women from those communities, emerge, and improvements pertinent to their particular history and present conditions begin to be found. Collecting disaggregated data does not require the existence of national ID cards stating religion or ethnicity and, as the survey conducted for this report shows, such material can be gathered anonymously. Of course, women in Iraq are the majority of the population but they are a political minority when it comes to rights and representation. Though they would benefit, as all Iraqis would, from the step proposed above, such a step would not conceal gender. Women in Iraq face many problems, some covered by the report, some not covered. We'll note the report with regards to women tomorrow as well as several other issues relating to Iraqi women's rights and status. Turning to the US and the topic of Bradley Manning who is finally headed for a military courtroom and an Article 32 hearing on December 16th at Fort Meade, Maryland. Monday April 5th, 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." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning has been at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key, for months. In March, 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. David E. Coombs is Bradley's attorney and he provided a walk through on Article 104. What's going on with Bradley is very important. Shirley passes on that a number of people have e-mailed the public account about an item at the Bradley Manning Support Network. Note what we did there: Linked to the network, didn't link to the item. Not interested. Not interested for two big reasons. We reported on the filings yesterday and, excuse me, but I did a damn better job of it than Wired did. (And thanks to my attorney who went over two points with me.) There's no reason for us to repeat ourselves here after we've analyzed the filings by going to an inferior report on them. That's (A). (B)? I don't like Wired. If we link to it, we do so only because I have had a friend call in a favor. Otherwise, we ignore them and you should be able to count on one hand the number of times we've linked to Wired since this site started in 2004. Among the reasons I don't care for Wired? They're very tight with paid government snitch Adrian Llamo. They've misled in their coverage -- as Glenn Greenwald has established many times. They've failed to release the alleged transcripts in full. They've shaped the story -- the attack on Bradley -- from the start and it really appears they did so with US government help. So why the hell the Bradley Manning Support Network would link to them is a question that needs to be asked of Kevin Zeese and everyone else involved. If you're not getting, there is no DAMN reason for the support network to ever, EVER, link to Wired magazine after what Wired did to Bradley. If that's still not clear, let's drop back one year. This is Glenn Greenwald writing at Salon last December: For more than six months, Wired's Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen has possessed -- but refuses to publish -- the key evidence in one of the year's most significant political stories: the arrest of U.S. Army PFC Bradley Manning for allegedly acting as WikiLeaks' source. In late May, Adrian Lamo -- at the same time he was working with the FBI as a government informant against Manning -- gave Poulsen what he purported to be the full chat logs between Manning and Lamo in which the Army Private allegedly confessed to having been the source for the various cables, documents and video that WikiLeaks released throughout this year. In interviews with me in June, both Poulsen and Lamo confirmed that Lamo placed no substantive restrictions on Poulsen with regard to the chat logs: Wired was and remains free to publish the logs in their entirety. Despite that, on June 10, Wired published what it said was only "about 25 percent" of those logs, excerpts that it hand-picked. For the last six months, Poulsen has not only steadfastly refused to release any further excerpts, but worse, has refused to answer questions about what those logs do and do not contain. This is easily one of the worst journalistic disgraces of the year: it is just inconceivable that someone who claims to be a "journalist" -- or who wants to be regarded as one -- would actively conceal from the public, for months on end, the key evidence in a political story that has generated headlines around the world. You should read the piece in full but just the above should make it clear that there's no reason to link to Wired. (That's not "Link to me!" Unlike Kevin Zeese, I don't write people asking them to link to me -- and I would prefer not to be linked to by what is striking me right now as the so-called Bradley Manning Support Network. But POLITICO's Josh Gerstein and others have covered the topic as well and Wired was not the so-called BMSN's only option.) Grasp that the Bradley Manning Support Network praising a Wired article is a bit like Iraq's Association of Muslim Scholars praising Judith Miller for her Iraq coverage in the lead-up to the Iraq War. In other words, it just shouldn't happen. How did it happen? Most likely no one's paying attention. F**k mic check, reality check: You can't do everything, no one can. Meaning, in less than 20 days, Bradley has his Article 32 hearing. If you're the Bradley Manning Support Network, you can't have any other focus right now. I grasp that Kevin Zeese has half-assed his way through life but that has to end now. If you're going to help Bradley that means you're going to stop whining about OWS and everything else under the sun. That means you're going to stop defocusing from Bradley. Every damn day between now and the Article 32 hearing, you're going to find some way to get people talking about Bradley. If you're the "Bradley Manning Support Network," that's your job, that's your role. Nothing else. My personal opinion: The Article 32 hearing will be a rubber stamp as it was in Ehren Watada's Article 32 hearing, as it was in Camilo Mejia's Article 32 hearing, as it was . . . But Barack Obama, US president, can, in his role as commander in chief, call a halt to everything. He can do that before the Article 32 hearing, he can do it after. He can do it in the midst of a military trial (which I believe the Article 32 hearing will lead to). Would he call a stop to it? Barack's nothing but vanity. You have to be very vain to dress the way he does (and grasp this manner of dress is only after he's been repeatedly advised to "dress down"). You have to be very vain to write two books about your life -- when you've failed to even make partner at the law firm that employs you, let alone do anything monumental. You have to be very vain to be completely unprepared for the US presidency but think, what the heck, you'll run anyway and, if you win, you can always learn as you go. Barack's vanity is the only thing the might hold him in check. Grasping that he's in danger of being a one-term president, grasping that what's being done to Bradly, the railroading of this young man, the torture of this young man, is outrageous to Americans today, he is smart enough to realize that what's outrageous today usually doesn't become acceptable tomorrow. He's vain enough and aware enough to be worried about his historical meaning. And, as he was saying recently to a group of people, he hopes he's going to be something "more than a symbolic president" when history is written. Generate some outrage, make people aware, Barack just might pay attention especially at a time when he's already aware of just how much support he's lost. What do I think the chances are? I'd give it a single-digit percentage of happening. But I have no faith in Barack, I haven't since I met him during his Senate run. A lot of other people do or did have faith. They voted for him. They need to hold him accountable. And even if Barack doesn't do the right thing with regards to Bradley, the historical record needs to show objection to the railroading of Bradley, to the ignoring of the Sixth Amendment and his right to a speedy trial, to the failure of Barack to honor the most basic premise in the American judicial system: Innocent until proven guilty. They don't have that in every country. In many countries, the accused is assumed guilty and has to prove innocence. In the United States, we have innocent until proven guilty. When Barack took it upon himself to announce that Bradley was guilty, he crossed many lines. Not just the lines of commander in chief -- though surely those lines were crossed. How comfortable, for instance, is someone serving in the military going to be declaring Bradley innocent in a trial knowing that their commander in chief has stated Bradley is guilty? That's a serious issue. Even more troubling is that the president of the United States took a giant piss on the American legal system, showed complete ignorance of it and disregard for it. iraq the wall st. journal julian e. barnes al mada al sabaah al rafidayn the washington post liz sly minority rights group international the associated press afp the new york times mark landler mcclatchy newspapers mohammed al dulaimi sahar issa

Maxine Waters

I hope you read Kat's "Kat's Korner: Doris Day, Rob Crow and what's left unsaid" yesterday. It went up early Sunday morning. I didn't know it was going up or was up until my mother told me, "You tell Kat she really captured the Doris Day phenomenon with that piece." Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Non-apology" also went up yesterday but I was already back in California when it did.

That is weird. To think about how for granted I take traveling from Georgia back to California. Imagine if we were still relying on trains or, even further back, covered wagons. How long would that have taken? Today, in the span of hours, I can travel that distance.

Anyway, Democrat Barney Frank is not running for re-election to the House he announced today. John Bresnahan (POLITICO) reports:

As soon as Frank made his retirement official, [Maxine] Waters began calling Pelosi and other Democrats on Financial Services to tell them she intended to seek the top Democratic post on the panel in the next Congress, according to Democratic insiders.

"As the next most senior member of the committee, the current ranking member on the Capital Markets Subcommittee and the former chairwoman of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, I hope to use my experience to continue and expand his work in the committee,” said Waters in a statement on Frank’s retirement. “I will continue to champion practical regulations, while making sure they work for consumers and the financial sector, a sector which has the right to be profitable but the obligation to be fair, two concepts which are not mutually exclusive.”

Good for Maxine. She deserves it too. POLITICO tries to bring up some garbage that should have been settled long ago. That's got nothing to do with Maxine. Kitty Felde of KPCC has a better report:

Waters has made her mark on the committee, building a reputation as an outspoken advocate for minority and women’s interests. She says that time and again throughout her political career she has been "in disagreement with the financial services community [...] because of practices that [she has] believed to be not in the best interest of the very people that they claim to serve."

But the House Ethics Committee has been investigating Waters since July 2010 for allegedly using her political clout to assist a bank which her husband owned stock and had once served on the board of. More than a year later, Waters continues to insist on her innocence and two ethics committee members have been placed on administrative leave for mishandling the case.

They handle the allegations better than POLITICO which has treated them as gospel for some time. Here's her full statement on Frank's retirement:

Today -- "I am deeply saddened to learn that my friend and colleague, Barney Frank, has decided not to seek reelection to the position of Representative of Massachusetts Fourth Congressional District. Barney has been more than just a tireless and thoughtful leader on the Financial Services Committee; he has also been a dear friend, teacher, confidant, and ally. His retirement represents a loss for all of us.

“We first served on the Judiciary Committee together and then on Financial Services. Through that service, Barney and I built a friendship and working relationship based on mutual respect for each other and a mutual desire to make sure all Americans have a fair shot. Barney is a fighter for fairness in financial services and civil rights for all, including minorities and LGBT Americans. Because of his leadership, the Financial Services Committee has been one of the most productive committees in Congress.

“If not for his leadership and commitment, serious and much needed legislation, including financial reform, would have never come to fruition. Working side by side with Barney on housing issues, flood insurance, investor and consumer protections and financial regulatory reform, especially on the Dodd-Frank conference committee, has resulted in some of my proudest moments as a legislator. I look forward to working with Barney over the next year to protect these important gains. Of course, there is more work to be done.

“As the next most senior member of the committee, the current ranking member on the Capital Markets subcommittee and the former chair of the Housing and Community Opportunity subcommittee, I hope to use my experience to continue and expand his work in the committee. I will continue to champion practical regulations, while making sure they work for consumers and the financial sector, a sector which has the right to be profitable but the obligation to be fair, two concepts which are not mutually exclusive.

“I will miss Barney deeply. I will miss his wit, his sense of humor, his dedication to helping those who cannot help themselves, his passion for affordable housing, his deep knowledge of financial services issues, and his commitment to the Democratic Party. Most of all, I will miss his friendship. He has been a friend to the voiceless, the disenfranchised, to all Democrats everywhere, and to me.

“I sincerely wish him the best of luck in his life after leaving the House. This place will never be the same without him.”

Maxine deserves the spot and, as I've said several times before, it's past time the Ethics Committee stop dragging out the complaint.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, November 28, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Parliament is attacked, Nouri al-Maliki wants a wall around Baghdad, Jalal Talabaini wants US troops to remain in Iraq, discovery motions by David Coombs (Bradley Manning's attorney) reveal just how much the US federal government has ignored the law, and more. In Iraq today, a suicide bombing attack on a prison resulted in multiple deaths. AGI notes today's bombing was "a suicide attack on Hout prison in Taji". Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports the assailant "slammed a car packed with explosives into" the prison's gate and RTT adds, "The attack took place at about 8:00 a.m. local time (0500 GMT)". The spokesperson for Baghdad Operations Command, Quassem Ata, told Alsumaria TV, "Ambulances rushed to the explosion site and transported the wounded to a nearby hospital for treatment and the corpses to the Department of FOrensic medicine." AFP observes, "It was not immediately clear if the attack was part of a prison escape attempt, which are fairly common in Iraq." Citing an unnamed security source, Aswat al-Iraq reports, "He said that among the victims were visitors to their imprisoned relatives and prison guards." Adnkronos Security notes that the bombing also "killed and maimed guards, police and other staff while they were arriving for work." Sky News reveals, "Police officials said the death toll increased after cleanup crews found more bodies while removing debris at the site." BBC News reports 19 dead and twenty two injured in the attack. Kareem Raheem (Reuters) notes the last reported attack on the city: "The town of Taji, the site of a major Iraqi military base, was hit by bombers in July, when two blasts in the parking lot of a municipal government building killed at least 28 people and wounded scores of others." Al Jazzera provides this context, "Monday's bombing comes amid a surge of violence across the country." Al Rafidayn words it this way, "Despite toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein eighty years ago, Iraq continues to be plagud by near daily violence leaving tens of thousands dead." The attack hit the US morning news cycle. It wasn't the end of attacks today in Iraq. In the one that will probably have the most impact the Baghdad-based government, Parliament was attacked. Confusion remains as to what it was attacked with. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) puts it this way, "Also Monday, a mortar round landed inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, killing at least two people, police said. The round landed on the outdoor car park that belongs to the Iraqi Parliament compound and hit a car. " Citing the news channel Al-Arabiya, Adnkronos Security maintains it was a rocket. KUNA states mortars and that it "hit a parking lot near the parliament" leaving at least four injured. Aswat al-Iraq notes Parliament's Mohammed al-Khalidi states it was a car and a suicide bombing, "the car exploded outside the parliament building, where the driver was trying enter, but blocked by a military hummer, which obliged him to commit suicide." AFP emphasizes the confusion over details, "The explosion in the parking lot of the Iraqi parliament was caused by a mortar round, said Baghdad security spokesman Qassem al-Moussawi and several other sources. However, at least two sources at parliament said it was a car bomb." Parliament's spokesperson Aidan Helmi declares the attack was an attempted assassination of Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and states the car involved was similar to the cars used in Nujaifi's security detail and that when asked to display a security badge, the car slammed into anothe car, the driver got out and detonated a bomb on his person. Jack Healy, Yasir Ghazi, Andrew E. Kramer and Zaid Thaker (New York Times) observe, "An attempted bombing steps outside Parliament would represent a serious security breach inside one of the capital's most heavily guarded sectors, raising questions about the competence -- or complicity -- of security forces. Parliament sits inside the Green Zone, the locked-down expanse along the Tigris River that houses many Iraqi governmetn buildings and the American Embassy." "In the one that will probably have the most impact the Baghdad-based government, Parliament was attacked"? That's a statement based on past precedent. In the rush-rush effort to forever pimp the newest cause (OWS currently) and ingore actual news in favor of what you wish was news, many things get forgotten. The Bremer walls? Does anyone remember why they went up? Because of attacks in Baghdad. Yeah, but it was one attack in particular that got them up real quick. Dropping back to the June 23, 2006 snapshot: The ten day old "crackdown" in Baghdad, which has had little measurable impact on stopping violence, sprouted a new development today: "State of emergency." As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted this morning, "Earlier today, insurgents set up roadblocks and opened fire on U.S. and Iraqi troops close to the US-run Green Zone." The Associated Press reports this was done as fighting forces seemed intent on breaching "the heavily fortified Green Zone." As Sandra Lupien noted on KPFA's The Morning Show, amidst the violence, US troops "rushed to the area." Current prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has "ordered everyone off the streets" of Baghdad, provided "broader arrest powers" and placed "a ban on carrying weapons." Iraq last declared a state of emergency (or martial law) in November of 2004 for the entire country (exempting only Kurdish areas in the north).Then prime minister Iyad Allawi declared it when violence broke out through much of the country as US forces geared up for their attack on/slaughter of Falluja. Current prime minister al-Maliki has declared a state of emergency for Baghdad only. A state of emergency was declared for the city of Basra in May of this year. Euronews notes that the Basra state of emergency "has not deterred militants." Omar al-Ibadi and Haider Salahaddin (Reuters) report that today in Basra a car bomb went off (police say ten killed, hospital says five). Sam Knight (Times of London) reports that "the 5 million inhabitants of the Iraqi capital [were] given just two hours notice of a curfew" (started at 2:00 pm in Baghdad, as Knight notes, but it was set to end at 5:00 pm and not, as Knight reports, on Saturday -- since Knight filed, al-Maliki shortened the curfew). Knight notes the paper's Baghdad correspondent Ned Parker terming the "extended gun battle . . . just north of the fortified Green Zone" a "free-for-all." Along with gunfire and mortars, Reuters reports that two US troops died today "when their vehicle struck a roadside bomb southeast of Baghdad." What followed were mutliple bombings in Baghdad for mutliple days and Nouri floating that there could be 'forgiveness' for 'insurgents' and then the wallas and walls and walls throughout Baghdad. When the Green Zone was almost breached, when that safe area for Iraq's rulers was in danger, suddenly there was no tolerance for violence. When it was outside the Green Zone, when it remains outside, the tolerance is high and little is done by the Baghdad-based central government. So it is very likely that today's attack on Parliament will be taken more seriously than other recent attacks. Before we get to the pattern of recent attacks, let's note the Baghdad government's 'new' plans for protection. Saturday Al Mada also reported that Major General Qassim Atta, head of the Baghdad operations command, declared that they will be putting up cameras to monitor the streets of Baghdad. And there's more. Remember after the walls started going up, Nouri also wanted to put a moat around Baghdad? Edward Wong reported on that with "Iraqis Plan to Ring Baghdad With Trenches" on September 16, 2006: The Iraqi government plans to seal off Baghdad within weeks by ringing it with a series of trenches and setting up dozens of traffic checkpoints to control movement in and out of the violent city of seven million people, an Interior Ministry spokesman said Friday. The effort is one of the most ambitious security projects this year, with cars expected to be funneled through 28 checkpoints along the main arteries snaking out from the capital. Smaller roads would be closed. The trenches would run across farmland or other open areas to prevent cars from evading checkpoints, said the ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf. "We're going to build a trench around Baghdad so we can control the exits and entrances so people will be searched properly," he said in a telephone interview. "The idea is to get the cars to go through the 28 checkpoints that we set up." Well they never got the moat. But let's drop back to the May 4, 2010 snapshot: Occupied Iraq, ruled over by a US puppet whose fighting like crazy to hold on to the position. If US service members leave the Green Zone, Nouri falls. He knows that. The US military knows it, the US government knows it. So he's proposed madcap schemes to ensure his reign since he became prime minister in April of 2006. Two Circles Net reports, "Iraqi authorities have started the construction of a security wall around the capital Baghdad, reports the country's Al-Iraqiya TV citing a Baghdad security spokesperson. The concrete wall with eight checkpoints is to be completed in mid-2011." Once upon a time, Nouri proposed building a moat around Baghdad. A moat. Stagnant water. Just what Baghdad needs more of. Especially with all the cholera outbreaks. Nouri never got his moat but he will apparently get his walled-in-city. But he didn't get that either. Yet he still hasn't give up on it. Dar Addustour quotes Atta from the same press conference today declaring that Nouri has ordered a security wall be constructed around Baghdad in early 2012. If there's anything sadder than having run out of ideas it would have to be repeatedly promising you're about to implement one of your tired ideas. At what point do those ruled note that you promise and promise but fail to deliver? It's not just that he can't stop the violence, it's also that Nouri can't follow up on his own announcements to increase security. The most current pattern of violence is every two days for a major attack. So Basra is slammed with bombs on Thursday (Saturday Andrew E. Kramer noted the death toll for the Basra attacks had risen to 25). Two days later, Saturday, it was Baghdad. Al Mada reported Baghdad awoke to bombings Saturday. Laith Hammoudi (Miami Herald, McClatchy Newspapers) explained, "Some analysts fear that this year will mark a return to that bloodshed after the last two months, when the Shiite-led Iraqi government has undertaken a nationwide crackdown on former members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist party, especially in the country's southern provinces, where Shiites are the majority. The arrests have been criticized by Sunni Muslim leaders as illegal, but the government has defended them, claiming those arrested have ties to terrorist activities and are based on warrants issued by courts." And some analysts feel that point has already arrived and you're seeing the slow awakening of a renewal of that fissure (which never went away). Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) reported the bombings "shattered the stillness of a crystalline autumn day in the desert". Zhang Xiang (Xinhua) provided a walk through, "In the morning, eight construction workers were killed and 13 others wounded when two roadside bombs went off almost simultaneously near their bus while travelling in the Abu Ghraib area, some 20 km west of Baghdad, a local police source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity. [. . .] Separately, up to seven people were killed and 28 wounded before midday when three bombs went off successively at the crowded commercial area of Bab al-Sharji, where dozens of stalls scatter at the popular open market, an Interior Ministry source anonymously told Xinhua." Press TV quoted an eye witness, "Three bombs exploded one after the other. I saw a woman serving tea to customers, lose a leg in one of the explosions." Of the construction workers, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) quoted police officer Ahmed Salman, "The victims were traveling every day in a minibus from Abu Ghraib to Falluja to work in a number of reconstruction sites." Thursday, Saturday, Monday. And there was other violence on those days and there was violence on Friday and Saturday. The violence has not gone away. And as it has increased in the last eighteen or so months, it's been very obvious that Iraq's security ministries remain headless. There is no one heading them. And no one's supposed to note Nouri's failure with regards to that. Al Mada reports that Iraqi officials are a twitter over 'news' (rumors) that Nouri al-Maliki will fill the posts to head the security ministries before the end of the year (Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of National Security). These are the posts that have been vacant all along. When Nouri was named prime minister-designate, he had 30 days to name nominees for these posts and to get the nominees approved by Parliament. Instead of following the Constitution, and with the US government strong-arming everyone, the Parliament and the presidency looked the other way and allowed Nouri to move from prime minister-designate to prime minister despite his inability to meet the only Constitutional requirement for being named prime minister. When that happened in December 2010, the US newspapers which are supposed to be skeptical -- because the nature of journalism -- and independent and watchdog proved to be toothless and cowardly. Instead of barking, they assured readers that, by January (2011), Nouri would have filled those three posts. That didn't happen. Sadly their continued failure to predict the future hasn't steered any of them away from playing amateur prophet. They continue to ignore facts -- such as ALL US troops are not coming HOME at the end of the year from Iraq -- and instead offer fantasies served up as 'reporting.' Equally delusional is Iraqi President Jalal Talabani who insists that Nouri al-Maliki cannot be replaced, that no one else in Iraq -- with a population of 26 million within the country -- no one else can do the job. With a population of 26 million, including two who have been prime minister before Nouri al-Maliki -- the National Alliance backed Ibrahim al-Jaafari and head of Iraqiya Ayad Allawi. No one else, Jalal insists, can do Nouri's job. Maybe he meant to say that no one else can do it as poorly as Nouri does? Saturday Al Sabaah noted Iraqi President Jalal Talabani gave an interview to Iraqi Satellite TV in which he bemoaned the state of Iraq but insisted that the answer was not a vote to withdraw confidence in Nouri al-Maliki because, he claims, there is no alternative to Nouri. Not everyone agrees. The same day Jalal was insisting Nouri was the sole path of salvation for Iraq, Aswat al-Iraq reported: A Legislature of al-Iraqiya Alliance, led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, has said on Saturday that Iraq's current problem lies in the political programing, followed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to steer the State. "The current problem in Iraq is not linked to the Presidency or the Legislative authorities, but to the political programs of the Prime Minister, especially as regards to the security dossier, being the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces," Legislature, Haider al-Mulla told Aswat al-Iraq news agency. How many more bombings, how many more shootings, how many more kidnappings have to take place before the Parliament demands Nouri nominate ministers to head the three security ministers or steps down as prime minister? Or will the pennies tossed their way buy their silence? Dar Addustour notes that Parliment agreed to provide the families of the Basra dead with 500,000 dinars ($427.53 in US currency) and the wounded with 250,000 dinars ($213.77 in US currency). Over the weekend, Jalal wasn't just pretending he was Deniece Williams singing "Let's Hear It For The Boy" (while actually sounding like the character Deniece sketches in "Silly"), he was also insisting Iraq needs US troops on the ground in Iraq. W.G. Dunlop (AFP) reports, "Iraqi forces need an American troop presence or at least US training forces, President Jalal Talabani has said, according to a Saturday statement on the Iraqi presidency's website." As noted earlier this week, negotiations between the US and Iraq are ongoing, the Kurds are pressing for US troops, and the numbers that political blocs are throwing around currently: 8,000 to 15,000. Al Sabaah reports that Kurdistan Alliance MP Chuan Taha, who serves on Parliament's Security and Defense Committee notes that Iraq cannot defend their own skies and states they should sign an agreement with a foreign power such as the United States (the US is mentioned twice by Taha, no other country is named) to patrol the skies and this would be fine because the US bases in Qatar and other countries could be used preventing the building of a new US base on Iraqi soil. Kurdistan Alliance's Fuad Masum is quoted on what he sees as the need for Iraq keeping "a small number of trainers and American experts" in Iraq because, he says, Iraqi forces will not be fully ready to protect the country until 2020 and he states he awaits the results of the negotiations he expects to conclude with Nouri's DC visit next month. Ministry of Defense spokesperson Major General Mohammed al-Askari is quoted stating trainers will be needed and this does not mean Iraq's forces are "defective" just that they need additional coaching and assistance. This follows Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's remarks this weekend. Alsumaria TV notes, "Iraq needs an American presence after 2011, Talabani said in a TV interview arguing that Iraqi security forces are still facing difficulties in air and marine defense as well as in the use of new weapons. Reports of Air, marine, Armored and Infantry Forces' commanders reveal that Iraq needs an efficient US presence in Iraq or at least American trainers' presence, Talabani said." Dar Addustour notes US Vice President Joe Biden's upcoming Iraq visit to discuss these issues. Regardless of whether anything additional is agreed to, Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) notes that the supposed 'end' doesn't mean billions of US tax payer dollars won't still be headed to Iraq, $6.5 billion for 2012 alone, "And most of that is going to be military spending, with the operational budget some $6.2 billion and another $300 million going to 'refugee programs'." Since the US has not lived up to the set goals for Iraqi refugees being admitted into the US -- a detail the US press has intentionally ignored to cover for the White House -- Congress should be asking for a detailed accounting of that $300 million request. Most likely "refugee" is a cover and we're looking at more walking around, CERP-type funds. One of the few reporters who hasn't forgotten Iraqi refugees is the Philadelphia Inquirer's Trudy Rubin. This is from her latest column "An Iraqi regrets helping United States:" Salam Hamrani is safe -- for now. My Iraqi fixer and friend endured two years in a Baghdad jail. His crime: helping American troops nab Shiite militants who were killing his Sunni neighbors. He was finally freed and escaped with his family to Greek Cyprus. Our reunion in Larnaca, Cyprus, was emotional and full of laughter. But Salam's story is a sad tale of U.S. failures and betrayals in Iraq. A Shiite whose uncle was hung by Saddam Hussein, Salam was thrilled when U.S. troops ousted the dictator. As Iraq collapsed into civil war, he was furious when the militant Shiite Mahdi army moved into his mixed neighborhood and started killing Sunnis. So he started tipping U.S. officers at a forward operating base in his district about the worst of these killers. When U.S. troops withdrew, family members of one of these thugs got friends in the Iraqi army to arrest him, along with his two sons. A Shiite army general who was chummy with the killer's mother and sister made sure Salam stayed in prison. Turning to the US and the topic of Bradley Manning who is finally headed for a military courtroom and an Article 32 hearing on December 16th at Fort Meade, Maryland. Monday April 5th, 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." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning has been at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key, for months. In March, 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. David E. Coombs is Bradley's attorney and he provided a walk through on Article 104. Last week, Coombs noted: Recent accounts in the media regarding defense tactics, strategy, or intended courses of action at the Article 32 hearing are inaccurate. A pretrial hearing is not the appropriate venue for the defense to reveal its case. Instead, this hearing provides the defense with an opportunity to test the relative strengths and weaknesses of the government's case and to obtain needed pretrial discovery. The defense appreciates those who choose to support PFC Manning. However, these individuals or organizations should not be treated as official sources of information regarding his legal defense. All official statements will come through public releases from this office. As part of the discovery process, Coombs filed [PDF format warning] a request last week and it includes asking the government to provide the evidence they will be presenting. It also includes: 2. On 18 January 2011, the defense was notified that PFC Manning, at the direction of [redacted], was placed in suicide risk. This decision was made over the recoomendations of [redacted] and the defense appointed expert [redacted]. When PFC Manning was being ordered to surrender his clothes as part of the unnecessary suicide risk, the Brig made the decision to videotape this event along with an interrogation of PFC Manning by [redacted] and others. On 19 January 2011, the defense filed a preservation of evidence request with the government and a request for production of the video. The defense believes the video will support PFC Manning's claim of unlawful pretrial punishment. The government has yet to respond to the defense request. See R.C.M.405(e) Discussing (stating that inquiry into other issues such as legality of searches or the admissibility of evidence is proper by an Article 32 Investigating Officer). 3. The defense has previously requested a copy of all adverse administrative or UCMJ action, all supporting documentation, and any rebuttal materials to such action based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by [redacted] or any other governmental investigation with regards to any individual that was subject of such an adverse action in relation to the alleged leak of classified information in this case. The previous requests included, but was not limted to, the following individuals: [redacted]. The government has so far only provided information in relation to [redacted]. The filing mainly underscores how the government has refused to follow the law. Not only has Bradley been held all this time, making a mockery of the Sixth Amendment, but the government has repeatedly refused to produce evidence -- whether it be on the computers allegedly involved and who had access to them or something as basic as an internal report. For example: White House: [redacted] was tasked to lead a comprehensive effort to review the alleged leaks in this case. He has completed a report detailing the rather benign nature of the leaks and the lack of any real damage to national security. The defense requests a copy of this review and any assessment given, or discussions concering, the WikiLeaks disclosures by any member of the government to [redacted]. The defense requests any e-mail, report, assessment, directive, or discussion by [redacted] to the Department of Defense concering this case in order to determine the presence of unlawful command influence. See R.C.M. 405(e). Additionally, defense requests any e-mail, report, assessment, directive, or discussion by [redacted] to the Department of State or Department of Justice concerning this case; For those who are confused, in the US, this is news. No, it's not being treated as such as we hear indulgent interviews with OWS-s who want to talk about their camp outs. But it's actual news. It has tremendous value both today and in the future. Bradley Manning is not a sidebar for you to rush over to the topic of Julian Assange with. You can beat off to Julian on your own time. In a few weeks, Bradley has his Article 32 hearing. While they are almost always a rubber stamp, it's also true that enough public attention could make the White House call off their witch hunt. Unless Barack's attempting to celebrate the government's treating of the Rosenbergs and wants that to be his historical legacy. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were executed in 1953 and I'm not implying Bradley could be (the prosecution insists they're not after the death penalty -- however, that doesn't mean, in a military trial, not an Article 32 hearing, the judge might rule otherwise). But the railroading of the Rosenbergs by the US government has been a stain on the nation that does not and will not wash away. As Barack frets more and more that he might be a one-term president, would he really want a similar miscarriage of justice on his small record? Show trials rarely deliver justice and Barack could step in and halt the proceedings at any time but only if he was pressured by the public to do so. iraq agi rtt the associated press sameer n. yacoub afp aswat al-iraq adnkronos security bbc news reuters kareem raheem al jazeera al rafidayn alsumaria tv dar addustour al sabaah cnn mohammed tawfeeq kpfa the morning show sandra lupien al mada mcclatchy newspapers the miami herald laith hammoudi the new york times andrew e. kramer xinhua zhang xiang press tv aswat al-iraq edward wong trudy rubin antiwar.com jason ditz

Good news and someone should have been fired

My kids are having fun but eager to get "home." That makes me very happy.

I've told this story before but in 2008 I was offered a promotion at work. The idea of uprooting my three kids and us moving to California was not appealing. I was also a little nervous about the new job which would come with new duties.

My father told me I had to take it and would not let it go. Because he knew I was nervous about the whole thing, he called C.I. and asked her if it would be a problem if the kids and I stayed at her huge home? C.I. said not at all.

This was then presented to me. And my reasons for not going became less and less. The money was huge and three kids means three college funds.

So I took it and we left Georgia. And now the kids consider California home. Which erases my last fears that secretly they were thinking, "Mom ruined our lives! We could have stayed in Georgia!"

So I'm especially thankful about that. No more guilt there.

Now I want to blog about something I planned to awhile back but got distracted. This is from Wikipedia's Jim Romenesko page:

In November 2011, an assistant editor for the Columbia Journalism Review noted that posts summarizing articles on the Romenesko page at the Poynter Institute's web site repeated, verbatim, text in the articles without the use of quotation marks or indentation. In the process of reporting, the online chief of the Poynter Institute, Julie Moos, was contacted and noted that this behavior had occurred since 2005. Although Romenesko had always attributed the source of the information, Moos claimed that the inconsistency of placing quotation marks or blockquoting text could cause the impression that text not in quotation marks was those of Romenesko, and not lifted directly from the text. Moos placed Romensko's blog on hold while the issue was being investigated, and following investigation ordered that all of Romenesko's posts be approved by an editor prior to post and to follow the Poynter Institute's attribution guidelines of placing quotation marks with any text used in the original article. Moos refused to accept his resignation.^[14]

If you read this Huffington Post article, you will hear outrage over 'poor' Romenesko. He wrote for Poynter and he couldn't follow attribution ethics.

He shouldn't have resigned, he should have been fired.

I don't care for him and never did. If you talk to Black bloggers, you'll know why that is. Romenesko had a huge audience and could have amplified diverse voices. Instead, he went White, White, White with the occasional person of color tossed in due to a sports issue or because there was a complaint about racism. Otherwise, Black journalists really didn't exist.

I was blogging for my third month when I received an e-mail from a Black blogging collective asking me not to link to Romenesko. I followed his site (I'd never heard of him prior to the e-mail) for four weeks and saw the criticisms were correct. And I've never linked to him. And never would.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, November 25, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Basra sacks its top security commanders, the Turkish government offers an apology to Kurds, Iraq's Parliament postpones a vote on US withdrawal, the latest round of negotiations involve thousands of US military, and more. AFP reports that an emergency session was held today by Basra's provincial council which "took the decision to fire three security commanders" as a result of yesterday's violence. Yesterday, Basra was slammed with multiple bombings. Nabil al-Jurani (AP) explained, "Three bombs went off in a popular open-air market in Basra, police officials said." BBC News quoted shop owner Noufal Hassan, "I immediately went out of my shop and saw the blood. The nearest shops were shattered and the cars were burned." Xinhua (link has text and video) added, "Among the dead and wounded were several policemen and Iraqi army soldiers." W.G. Dunlop (AFP) counted over 65 injured and they have 19 killed and they're able to back that up with figures from the Basra health directorate, Riyadh Abdelamir. Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports that an MP said the Basra council's vote was necessary because the security command had failed and is, therefore, responsible for the bombings and that their failure indicates they don't care "about the blood of Iraqis" as evidenced by the fact that a pervious series of bombings in Basra did not result in additional security measures. Today the United Nations issued the following statement on the bombings: The top United Nations official in Iraq today strongly condemned the series of bomb attacks in the country's southern city of Basra that has killed dozens of people and injured many more. Media reports indicate at least 19 people died yesterday as a rsult of the apparently coordinated bombings at a market in the city, with the last of three explosions causing most of the injuries. In a statement, the Secretary-General's Special Representative to Iraq Martin Kobler offered his condolences to the families of the victims and to the people and authorities of Basra and Iraq. In other violence reported yesterday, Reuters notes 1 police officer and his son were kidnapped in Ramadi, a Ramadi market bombing left five people injured, the Jalawla village mayor was shot dead in a market, an attack on a Mosul military checkpoint claimed the life of 1 Iraqi solider, 1 employee of the Ministry of Electricity was shot dead in Shura, an armed clash in Baaj left one Iraqi soldier dead and an Iraqi military officer injured and a Mussayab home bombing targeted a Sahwa leaving two people injured. Today's violence, Reuters notes, included 1 police officer and his son kidnapped in Qaim, a JBela bombing injured one person and that the death toll in the Basra bombings yesterday has now reached 21. Aswat al-Iraq reports the death toll has climbed to 50 in the Basra bombing with fifty injured. In addition, they note an attack on an Amiriya military check point which resulted in the death of 1 soldier and three more injured. In other news of violence, the Telegraph of London notes Iraq executed 16 people yesterday. They were all, of course, guilty because Iraq has the most fair and disciplined legal system in the world. Oh, wait, it doesn't. Which is why the fact that one of those executed, Firas Fleih al-Jaburi, was "a human rights activist who fought to improve prison condtions" should be especially alarming. Yesterday the Sunni Endowment Office in Baghdad was bombed leaving three people injured. On the political scene in Iraq, Aswat al-Iraq notes that although the Parliament was scheduled to vote on US withdrawal yesterday, they have postponed it. Alsumaria TV quotes MP Mohamed Al Khalidi stating, "Iraqi parliament voted during its third session of the second legislative quarter in the second legislative year presided by Parliament Speaker Osama Al Nujaifi, and in the presence of 236 MPs, to postpone voting over the legal committee's resolution regarding US withdrawal from Iraq. The voting would be carried out after hosting Iraqi Armed Forces General Commander Nuri Al Maliki. 142 MPs out of the present 236 voted for the postponement," Khalidi revealed noting that "Sader movement for its part abstained from voting." Al Mada reports that the Kurds are lobbying Nouri to keep US troops in disputed areas and to secure Iraqi air space. Reportedly a consensus is building for keeping 8,000 to 12,000 US troops and this is among the details Nouri will discuss on his DC visit next month. Al Rafidayn adds that it is after this meeting that immunity will be further explored and states, pay attention because the US press never did, that MP Sami al-Asakri explained that Nouri has the power in his role as commander in chief of the military to determine the number of US troops needed (I'm adding: If any) and that the blocs gave their input but that was just input. It's Nouri's role. Yes, we did note that well over a month ago. Yes, it is rather basic and, yes, it is legally sound. What's pushing these considerations? Could be (may not be, just could) that Nouri's in a bit of panic because while he can terrorize -- as he demonstrated repeatedly since 2006 -- the people, he can't do everything. Add to the mix efforts by provinces -- fully legal efforts -- to go semi-autonomous and with a still unresolved oil law (meaning who might or might not have claims on the money) and Nouri's desired response (which, based on pattern, will most likely be heavy-handed) and suddenly he's at risk of not only his continued war with the people he usually demonizes but potentially whole sections of a province or multiple provinces. That's what could possibly be motivating Nouri. And never forget, he's demonstrated for five years now that his sole goal is to ensure his own personal survival, it's not about the Iraqi people, it's not about the country's potential -- for Nouri, it's all about Nouri. And internal conflicts keep popping up. Salah Nasrawi (Al-Ahram Weekly) observes: A bitter row over the control of a military base in the disputed northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk is heightening tensions between the Iraqi government and the Kurds as US troops prepare to leave Iraq next month. Last Thursday, local Kurdish police blocked the transit of Iraqi military and government officials who had traveled to Kirkuk in order to enter the Al-Hurriya military base for a handover ceremony for departing US troops. Kurdish officials had earlier warned the government in the capital Baghdad from sending Iraqi army forces to take over the military facility, which they said they wanted to turn into a civilian airport instead. Still on internal conflicts, Thursday Dar Addustour reported on Dujail, in Salahuddin Province, and how residents took to the streets to show their approval of the possibility of Dujail leaving Salahuddin and becoming a part of Baghdad Province. Most interesting is that the same voices who screamed about Salahuddin wanting to become semi-autonomous and they want to argue that this can be done by a process . . . similar to what the Constitution's Article 119 says -- you know, what they ignored when they insisted Salahuddin Province couldn't go semi-autonomous. Today Aswat al-Iraq notes that 1500 poured into the streets to oppose merging with Baghdad Province. And today Alsumaria TV reports Ayad Allawi, head of Iraqiya, weighed in on the issue stating, "Iraqi constitution stipulated the right to establish federal regions. We are aware though that if federal regions were formed Iraq would be subject to clashes over administrative borders, wealth as well as oil and gas [. . ..] This is not the right time to call for regions' formation," While it's good that Allawi recognized the Constitution in his remarks, exactly when would be the right time to call for a formation? When an oil law is finally passed? It's nearly nine years since the start of the Iraq War. It's almost five years since Nouri agreed to work with Parliament to pass one -- as part of the White House benchmarks. There are all different ways you can measure the lack of progress. So when would be a good time? 80 years from now? 180? At what point do Iraqis get to determine their own fate? And it's really sad to hear Allawi echo Paul Bremer and countless other Americans by telling Iraqis to wait because it's "not the right time" just yet. Again, he did recognize the Constitution. That does put him ahead of Nouri al-Maliki. Ali Hussein (Al Mada) notes that State of Law (Nouri's political slate) also gives lip service to the Constitution -- "night and day," they brag -- but most repeatedly ignore and/or violate the Constitution. Hussein notes that all of Nouri and State of Law's attacks on independent bodies, freedom of expression and the powers of the Parliament were likely a test balloon for them to determine how much power Nouri can seize. Hussein notes State of Law MP Khalid al-Attiyah attempting to argue this week that the Constitution is just one document and ignoring the fact that political blocs wrote the Constitution (and passed it) and did so after "a great deal of wrangling." It would appear there is the Constitution of Iraq and there is the forever altering and changing Constitution as understood by State of Law. Blue Coat Systems is back in the news. From the October 31st snapshot: Mvelase Peppetta (Memeburn) reports alarm that the government of Syria has "internaet censorship equipment." It's illegal, according to US law, for it to have this Blue Coat Systems 'filter.' How did it get it? Apparently from Iraq. The US government okayed the sale of web censorship equipment to Iraq. Did the US government bother to run that past either the Iraqi people or the American people? No. Nor did it publicize the sale. Today Khaled Waleed (Niqash) reports on the issue: The US government says it is investigating how the devices got to Syria and Blue Coat Systems of Sunnyvale, the California-based company responsible for manufacturing the equipment, says it is cooperating fully. If the firm deliberately violated the sanctions -- which say special permission is required to import this kind of equipment into Syria -- then it could be liable for a fine of up to US$1 million. Although the 14 web monitoring devices were shipped to Dubai late in 2010 from where they were supposed to be sent to Iraq, Iraq itself has denied any involvement in the transaction. Nonetheless in Iraq, the issue is also causing concern. Since 2004, when the US put into effect the Syria Accountability Act, for what the US sees as Syria's support of "terrorism, involvement in Lebanon, weapons of mass destruction programs and the destabilizing role it is playing in Iraq", goods that contain more than 10 per cent componentry that is manufactured in the US have been prohibited from being exported there. However it is quite possible that Syria has been able to obtain embargoed goods through third parties. The question now is what Iraq had to do with the 13 Blue Coat web surveillance devices. Now the US government is worried about supplying freedom suppressing techonology? Now that Syria has the technology and might use it to harm the people of Syria. But the US allowed despot Nouri to have the technology even though he has a long record of suppressing freedom. Alsumaria TV reports, "State of Law Coalition didn't take long to explain Iraqi government's abstinence from voting over Arab League's resolution regarding Syria's incidents. Some leaders in the coalition expressed, in a press conference, their support to Syrian people's rights and affirmed that they are taken by surprise by the shift in some Iraqi parties' positions towards Damascus, a source told Alsumaria. " It might be easier to argue you support the rights of the Syrian people if you hadn't given them technology -- as Nouri did -- to spy on their own people. Meanwhile Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) notes that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani announced today that Iraq "opposes any Wester or Turkish military intervention" in Syira and that "Talabani also said Iraqi military commanders favoured a continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq due to weaknesses in air and navel defences." Last week, Iraq and it's northern neighbor Turkey were involved in claims and counter-claims. Turkey claims Iraq owes it a ton of money and stopped Iraqi commercial flights from landing at Turkish airports. Iraq announced that they would do the same to Turkey and, on Sunday, Iraq did. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports Turkish flights began landing in Iraq in Thursday and Iraqi flights landing in Turkey today. The ban is off. No word on what was agreed to in order to call the ban off and since there's no announcement that Iraq has paid millions to Turkey, the issue could flare up again. Staying on the topic of Turkey for a moment, the Daily Star reports: Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued the first official apology Wednesday for a bloody military campaign that killed thousands of Kurds in southeast Turkey at the end of the 1930s. "If it is necessary to apologize on behalf of the state ... I am apologizing," Erdogan told his Justice and Development Party (AKP) members in Ankara in televised remarks. Erdogan said the airstrikes and ground operations in the city of Dersim -- now named Tunceli -- killed 13,800 people between 1936 and 1939, according to an official document of the time he cited in his speech. There are a lot of cute little games the press plays. For example, the increased Iraqi violence in the last 18 months is erased with the decision to repeatedly invoke the ethnic cleansing of 2006 and 2007. That little lie allows them to address that violence is on the incrase since 2009 and 2010. Another distortion they like to sell is that the PKK, a Kurdish rebel group, pops up in 1984 for no apparent reason. They ignore the historical discrimination and targeting of Kurds in Turkey by the Turkish government. Hopefully, this was the first in a series of steps Erdogan intends to take that does not involve violence or the continued bombing of northern Iraq. For 27 years now, violence has not stopped the PKK. It's unlikely to suddenly work this year. Yesterday the Associated Press noted that the European Union is calling for members of the EU to take in the residents of the Camp Ashraf. The camp houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people). Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8th of this year Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Nouri al-Maliki is seen as close to the government in Tehran. They have made it clear that they want the dissidents out of Iraq and returned to Iran -- where they would face trial at best, torture most likely. Nouri has announced he will be closing Camp Ashraf at the end of this year. UK MP Brian Binley (Huffington Post) writes, "As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personal carriers." Zohreh Shafaei (Scoop News) notes the concerns over what may happen to the residents of Camp Ashraf: I wrote about the story of my life in an article on August 2nd (American Chronicle) where I asked for help to save the life of my brother who resides in the camp Ashraf. He is the only member of family that I have left. Today, my brother and many others like him live in Camp Ashraf and are in a great danger. The situation is highly critical now as the Iraqi government has stated that it is going to close the camp by the end of the year 2011. This ultimatum is a decision to carry out a massacre of the inhabitants of the camp, where 3400 Iranian civilians, including 1000 women live. The inhabitants have already experienced two similar attacks in July 2009 and April 2011, where 47 persons were killed and hundreds were wounded. As for myself, I have already had six members of my family killed by the rule of the mullahs' dictatorship in Iran. I now have only one brother left who happens to live in the camp Ashraf now. Many of the 3400 civilians in the camp have experienced similar situation as myself, and their lives are at danger now. President Obama: The U.S. is responsible for securing the safety of the 3400 inhabitants of the camp, as the U.S. army accepted to protect their lives when they handed over their arms to the U.S. army. The fact is that by keeping the name of the MEK in the F.T.O. list, you are authorizing the Maleki government to carry out the massacre of innocent civilians Cindy Sheehan has recently returned from Cuba. She notes the day in a new post: Corporate profit is indeed a huge problem in our society, but so is this ravenous consumerism that 99% of the 99% revel in. If we could break the cycle of exploitation that not only builds the crap, but also makes us believe that we can't live without it, no profound change will occur. I guess this is what we call, "Preaching to the choir," because I believe that just about everyone who reads this is in solidarity with this message -- but, really, take a quick look around, like I do occasionally, and ask yourself if you are living the "American Dream," or the 'Nightmare." iraq press tv the associated press nabil al-jurani bbc news afp w.g. dunlop niqash khaled waleed the telegraph of london al mada al rafidayn dar addustour cnn mohammed tawfeeq cindy sheehan