Sam Dagher's "A Group Describing Itself as Sunni Defaces the Web Site of Iraq's Foremost Shiite Cleric" (New York Times) describes the attack on Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's website which is thought to have been done by Sunnis but curiously features a YouTube video of American menace Bill Maher insulting al-Sistani. It may well have been Sunnis (in Iraq or out) but one has to wonder why they would go with Bill Maher who is not globally known and whose words (in English) would not be as easily understood by most visitors to al-Sistani's website?
With over four million internal and external refugees, the Sunni-Shia violence would decrease due to migration. Maggie Fox explains the basics in "Satellite Images show ethnic cleanout in Iraq" (Reuters):
Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.
The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed.
Minority Sunni Arabs were driven out of many neighborhoods by Shi'ite militants enraged by the bombing of the Samarra mosque in February 2006. The bombing, blamed on the Sunni militant group al Qaeda, sparked a wave of sectarian violence.
The refugee crisis came before the 'surge'. Many have noted how impacted levels of violence.
The following community sites have updated since Friday morning:
Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty's Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
Ruth's Ruth's Report;
and Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the new york times
sam dagher
maggie fox
like maria said paz
kats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
Saturday, September 20, 2008
US air raid kills civilians
In this morning's New York Times, Stephen Farrell offers "Iraqis Protest Deadly Raid By U.S. on Village in North" about yesterday's US air raid that resulted in the deaths of eight Iraqis. Unlike AP (see yesterday's snapshot), Farell attempts actual balance. The key contribution of his article may be this statement from Abdul Karim Khalil Ibrahim ("relative" of the deceased):
The American forces surrounded my cousin's house, then they bombed it. I was watching from my roof through a hole in the wall. The American forces lit the place with flashlights. I saw my cousin with his wife escape from the backyard, when the American helicopter shot them and killed them immediately.
Yesterday's snapshot noted a McClatchy story and my apologies because I credited it to Leila Fadel when it should have been credited to Fadel and Laith Hammoudi. From Fadel and Hammoudi's "U.S. strike kills civilians, Iraqis say" (McClatchy Newspapers):
Khaleel al Doori, a neighbor, said his home was raided during the operation and that the American forces had used a loudspeaker to order people not to leave their homes. Doori said the U.S. troops shot a man and his wife.
After Friday prayers, hundreds of residents took to the streets condemning the incident and chanting, "There is no God but one God, and America is the enemy of God."
Again my apologies. It was my error and the article will be noted in Monday's snapshot along with my mistake.
In the Los Angeles Times, Tina Susman's "U.S. says 3 women killed in Iraq Raid" offers:
The incident is likely to heighten Iraqi demands that U.S. forces be subject to Iraqi prosecution for alleged crimes or mistakes that harm civilians. The demand has emerged as the key issue blocking agreement on a plan that would govern activities of American forces in Iraq after Dec. 31.
Immunity has been a hot-button issue since September 2007, when 17 Iraqis were killed by guards working for Blackwater Worldwide, the North Carolina company that protects State Department employees. Although Blackwater guards are not military personnel, many Iraqis said the incident underscored the need to hold Americans liable for behavior that harms innocent Iraqis.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the new york times
sam dagher
stephen farrell
mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadel
laith hammoudi
the los angeles times
tina susman
The American forces surrounded my cousin's house, then they bombed it. I was watching from my roof through a hole in the wall. The American forces lit the place with flashlights. I saw my cousin with his wife escape from the backyard, when the American helicopter shot them and killed them immediately.
Yesterday's snapshot noted a McClatchy story and my apologies because I credited it to Leila Fadel when it should have been credited to Fadel and Laith Hammoudi. From Fadel and Hammoudi's "U.S. strike kills civilians, Iraqis say" (McClatchy Newspapers):
Khaleel al Doori, a neighbor, said his home was raided during the operation and that the American forces had used a loudspeaker to order people not to leave their homes. Doori said the U.S. troops shot a man and his wife.
After Friday prayers, hundreds of residents took to the streets condemning the incident and chanting, "There is no God but one God, and America is the enemy of God."
Again my apologies. It was my error and the article will be noted in Monday's snapshot along with my mistake.
In the Los Angeles Times, Tina Susman's "U.S. says 3 women killed in Iraq Raid" offers:
The incident is likely to heighten Iraqi demands that U.S. forces be subject to Iraqi prosecution for alleged crimes or mistakes that harm civilians. The demand has emerged as the key issue blocking agreement on a plan that would govern activities of American forces in Iraq after Dec. 31.
Immunity has been a hot-button issue since September 2007, when 17 Iraqis were killed by guards working for Blackwater Worldwide, the North Carolina company that protects State Department employees. Although Blackwater guards are not military personnel, many Iraqis said the incident underscored the need to hold Americans liable for behavior that harms innocent Iraqis.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the new york times
sam dagher
stephen farrell
mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadel
laith hammoudi
the los angeles times
tina susman
Friday, September 19, 2008
Iraq snapshot
Friday, September 19, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, a US air strike results in the deaths of Iraq civilians, the US State Dept gears up for a big push in Iraq, and more. At the US State Dept today, deputy spokesperson Sean McCormack announced US Secretary of State Condi Rice was meeting with the Prime Minister and President of Kuwait "to talk about regional issues" and to "encourage the establishment of full diplomatic relations between Iraq and Kuwait." Asked about the status of the treaty between the US and Iraq (wrongly called a SOFA) McCormack fell back on, "I'm not going to talk about the substance of the negotiations. They continue. There have been a lot of ups and downs in these negotiations. But we still believe that we will be able to come to some agreement." US troops are currently legally covered by a United Nations mandate which expires at the end of the year. When that expires, if nothing is in place to replace it, as US Senator Joe Biden (also the Democratic vice presidential nominee) declared in a Senate session in April, then US troops would have to leave. McCormack was asked about instead of attempting a new agreement, attempting to yet again extend the UN mandate. McCormack dismissed the idea and stated, "The focus is still on getting an agreement between the United States and Iraq." McCormack stated that the State Dept's David M. Satterfield would be returning to Iraq ("leaving again Monday" for Iraq). Satterfield's title is Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State and Coordinator for Iraq. While McCormack's trip will focus mainly on the treaty, it's part of a diplomatic push on the part of the State Dept in the final days of the current administration. Rice trip is part of that push. In recent weeks, Syria, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have all appointed ambassadors to Iraq; however, only the UAE has stationed their Ambassador to Iraq in Baghdad. (The continued violence has prevented the other countries from doing so.) The push comes as puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki makes noises against the treaty. As Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reported yesterday and also on Wednesday (see Wednesday's "Iraq snapshot"), al-Maliki went on Iraqi TV Wednesday Steven Lee Myers and Sam Dagher (New York Times) discover the remarks today and report that al-Maliki declares the sticking point is over immunity for American troops in Iraq and that al-Maliki floated the idea of asking for an extension of the UN mandate declaring, "Even if we ask for an extension, then we will ask for it according to our terms and we will attach conditions and the U.S. side will refuse. U.S. forces would be without legal cover and will have no choice but to pull out from Iraq or stay and be in contravention of international law." While al-Maliki raises that issue, one-time (and possibly current) CIA asset Ahmad Chalibi makes news. As one of the proponents (and liars) in the lead up to the illegal war, Chalabi continues to garner attention. UPI reports that he declared to the Islamic Republic News Agency that the treaties being proposed between the US and Iraq are an attempt by the US to push permanent bases. He is quoted stating, "Within the framework of the security pact, the United States does not wish to merely have open military bases (in Iraq), rather secret military bases (there). If a security deal is not signed … by Dec. 31, regarding the recent U.S.-Russia row over Georgia and the Iraqi government's decision not to extend the U.S. forces' presence in Iraq for another year, the U.S. presence in Iraq will come across with difficulty in terms of the law." Turning to the US Congress, Senators Hillary Clinton (Democrat) and John Ensign (Republican) are proposing a plan regarding Iraq's oil to the US State Dept. Ben Lando (UPI) reports that the two senators are proposing that an oil trust fund be created for the Iraqi people and quotes an aide to Clinton explaining the proposal is similar to the Alaska model which "was 'inspiration for the idea of an oil trust' but that the State Department 'should develop a plan for Iraq so it fits Iraq's needs and provides several options'." Lando reports the State Dept's reaction: "The department said Iraqi leaders don't feel the time is right for such a trust fund, which demands too much from Iraq's fragile bureaucratic and financial systems." Lando adds that actions "continue to repair damage from storms in southern Iraq and a pipeline bomb in northern Iraq, bringing exports closer to the 1.9 million barrels per day averaged in August" and that an October 13th oil meeting will take place in London that "is expected to unveil the fields put to tender and the legal and technical specifics. The bidding for the fields is expected to be the first of many opportunities for international investment in Iraq's oil sector." NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (All Things Considered) reports on the move for Baghdad's puppet government to take control of "Awakening" Councils next month with "at least 20 percent of the militiamen [due to be brought into] into the state security forces and find civilian jobs for the rest" and the reaction to the Sunnis about that plan which has left them suspicious following the targeting of Sunni "Awakening" leaders by al-Maliki. "Awakening" leader Khalid Ibrahim declares, "They [the US] should have consulted us before taking any decisions so we could have given our opinion. Instead they have treated us like a commodity that can be moved at will from one place to another. . . . The aim is to get rid of us. Why? Because of the upcoming provincial elections and then national elections. They fear that we will get power." The provincial elections were due to take place this month; however, the inability to comes to terms with a basic agreement makes it unlikely that any elections will take place before year's end. The United Nations is working on a proposal which they hope to present either by the end of this month or the start of October. Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a US air strike today which claimed mutliple lives in Al Dour. McClatchy's Leila Fadel explains that the deaths number at least eight "all from one family and including women," that the US military claims their helicopter only attacked 'terrorists' and that eye witnesses and Iraqi police disagree with the US military's statements including "Khaleel al Doori, a neighbor, [who] said his home was raided during the operation and that the American forces had used a loudspeaker to order people not to leave their homes. Doori said the U.S. troops shot a man and his wife." AP spends paragraph after paragraph parroting the US military's claims which is made all the more strange in paragraph seven: "U.S. airstrikes and conflicting claims about whether civilians have been killed have been common throughout more than five years of war as the Americans seek to minimize civilian casualties on the ground." Yes, they have repeatedly tried to minimize and fortunately for them AP joins them in minimzing today. AP quotes Sheik Faris al-Fadaam explaining the deceaded father (Hassan Ali) had been a Sunni police officer until the family had to leave Baghdad and that, "The family was very poor. The family came here and we helped them to rent that house. It was an extended family. They did not have any political affiliations. They did not engage in any hostile activity or have any connection with gunmen." Reuters does not give six opening paragraphs to the US military version of events, it gives one opening paragraph and then offers this: "A local Iraqi police officer put the death toll at eight. He said all were civilians from the same family and included three women. A helicopter air strike levelled the house at Dour, 140 km (85 miles) north of Baghdad, in Salahuddin province, he said." Turning to some of today's other reported violence . . . Bombings? Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded six people and a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded two people. Shootings? Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul home invasion in which both parents were killed and four other members of the family were wounded. Reuters notes 1 woman shot dead in Tuz Khurmato. The number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war currently stands at 4168 with 17 for the month thus far. Since Thursday of last week, there have been 13 announced deaths. Independent journalist David Bacon latest book (just out this month) is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press). Bacon also explores migration in "Displaced People: NAFTA's Most Important Product" (NACLA Reports): Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, the U.S. Congress has debated and passed several new bilateral trade agreements with Peru, Jordan and Chile, as well as the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Congressional debates over immigration policy have proceeded as though those trade agreements bore no relationship to the waves of displaced people migrating to the United States, looking for work. As Rufino DomÃnguez, former coordinator of the Indigenous Front of Binational Organizations (FIOB), points out, U.S. trade and immigration policy are part of a single system, and the negotiation of NAFTA was an important step in developing this system. "There are no jobs" in Mexico, he says, "and NAFTA drove the price of corn so low that it's not economically possible to plant a crop anymore. We come to the United States to work because there's no alternative." Economic crises provoked by NAFTA and other economic reforms are uprooting and displacing Mexicans in the country's most remote areas. While California farmworkers 20 and 30 years ago came from parts of Mexico with larger Spanish-speaking populations, migrants today increasingly come from indigenous communities in states like Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Guerrero. DomÃnguez says there are about 500,000 indigenous people from Oaxaca living in the United States, 300,000 in California alone. Meanwhile, a rising tide of anti-immigrant sentiment has demonized those migrants, leading to measures to deny them jobs, rights, or any pretense of equality with people living in the communities around them. Solutions to these dilemmas-from adopting rational and humane immigration policies to reducing the fear and hostility toward migrants-must begin with an examination of the way U.S. policies have both produced migration and criminalized migrants. Turning to public television. This weekend (Friday in most markets), NOW on PBS will offer a look at women and politics: How have women in politics changed America and the world? NOW on PBS investigates with an hour-long special hosted by Maria Hinojosa: "Women, Power and Politics: A Rising Tide?"See the show on television this weekend or watch online STARTING SATURDAY [. . .] Show Description: Given the hoopla surrounding Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton's historical political ascendance, why does the U.S. rank so low among countries for percentage of women holding national office? On Friday, September 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), in a one-hour special, NOW's Maria Hinojosa talks to women leaders around the world and here in the United States for an intimate look at the high-stakes risks, triumphs, and setbacks for women leaders of today and tomorrow. Among these women are President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, the first woman leader in Latin America who did not have a husband precede her as President, and former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, now in a tight race for a seat in the U.S. Senate.We also travel to Rwanda, where, 14 years after a horrific massacre left nearly one million people dead, women make up nearly half of parliament; and to Manhattan, where ambitious high school girls are competing in a high-stakes debate tournament."Women, Power and Politics," is also about the personal journey of mother and award-winning journalist Maria Hinojosa as she strives to answer the question: "What does to mean to be a woman in power?"Watch a preview and excerpt of this special program at this web address:Use this directory tool to find out where the show is airing in your area: The NOW website ... will feature web-exclusive commentary from noteworthy women including Maria Bartiromo, Sandra Cisneros, and Tina Brown; a personal essay from Maria Hinojosa; an interactive debate over Sarah Palin's candidacy; as well as opportunities for all women to post and share their stories of ambition, success, and discouragement.(The "interactive debate" over Sarah Palin's candidacy is live now ...) Bill Moyers Journal (check your local listings, begins airing on PBS in most markets tonight, it also streams online -- transcript, video, audio) guests will inclue Gretchen Morgenson (New York Times) will be on to discuss the economic meltdown and Kevin Phillips (whose most recent book is Bad Money). PBS' Washington Week finds Gwen sharing opinions with David Wessel (Wall St. Journal), Charles Babington (AP) and John Maggs (National Journal) along with one other who desperately trolled the streets in an attempt to purchase an opinion from someone, anyone, so she didn't arrive empty handed. (Babington was not booked this morning, the plan then was to have the bad writer for the NYT who also 'reports' for MSNBC on instead). In the US presidential race, Team Nader notes: In the Public Interest Statement On Auto Industry Bailouts by Ralph Nader The Big Three are in big trouble, and they have themselves to thank for it. Ford and General Motors have reported substantial losses in the second quarter amounting to $15.5 billion, and $8.7 billion, respectively, while Chrysler, which was bought off last year by a private equity firm, Cerberus, refuses to reveal its financial standing. It is no wonder why their lobbyists were spotted schmoozing with members of Congress at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, liquoring up in their plush suites and private parties while they made their case for direct government loans which, if approved, would likely add to our federal deficit. Last December, Congress approved a $25 billion loan to automakers and their suppliers under the Energy Independence and Security Act, though it has yet to be funded. That bill includes a modest requirement for automakers to increase their average vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 mpg—a benchmark we should have set decades ago, and would allow the companies to have their way with virtually no oversight or accountability. This corporate Congress cannot be expected to issue serious demands, set tough conditions, or impose strict rules on the auto companies to ensure their workers receive fair pay and benefits, and prevent their fat-cat executives from making off big while leaving their companies in shambles. Such blatant giveaways have become the norm in Washington since the corporate stranglehold of Congress and the White House have smothered the forces seeking worker, consumer and environmental justice. But this recent example should not discount our long history of dealing with corporate failures in more public and effective ways than just ponying up billions on demand at any big corporation's whim. In 1979 when Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy, the automaker came crying to Congress for a bailout, which they eventually got, but Congress wasn't as much of a pushover. Back then, at least the corporate chieftains were grilled by Congress and had to agree to give something back for Uncle Sam bailing them out--good jobs and pensions for their workers, and more efficient cars to reduce reliance on foreign oil and reduce prices at the pump. Now the CEOs don't even have to leave Detroit and they get much more money for almost no return commitment to America, while they outsource jobs and pollute our environment. During discussion on a proposed loan bill to bailout Chrysler in October 1979, Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) who chaired the Senate Banking Committee issued his opposition to Chrysler;s request and noted: "We let 7,000 companies fail last year--we didn;t bail them out. Now we are being told that if a company is big enough… we can't let it go under." He went on to call the proposed deal "a terrible precedent." Raising the government's demand for performance standards, President Carter's Treasury Secretary William Miller told Chrysler officials, "it's going to be so awful, you'll wish you never brought the whole thing up." Today, we rarely hear such candid opposition to corporate orders shouted at their congressional servants who lack the fortitude to put serious restraints and conditions on mismanaged, reckless big business and their overpaid CEOs seeking tax-payer salvation. As a part of the Chrysler deal in the late Seventies, the government took out preferred stock warrants and after the company turned itself around and repaid its loan seven years early, the government ended up cashing out, receiving $400 million in the appreciated stock. And Congress made clear to Chrysler that it had specific conditions the company had to meet before receiving the loan guarantee. It forced the company to contribute $162,500,000 into an employee stock ownership trust fund geared to benefit at least 90 percent of its employees, design more fuel efficient autos to help reduce consumption of foreign oil, and prohibit wages and benefits from falling below a level set three months before the legislation was passed. Today, congressional actions to grant multi-billion dollar loans to the corporations lack the reciprocity some in Congress demanded 30 years ago. Before Congress irresponsibly dips into the public piggy bank, this time it would be wise to look back at how the government once dealt with Chrysler's dilemma, require clear benchmarks to deliver on the next generation of green collar jobs, improved fuel efficiency and gain a substantial return on its investment, not just in monetary value, but in the long-term viability of the domestic motor vehicle fleet. Congress needs to call on the auto industry to innovate their way out of this morass into which they've engineered themselves. A sensible strategy would be to issue stock warrants to the government, like in the 70s, which would create an incentive for Congress to keep pressure on the auto industry to improve. Public Congressional hearings are a must. Will Congress echo its actions of 30 years ago when it scrutinized corporate demands, grilled company executives, and imposed conditions to ensure fair compensation and safety for workers? Or will Congress continue down the road of corporate servitude, refusing to stand up for workers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment in its session-ending stampede and flight away from auto industry accountabilities? |
mohammed al dulaimy
npr
Other Items
Two days ago there was a session for the parliament to assess what they had achieved and done for the Iraqi people whom they represent. Even this point they didn't reach a point on it.
The above is from an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy's "Parliament's work" (Inside Iraq) and, in four telling paragraphs, the post captures not only how little is done for the Iraqi people but how little progress (on any front) is being made. Add in, how there is not check -- not even a self-check -- on the supposed representation of the Iraqi people. At the Los Angeles Times's Bush blog (Countdown to Crawford: The Last Days of the Bush Administration), James Gerstenzang promotes one of the paper's print articles in "What surge? In Baghdad, they just turned out the lights and left:"
To hear President Bush tell it, there is one reason, overall, that violence has fallen in Baghdad: The surge.
It was the surge, he said last week, that allowed the U.S. to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. "Since we launched the surge last year, violence has fallen to its lowest point since the spring of 2004," he said in his radio address last Saturday. And just two days ago, he said of the surge: "The United States and the world is better off because of it."
Not so quick, according to a team of UCLA researchers.
Studying satellite imagery of night light in Baghdad neighborhoods dominated by Sunni residents, they came up with an alternative conclusion: The Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims had largely stopped killing each other by the time the "surge" of U.S. troops arrived in 2007.
In other words, the remaining Sunnis, defeated, turned out the lights and left. And then the U.S. troops came in.
The report, being published today, is "Baghdad Nights: Evaluating the US Military 'Surge' Using Nighttime Light Signatures."
Independent journalist David Bacon latest book (just out this month) is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press). Bacon also explores migration in "Displaced People: NAFTA's Most Important Product" (NACLA Reports):
Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, the U.S. Congress has debated and passed several new bilateral trade agreements with Peru, Jordan and Chile, as well as the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Congressional debates over immigration policy have proceeded as though those trade agreements bore no relationship to the waves of displaced people migrating to the United States, looking for work. As Rufino DomÃnguez, former coordinator of the Indigenous Front of Binational Organizations (FIOB), points out, U.S. trade and immigration policy are part of a single system, and the negotiation of NAFTA was an important step in developing this system. "There are no jobs" in Mexico, he says, "and NAFTA drove the price of corn so low that it's not economically possible to plant a crop anymore. We come to the United States to work because there's no alternative."
Economic crises provoked by NAFTA and other economic reforms are uprooting and displacing Mexicans in the country's most remote areas. While California farmworkers 20 and 30 years ago came from parts of Mexico with larger Spanish-speaking populations, migrants today increasingly come from indigenous communities in states like Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Guerrero. DomÃnguez says there are about 500,000 indigenous people from Oaxaca living in the United States, 300,000 in California alone.
Meanwhile, a rising tide of anti-immigrant sentiment has demonized those migrants, leading to measures to deny them jobs, rights, or any pretense of equality with people living in the communities around them. Solutions to these dilemmas-from adopting rational and humane immigration policies to reducing the fear and hostility toward migrants-must begin with an examination of the way U.S. policies have both produced migration and criminalized migrants.
Bacon has several events this month including:
Sept 21 Presentation at REFORMA Conference, 10AM National Association to Promote Library and Information Services to Latinos and the Spanish Speaking, El Paso, Texas
Sept 22 Book presentation, Illegal People,12:30PM Fall for the Book, Grand Tier III, Center for the Arts, Photography exhibition, Johnson Center's Gallery 123, 9/21-26 George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Sept 29 Book discussion, Illegal People, 6PM World Affairs Council, 312 Sutter St., #200, San Francisco
Sept 30 Book discussion, 7:30PM Illegal People and The Accidental American, by Rinku Sen Modern Times Bookstore, 888 Valencia St., San Francisco
Turning to public television. This weekend (Friday in most markets), NOW on PBS will offer a look at women and politics:
How have women in politics changed America and the world? NOW on PBS investigates with an hour-long special hosted by Maria Hinojosa: "Women, Power and Politics: A Rising Tide?"See the show on television this weekend or watch online STARTING SATURDAY
[. . .]
Show Description: Given the hoopla surrounding Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton's historical political ascendance, why does the U.S. rank so low among countries for percentage of women holding national office? On Friday, September 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), in a one-hour special, NOW's Maria Hinojosa talks to women leaders around the world and here in the United States for an intimate look at the high-stakes risks, triumphs, and setbacks for women leaders of today and tomorrow. Among these women are President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, the first woman leader in Latin America who did not have a husband precede her as President, and former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, now in a tight race for a seat in the U.S. Senate.We also travel to Rwanda, where, 14 years after a horrific massacre left nearly one million people dead, women make up nearly half of parliament; and to Manhattan, where ambitious high school girls are competing in a high-stakes debate tournament."Women, Power and Politics," is also about the personal journey of mother and award-winning journalist Maria Hinojosa as she strives to answer the question: "What does to mean to be a woman in power?"Watch a preview and excerpt of this special program at this web address:Use this directory tool to find out where the show is airing in your area:
The NOW website ... will feature web-exclusive commentary from noteworthy women including Maria Bartiromo, Sandra Cisneros, and Tina Brown; a personal essay from Maria Hinojosa; an interactive debate over Sarah Palin's candidacy; as well as opportunities for all women to post and share their stories of ambition, success, and discouragement.(The "interactive debate" over Sarah Palin's candidacy is live now ...)
Bill Moyers Journal (check your local listings, begins airing on PBS in most markets tonight, it also streams online -- transcript, video, audio) guests will inclue Gretchen Morgenson (New York Times) will be on to discuss the economic meltdown and Kevin Phillips (whose most recent book is Bad Money). PBS' Washington Week finds Gwen sharing opinions with David Wessel (Wall St. Journal) and John Maggs (National Journal) along with two others who are desperately trolling the streets currently in an attempt to purchase an opinion from someone, anyone, so they don't arrive empty handed.
Jill notes this from Team Nader:
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
david bacon
the los angeles times
now on pbs
pbs
washington week
The above is from an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy's "Parliament's work" (Inside Iraq) and, in four telling paragraphs, the post captures not only how little is done for the Iraqi people but how little progress (on any front) is being made. Add in, how there is not check -- not even a self-check -- on the supposed representation of the Iraqi people. At the Los Angeles Times's Bush blog (Countdown to Crawford: The Last Days of the Bush Administration), James Gerstenzang promotes one of the paper's print articles in "What surge? In Baghdad, they just turned out the lights and left:"
To hear President Bush tell it, there is one reason, overall, that violence has fallen in Baghdad: The surge.
It was the surge, he said last week, that allowed the U.S. to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. "Since we launched the surge last year, violence has fallen to its lowest point since the spring of 2004," he said in his radio address last Saturday. And just two days ago, he said of the surge: "The United States and the world is better off because of it."
Not so quick, according to a team of UCLA researchers.
Studying satellite imagery of night light in Baghdad neighborhoods dominated by Sunni residents, they came up with an alternative conclusion: The Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims had largely stopped killing each other by the time the "surge" of U.S. troops arrived in 2007.
In other words, the remaining Sunnis, defeated, turned out the lights and left. And then the U.S. troops came in.
The report, being published today, is "Baghdad Nights: Evaluating the US Military 'Surge' Using Nighttime Light Signatures."
Independent journalist David Bacon latest book (just out this month) is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press). Bacon also explores migration in "Displaced People: NAFTA's Most Important Product" (NACLA Reports):
Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, the U.S. Congress has debated and passed several new bilateral trade agreements with Peru, Jordan and Chile, as well as the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Congressional debates over immigration policy have proceeded as though those trade agreements bore no relationship to the waves of displaced people migrating to the United States, looking for work. As Rufino DomÃnguez, former coordinator of the Indigenous Front of Binational Organizations (FIOB), points out, U.S. trade and immigration policy are part of a single system, and the negotiation of NAFTA was an important step in developing this system. "There are no jobs" in Mexico, he says, "and NAFTA drove the price of corn so low that it's not economically possible to plant a crop anymore. We come to the United States to work because there's no alternative."
Economic crises provoked by NAFTA and other economic reforms are uprooting and displacing Mexicans in the country's most remote areas. While California farmworkers 20 and 30 years ago came from parts of Mexico with larger Spanish-speaking populations, migrants today increasingly come from indigenous communities in states like Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Guerrero. DomÃnguez says there are about 500,000 indigenous people from Oaxaca living in the United States, 300,000 in California alone.
Meanwhile, a rising tide of anti-immigrant sentiment has demonized those migrants, leading to measures to deny them jobs, rights, or any pretense of equality with people living in the communities around them. Solutions to these dilemmas-from adopting rational and humane immigration policies to reducing the fear and hostility toward migrants-must begin with an examination of the way U.S. policies have both produced migration and criminalized migrants.
Bacon has several events this month including:
Sept 21 Presentation at REFORMA Conference, 10AM National Association to Promote Library and Information Services to Latinos and the Spanish Speaking, El Paso, Texas
Sept 22 Book presentation, Illegal People,12:30PM Fall for the Book, Grand Tier III, Center for the Arts, Photography exhibition, Johnson Center's Gallery 123, 9/21-26 George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Sept 29 Book discussion, Illegal People, 6PM World Affairs Council, 312 Sutter St., #200, San Francisco
Sept 30 Book discussion, 7:30PM Illegal People and The Accidental American, by Rinku Sen Modern Times Bookstore, 888 Valencia St., San Francisco
Turning to public television. This weekend (Friday in most markets), NOW on PBS will offer a look at women and politics:
How have women in politics changed America and the world? NOW on PBS investigates with an hour-long special hosted by Maria Hinojosa: "Women, Power and Politics: A Rising Tide?"See the show on television this weekend or watch online STARTING SATURDAY
[. . .]
Show Description: Given the hoopla surrounding Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton's historical political ascendance, why does the U.S. rank so low among countries for percentage of women holding national office? On Friday, September 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), in a one-hour special, NOW's Maria Hinojosa talks to women leaders around the world and here in the United States for an intimate look at the high-stakes risks, triumphs, and setbacks for women leaders of today and tomorrow. Among these women are President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, the first woman leader in Latin America who did not have a husband precede her as President, and former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, now in a tight race for a seat in the U.S. Senate.We also travel to Rwanda, where, 14 years after a horrific massacre left nearly one million people dead, women make up nearly half of parliament; and to Manhattan, where ambitious high school girls are competing in a high-stakes debate tournament."Women, Power and Politics," is also about the personal journey of mother and award-winning journalist Maria Hinojosa as she strives to answer the question: "What does to mean to be a woman in power?"Watch a preview and excerpt of this special program at this web address:Use this directory tool to find out where the show is airing in your area:
The NOW website ... will feature web-exclusive commentary from noteworthy women including Maria Bartiromo, Sandra Cisneros, and Tina Brown; a personal essay from Maria Hinojosa; an interactive debate over Sarah Palin's candidacy; as well as opportunities for all women to post and share their stories of ambition, success, and discouragement.(The "interactive debate" over Sarah Palin's candidacy is live now ...)
Bill Moyers Journal (check your local listings, begins airing on PBS in most markets tonight, it also streams online -- transcript, video, audio) guests will inclue Gretchen Morgenson (New York Times) will be on to discuss the economic meltdown and Kevin Phillips (whose most recent book is Bad Money). PBS' Washington Week finds Gwen sharing opinions with David Wessel (Wall St. Journal) and John Maggs (National Journal) along with two others who are desperately trolling the streets currently in an attempt to purchase an opinion from someone, anyone, so they don't arrive empty handed.
Jill notes this from Team Nader:
In the Public Interest: Statement on Auto Industry Bailouts
In the Public Interest
Statement On Auto Industry Bailouts
by Ralph Nader
The Big Three are in big trouble, and they have themselves to thank for it.
Ford and General Motors have reported substantial losses in the second quarter amounting to $15.5 billion, and $8.7 billion, respectively, while Chrysler, which was bought off last year by a private equity firm, Cerberus, refuses to reveal its financial standing.
It is no wonder why their lobbyists were spotted schmoozing with members of Congress at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, liquoring up in their plush suites and private parties while they made their case for direct government loans which, if approved, would likely add to our federal deficit.
Last December, Congress approved a $25 billion loan to automakers and their suppliers under the Energy Independence and Security Act, though it has yet to be funded. That bill includes a modest requirement for automakers to increase their average vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 mpg—a benchmark we should have set decades ago, and would allow the companies to have their way with virtually no oversight or accountability.
This corporate Congress cannot be expected to issue serious demands, set tough conditions, or impose strict rules on the auto companies to ensure their workers receive fair pay and benefits, and prevent their fat-cat executives from making off big while leaving their companies in shambles.
Such blatant giveaways have become the norm in Washington since the corporate stranglehold of Congress and the White House have smothered the forces seeking worker, consumer and environmental justice.
But this recent example should not discount our long history of dealing with corporate failures in more public and effective ways than just ponying up billions on demand at any big corporation’s whim.
In 1979 when Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy, the automaker came crying to Congress for a bailout, which they eventually got, but Congress wasn’t as much of a pushover.
Back then, at least the corporate chieftains were grilled by Congress and had to agree to give something back for Uncle Sam bailing them out—good jobs and pensions for their workers, and more efficient cars to reduce reliance on foreign oil and reduce prices at the pump.
Now the CEOs don’t even have to leave Detroit and they get much more money for almost no return commitment to America, while they outsource jobs and pollute our environment.
During discussion on a proposed loan bill to bailout Chrysler in October 1979, Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) who chaired the Senate Banking Committee issued his opposition to Chrysler’s request and noted: “We let 7,000 companies fail last year—we didn’t bail them out. Now we are being told that if a company is big enough… we can’t let it go under.” He went on to call the proposed deal "a terrible precedent."
Raising the government’s demand for performance standards, President Carter’s Treasury Secretary William Miller told Chrysler officials, "it’s going to be so awful, you’ll wish you never brought the whole thing up."
Today, we rarely hear such candid opposition to corporate orders shouted at their congressional servants who lack the fortitude to put serious restraints and conditions on mismanaged, reckless big business and their overpaid CEOs seeking tax-payer salvation.
As a part of the Chrysler deal in the late Seventies, the government took out preferred stock warrants and after the company turned itself around and repaid its loan seven years early, the government ended up cashing out, receiving $400 million in the appreciated stock.
And Congress made clear to Chrysler that it had specific conditions the company had to meet before receiving the loan guarantee. It forced the company to contribute $162,500,000 into an employee stock ownership trust fund geared to benefit at least 90 percent of its employees, design more fuel efficient autos to help reduce consumption of foreign oil, and prohibit wages and benefits from falling below a level set three months before the legislation was passed.
Today, congressional actions to grant multi-billion dollar loans to the corporations lack the reciprocity some in Congress demanded 30 years ago. Before Congress irresponsibly dips into the public piggy bank, this time it would be wise to look back at how the government once dealt with Chrysler’s dilemma, require clear benchmarks to deliver on the next generation of green collar jobs, improved fuel efficiency and gain a substantial return on its investment, not just in monetary value, but in the long-term viability of the domestic motor vehicle fleet.
Congress needs to call on the auto industry to innovate their way out of this morass into which they’ve engineered themselves. A sensible strategy would be to issue stock warrants to the government, like in the 70s, which would create an incentive for Congress to keep pressure on the auto industry to improve. Public Congressional hearings are a must.
Will Congress echo its actions of 30 years ago when it scrutinized corporate demands, grilled company executives, and imposed conditions to ensure fair compensation and safety for workers? Or will Congress continue down the road of corporate servitude, refusing to stand up for workers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment in its session-ending stampede and flight away from auto industry accountabilities?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
david bacon
the los angeles times
now on pbs
pbs
washington week
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Iraq the economic quagmire
Seven American soldiers were killed when their helicopter crashed early Thursday in the desert of southern Iraq, the U.S. military said. Officials said the crash was not caused by enemy fire.
The military also announced that a U.S. soldier is being held in the shooting deaths of two fellow Americans on Sunday at their patrol base south of Baghdad.
The military did not identify the soldier in custody but identified the two who were killed as Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson, 24, of Pensacola, Fla., and Sgt. Wesley R. Durban, 26, of Hurst, Tex.
The military also announced that a U.S. soldier is being held in the shooting deaths of two fellow Americans on Sunday at their patrol base south of Baghdad.
The military did not identify the soldier in custody but identified the two who were killed as Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson, 24, of Pensacola, Fla., and Sgt. Wesley R. Durban, 26, of Hurst, Tex.
The above is from Sudarsan Raghavan's "Helicopter Crash Kills 7 Troops In Iraq" (Washington Post). We highlighted a version of that in yesterday's snapshot. We also highlighted a version of Stephen Farrell's "G.I. Is Held in Killings Of Soldiers At Iraq Base" (New York Times -- we highlighted a version of it at the Times' owned International Herald Tribune). Farrell's problem is waiting until PARAGRAPH NINE to mention the helicopter crash. The headline writer isn't interested in it. Now some may argue 'old news.' There was no reason the paper couldn't have made it a front page story Thursday morning (Thursday morning in the US). The crash took place Thursday morning . . . in Iraq. What kind of a weak-ass paper can't put something together for the front page with hours before midnight? (That's EST.) They had plenty of time. They chose not to.
Which puts the responsibility on them, come Friday, to cover it as news.
Burying it in in the ninth paragraph is not covering it as news. Seven US soldiers dead and the Times treats it as an after-thought. Which brings up a bigger question, is Howell Raines back in charge at the paper? Looking at today's front page, it certainly appears that way. Seven US soldiers killed in a helicopter crash can't even get a headline deep in the paper but you've got ___ Oprah Winfrey on the front page? For a really bad 'lifestyle' feature. Saudi women find a role model! Who gives a crap? That's not hard news, it's not a front page story. It is a feature article at best (and as written, "best" shouldn't be used to describe it. Katherine Zoepf writes a really bad feature that most likely would have been reworked if she was turning it into a high school newspaper. The lede is too cutesy -- and too predictable -- for an adult journalist.) You've got room for that crap on the front page. Then you've got Carlotta Gall who does do hard news but on a day when the paper can't note 7 US soldiers dead, the idea that we're going to treat Afghanistan's impending winter as news is just laughable. Afghanistan has that winter every year. Gall's got at an actual piece of reporting; however, it is not front page news.
To finish out the Times' trouble with news, Steven Lee Myers and Sam Dagher (A5) contribute "Agreement With Iraq Over Troops Is at Risk". This is the Friday paper. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) was reporting that not just yesterday but also on Wednesday (in plenty of time to get mentioned in that day's "Iraq snapshot"). To cover up the long delay in the New York Times finally getting around to the story, they refer to Nouri al-Maliki's Wednesday TV interview as "a television interview this week". Think about how stupid the paper either hopes or believes its readers are that they think they can get away with that.
Day after day, Iraq has to wait. It's an ongoing war, but it's treated as an after thought. And a Wednesday interview (the focal point of today's report) has the paper playing, "Let's see if we can just ignore it. Maybe something else will develop!" You had news break faster during Vietnam, during Korea and during WWII than you do on Iraq from the New York Times today -- despite technological advances that should really put an end to the long delays.
What's being reported is an interview al-Maliki gave on Wednesday, an interview broadcast on Iraqi TV. This was not the reporters were 'embedded' somewhere, this was not reporters far from a telephone. This was a case of, "Oh, it can't wait." (And on the waiting, blame the editorial staff and not the reporters.) Iraq is not important to the paper (which certainly explains the support for Barack -- and that's editorial and reporter support for Barack) at all. At this point, all the money wasted (and it is wasted) staffing Iraq by the paper is nothing but a big number (of dollars spent) that the paper can point to with pride. "Look at how much we spent!" is supposed to cover up for the failure to actually produce any reporting.
And that's nothing to brag about. Wasting money is nothing to brag about at any time but especially at a time when news outlets are laying off employees left and right, offering early retirement packages, expecting a single reporter to now be responsible for jobs far beyond his or her rate of pay or job duties as traditionally outlined. It is an embarrassment and does not demonstrate a commitment to the news, it only demonstrates a commitment to burn money.
The paper has an Iraq blog which rarely produces anything of note. With all the employees they have stationed in Iraq, the paper's blog should be able to produce something. With far less reporters, other papers are doing so. (This month, the strongest Iraq blog by a paper has consistently been the Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond.) Not since the infancy of the Carter presidency, when Rolling Stone decided they were going to be a DC player, has anyone wasted so much money for so damn little. And you have to wonder, when the bills are closely examined, where all the money went? (Booze in the case of Rolling Stone, but don't hire a known alcoholic -- active in his disease -- and party boy to run your DC desk while at the same time imposing no conditions on what will be produced and by when.)
The New York Times is not the only one failing on Iraq; however, their failure is all the more glaring when you grasp how many millions are spent each year to staff Iraq. The paper seems to think it can bluff or bully its way into some journalism prizes for their bad coverage by pointing to the financial costs of the coverage. Which makes a great deal of sense if you think back to the paper's notorious story in the seventies about a 'meal' on American Express' dime. What others would be appalled by, the paper takes delight in. What others see as gross excess, the Times thinks guarantees quality.
And, to be clear, it is an editorial issue that goes straight to top. In terms of sheer numbers, Sam Dagher (for example) can point to having produced nearly every day since Sunday (produced something that made it into the paper). It is equally true that at any given moment, the paper's Iraqi staff are working on a number of stories that will never pan out or result in anything worthy of print. That's due to a 'story' not turning out to be one, that's due to not being able to nail down a story and assorted other details. But the paper chooses to do a blog and they are very happy (at the top) with what it's not producing. The only thing they can point to truly worth reading that made it to the blog this month was a report by, get this, one of the bodyguards for the paper. It was well written, no question, and the bodyguard may end up a reporter (certainly skill and talent was demonstrated) but to have the large staff which they do (staff of reporters) and to produce so damn little is appalling. This month, Tina Susman's covered the sandstorm during the handover, the increasing attacks by the Iraqi government on press freedom. The Times seems to think posting a PDF of outgoing Gen David Petreaus farewell letter qualified as working hard. And, repeating, the critique goes to the top. Clearly, the blog has demonstrated (in the past) the ability to cut loose but the paper didn't care. Erica Good, for example, months ago revealed that the laughable claim that Iraq does an AIDS test on everyone coming into Iraq was a joke. (They do not do a test on everyone physically crossing a border and, in Good's case, she arrived by plane and was waived through without a test leading her to conclude that they don't feel a married woman over fifty is at risk of AIDS.) If the paper wanted a blog that offered anything of value, the reporters have demonstrated often enough that it is doable that the paper would be offering that. With all the money being spent, there's really no use to offer so little but that's what the paper appears to be satisfied with.
[McClatchy's Inside Iraq has done strong work this month as usual. It's just that Susman and others at the Los Angeles Times have done even stronger work than they usually do and provided important details at the blog that might not be able to make it into the paper but that do increase the understanding of what is going on in Iraq.]
Brady notes this from Team Nader:
A Case of Mistaken Identity and Lessons from a Parrot
I have always been skeptical when people blame a lack of news coverage on some nefarious plot by the media. Most people who cry media ‘blackout’ aren't that newsworthy, have stories that don't check out, or don't pitch their story that well. The truth is, unless you have a compelling, timely, well pitched story, today’s media will not cover it. They are too burdened by ever tighter web-driven deadlines, fewer reporting staff, and the barrage of sophisticated public relations professionals who definitely do know how to pitch a story, and outnumber reporters 5-to-1.
But after a full week working as Ralph Nader's media coordinator, I have a new perspective.
The story of the decade is breaking, we have the candidate of the century on this story--and we are getting no coverage by major media.
After years of neglect, deregulation, and sharp declines in corporate transparency and corporate accountability, the gig is up and Wall Street is being shaken to its foundations. What has already happened towers over the savings and loan crisis, and we are not even close to the end, or even the beginning of the end. The Wall Street bailouts and wipe outs are on track to be the biggest frontal assault on financial consumers and taxpayers in history.
Ralph Nader, America's undisputed protector of consumers, has uncannily tracked the chain of events--on the documented public record--that has led our economy down this devastating path. In countless letters, testimonies and reports--all warning of the dangers of unrestrained greed absent accountability and transparency (check for yourself at Nader.org), Ralph proposed alternative paths, and all along the way he was ignored or ridiculed. Now he has a plan to soften the blow, get us out of the morass, and help ensure it doesn't happen again. But no major press will cover it. No New York Times. No Wall Street Journal. No Associated Press. No network news. Nothing but a pundit on C-Span, kudos from a newsletter and a little article on the web site Politico.
The September 16th Washington Post summed up the gravity of this issue on its front page: "Yesterday's meltdown on Wall Street brought the economy roaring back to the center of the presidential campaign, and the question for the final seven weeks of the general-election campaign is whether Barack Obama or John McCain can convince voters that he is capable of leading the country out of the morass." If the meltdown on Wall Street and bailout by taxpayers is the deciding factor of this election:
- Which candidate has the best record for consumer protection, standing up for small investors and taxpayers in America?
- Which candidate has been warning us all along the way of the dangers of deregulating Wall Street?
- Which candidate has a plan to get us out of this morass, restore accountability and transparency to Wall Street, and can actually be trusted to do what he says?
His name is not Barack Obama or Senator McCain, and he is invisible as far as the media is concerned.
Yesterday, Ralph Nader issued a chronology of the lead-up to the current meltdown, and his ten-point plan to restore a semblance of accountability, transparency, and incentives that would steer Wall Street away from short-termist, out-of-control casino capitalism toward fulfilling its proper function of efficiently allocating capital to advance our long-term economic well-being. The plan was sent out to 6,000 reporters, including specific e-mails and phone calls to the editors and reporters from the major newspapers that are on this beat and evening TV news producers. Aside from the Fox cable business channel, no major media picked it up.
After a series of editorial board meetings we did this week with the Washington Post and New York Times Washington Bureau, I think I know why. When we asked them what their standards for covering Ralph Nader were, it was clear they didn't have any. But Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor at the Washington Post, hit the nail on the head. He said, "I like some of your issues, but I don't see how you being a presidential candidate affects them. I see you more as a consumer advocate." In other words, if Ralph was just some guy running for president on the ballot in 45 states with 5 percent support in the polls, he might actually get some coverage in that role, rather than having his giant stature as a consumer advocate trivialize his presidential candidate stature.
So today, when AP broke a story that the Federal bank insurance fund was dwindling and in danger of needing a taxpayer bailout, I tried taking Fred up on his advice and pitched to the economic editors and financial reporters, emphasizing ‘Ralph the consumer advocate.’ It happened that just two months ago Ralph wrote a letter to Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who have oversight over the FDIC, warning of exactly this and suggesting some measures to shore up the FDIC reserves before it was too late. As usual Congress dismissed Ralph's warning, with Congressman Spencer Bachus saying there was "no factual basis" for his concern. Six years ago, Ralph warned of the potential shakeout from Clinton giving most of the commercial banks free federal deposit insurance since 1995, saying, "Don't be surprised if this latest banking reform deteriorates into little more than another version of the savings and loan deposit insurance reforms of 1980 which helped fuel that industry's demise and lightened taxpayers' pockets by several hundred billions of dollars."
Here we have a substantive story where Ralph is right in the sweet spot from the beginning of the problem to the present. I phoned up Marcy Jones, the AP SEC reporter who had broken the story to let her know Ralph had called it six years back, and that he now had a plan to fix it. But Marcy didn't want to hear from Ralph either, and referred to me to the political desk. I called the AP Washington Politics Editor, Donna Cassata, with great enthusiasm, saying “Now I have something that is too good to pass on.” But she passed.
The Wall Street meltdown story has Ralph Nader's name all over it, and as a candidate or as a consumer advocate he should be getting an avalanche of requests and invitations--not a stone-wall.
That's ok. This story is not going away and neither are we. If need be, our supporters will overwhelm the political and economic editors and producers, taking the public relations professional-to-journalist ratio to a new order of magnitude.
In the mean time, thank goodness for our Cardozo the Parrot video, which goes to show that even sheep cannot ignore a talking bird.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/ralph_nader_and_cardozo_the_pa.html?nav=rss_blog
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
I Hate The War
One of the big complaints about elections and the media is that some voices and candidates get shut out. Ralph Nader's campaign had a strong essay on that just today. But it's not always the media's fault.
I'm not talking about Nader. KPFK decided to present three (and only three -- despite all the candidates on the California ballot) party reps for a roundtable on Monday. You had a Republican, a Democrat and a Green.
So you should have heard each advocate passionately for their candidate.
But you didn't hear that.
Instead, you heard a Republican who wanted McCain to win. You heard a Democrat who wanted Barack to win. And?
You had a worthless Green.
That's not calling all Greens worthless. That's noting that Donna Warren's ass doesn't belong on air. A few failed campaigns to her name and she's supposed to be some sort of Green Party standard bearer in California.
But apparently someone either forgot to tell her that Cynthia McKinney had the Green Party's presidential nomination or Donna Warren just didn't give a damn.
So she yacked on and non-stop about? Groovy Barack.
Make no mistake, there are many Greens in the LA area who could have been put into that roundtable and could have sung Cynthia's praises very easily. They could have cited her strong legislative record, they could have talked about where Cynthia sees the country going, they could have offered the narrative of Cynthia's life.
They could have, in other words, done what they were booked for: Provide a voice for the Green Party.
Donna Warren? She couldn't. She didn't. She's a useless voice for the Green Party and her lame ass should never have been invited on.
Now the Republican voice never forgot why he was on. He didn't suddenly start talking about how wonderful Barack was or how this or that was unfair to Barack. Ditto the Democratic voice who never felt the need to yammer on about poor John McCain. But Donna Warren? She was happy to take up the Green Party slot and waste the time talking about Barack.
Again, there are times when the media deliberately ignores candidates. They've done it to Ralph and they've done it to Cynthia many times this year. However, sometimes people have to get honest because it's not always the media's fault.
So when KPFK elects to do a roundtable featuring three parties with presidential candidates and one of the voices is too enthused on someone else's party, the whole roundtable suffers.
Donna Warren is a failed candidate many times over. So maybe she never learned how to successfully run for office?
That would explain how she could be so lame as to not use each turn she had to sing Cynthia McKinney's strengths. No one had to explain to the Republican and Democratic voices why they were booked for the roundtable. But Donna Warren was clueless and, honestly, in love with her voice. Warrned clearly dominated the end of the roundtable and she didn't mention Cynthia once. While taking the seat that was supposed to be occupied by a Cynthia supporter.
Now maybe she really is that big of an idiot. Or maybe she supports Barack.
But when Greens are upset by some of the very real and valid criticism coming at them for the way they're finding time to chat up everything but Cynthia's run for the presidency, they only need to examine Donna Warren's miserable performance as an advocate for Cynthia on KPFK.
James Carville is actually a media star. But even so, when he's on a show to talk up the Democratic candidate, he does his job. He doesn't say, "Oh, I'm a media star! Let me talk about myself." He goes on a program and does the job for his party.
That's apparently never occurred to Donna Warren who thinks that after Barack Obama's run, the most important to the Green Party is Donna Warren herself.
For Greens who are confused, let's break it down to the basics.
1) Cynthia McKinney? That's your presidential candidate unless you're voting for someone other than your party's candidate.
2) If you're voting for a candidate who is not Cynthia, you don't need to be taking up a slot as a Green 'voice.'
3) When, on one of those rare occassions, you finally get invited to the table, you're there to promote your party's nominee. You're not there to score points for another party's candidates, you're not there to tell your life story.
4) You are not the candidate or you would not be invited onto a roundtable featuring voices for other candidates. If you were the actual candidate, you'd be on a roundtable with other candidates. Translation, it's not about you. It's not about your thoughts and your musings and, goodness me, one time . . .
5) Every time your turn to speak comes up, you mention your candidate in your first sentence. Unless your cut off for time, you mention your candidate (by name) in your last sentence. In between those two sentences, you make the case for your party's candidate. That is why you were booked.
6) As much as you may have always wanted to do a monologue on yourself, a political roundtable is not the place for it.
7) If you lack the skill or intelligence that would allow you to avoid a sidebar tangent, you catch yourself in the middle of it and immediately turn the topic back to your candidate.
There's a lot of valid complaints about the media shutting out third party and independent candidates. There's also some whining. It's whining if anyone feels KPFK is at fault for Monday's nightmare. They booked a Green voice. They did so thinking that they would have a lively discussion about the Democratic, the Green and the Republican presidential candidates. It's not their fault that the Green voice didn't care enough or know enough to do her damn job.
She didn't just fail. That would have been bad enough. She might have, for example, referred to Cynthia McKinney as "Cindy Kinney" or she might have completely screwed up some position that Cynthia has. That would have been failure. What Donna Warren did was much worse than failure.
She let her ass take a slot that could have gone to a voice advocating Cynthia and instead made it about Barack. In doing so, she sent the message (willing or not) that Cynthia's run is unimportant and anyone listening took away the message that even Greens would rather talk about Barack so their own candidate must have nothing to offer.
That's how it's worse than failure. Failure would have been making a mistake (even repeatedly). What Donna Warren did was undercut Cynthia's run, undercut the Green Party as a valid alternative and a valid political party.
Earlier this week an e-mail came into the public account asking that we note the roundtable. I noted it. My mistake. We won't note anything to do with Donna Warren ever again. 61 e-mails coming in complaining on what she did. 39 of those coming into the public account. My mistake, my apologies. These were very angry e-mails from Greens who could not believe that their party finally got a seat at the table and their 'voice' couldn't even advocate for the party's candidate.
One complaining to the public account noted that "if Warren wanted to talk about racism, I'd argue Cynthia's entire career has been about fighting racism and she has repeatedly been the target of racist attacks. Warren seemed completely unaware of that."
The entire roundtable on her part played out like someone on week five of a six week diet who hears someone else mention a danish in a passing comment and latches onto danishes even though she's not on to talk about danishes.
Whether she meant to undercut Cynthia's run or not doesn't matter. That's what she did. In doing so, she sent a message that the Green Party had nothing to offer because, if they did, she would have been talking about it. This was not an interview to get Donna Warren's thoughts and reminscenes on life. This was a political roundtable, a presidential roundtable and she failed to advocate for her party. The Republican and Democratic voices appeared to have the points they wanted to make nailed down. Warren appeared to wing it.
Opportunities for the inclusion of third party and independent runs in media coverage are too rare for any 'voice' to blow the chance but that is what Donna Warren did.
Again, there are many valid complaints. There is also whining. Anyone unhappy with KPFK's coverage this week who blames KPFK for that is whining. The problem was Donna Warren. KPFK did not exclude the Green Party (they did excluse Ralph's run and he is on a political party's ballot in California). The Green voice is the one who excluded the Green Party. It was more important to her to fight Barack's battles than to advocate for Cynthia. She didn't just waste her own time, she denied someone who could have advocated strongly for Cynthia a spot in the roundtable.
A few e-mails to the public account were angry with me. I don't blame anyone for being angry with me. I copy and pasted the e-mail in which made the case for a real roundtable. That was my mistake. Again, my mistake. I apologize. We will never promote Donna Warren in any manner at this site again. We will not even mention her name again. She is either hopelessly inept or yet another Green 'voice' who has something better to do than promote her party's nominee.
Since the Green Party (and Cynthia) stand for actually ending the illegal war, there's no reason for any Green 'voice' to promote a War Hawk at all. In fact, every bit of air time or paper space should be used to draw a very clear line for Cynthia's stand against the illegal war and determination to end it as opposed to Barack's desire to decide what to do when he gets into office and 'listens to the generals'. Samantha Power told the BBC that Barack was not bound by any 'campaign promise.' June 5th Barack went on CNN and repeated the same thoughts. July 4th he repeated them to the press and it got enough attention that Tom Hayden finally found a reason to call Barack out. There are many other examples and you can go back to 2004 on Barack and his all over the map positions on the illegal war. Failure to do so is inviting people to see your own alleged desire to end the illegal war as mere words.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4155. Tonight? 4168. Thirteen in a week. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,267,401 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war up from 1,255,026.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
I'm not talking about Nader. KPFK decided to present three (and only three -- despite all the candidates on the California ballot) party reps for a roundtable on Monday. You had a Republican, a Democrat and a Green.
So you should have heard each advocate passionately for their candidate.
But you didn't hear that.
Instead, you heard a Republican who wanted McCain to win. You heard a Democrat who wanted Barack to win. And?
You had a worthless Green.
That's not calling all Greens worthless. That's noting that Donna Warren's ass doesn't belong on air. A few failed campaigns to her name and she's supposed to be some sort of Green Party standard bearer in California.
But apparently someone either forgot to tell her that Cynthia McKinney had the Green Party's presidential nomination or Donna Warren just didn't give a damn.
So she yacked on and non-stop about? Groovy Barack.
Make no mistake, there are many Greens in the LA area who could have been put into that roundtable and could have sung Cynthia's praises very easily. They could have cited her strong legislative record, they could have talked about where Cynthia sees the country going, they could have offered the narrative of Cynthia's life.
They could have, in other words, done what they were booked for: Provide a voice for the Green Party.
Donna Warren? She couldn't. She didn't. She's a useless voice for the Green Party and her lame ass should never have been invited on.
Now the Republican voice never forgot why he was on. He didn't suddenly start talking about how wonderful Barack was or how this or that was unfair to Barack. Ditto the Democratic voice who never felt the need to yammer on about poor John McCain. But Donna Warren? She was happy to take up the Green Party slot and waste the time talking about Barack.
Again, there are times when the media deliberately ignores candidates. They've done it to Ralph and they've done it to Cynthia many times this year. However, sometimes people have to get honest because it's not always the media's fault.
So when KPFK elects to do a roundtable featuring three parties with presidential candidates and one of the voices is too enthused on someone else's party, the whole roundtable suffers.
Donna Warren is a failed candidate many times over. So maybe she never learned how to successfully run for office?
That would explain how she could be so lame as to not use each turn she had to sing Cynthia McKinney's strengths. No one had to explain to the Republican and Democratic voices why they were booked for the roundtable. But Donna Warren was clueless and, honestly, in love with her voice. Warrned clearly dominated the end of the roundtable and she didn't mention Cynthia once. While taking the seat that was supposed to be occupied by a Cynthia supporter.
Now maybe she really is that big of an idiot. Or maybe she supports Barack.
But when Greens are upset by some of the very real and valid criticism coming at them for the way they're finding time to chat up everything but Cynthia's run for the presidency, they only need to examine Donna Warren's miserable performance as an advocate for Cynthia on KPFK.
James Carville is actually a media star. But even so, when he's on a show to talk up the Democratic candidate, he does his job. He doesn't say, "Oh, I'm a media star! Let me talk about myself." He goes on a program and does the job for his party.
That's apparently never occurred to Donna Warren who thinks that after Barack Obama's run, the most important to the Green Party is Donna Warren herself.
For Greens who are confused, let's break it down to the basics.
1) Cynthia McKinney? That's your presidential candidate unless you're voting for someone other than your party's candidate.
2) If you're voting for a candidate who is not Cynthia, you don't need to be taking up a slot as a Green 'voice.'
3) When, on one of those rare occassions, you finally get invited to the table, you're there to promote your party's nominee. You're not there to score points for another party's candidates, you're not there to tell your life story.
4) You are not the candidate or you would not be invited onto a roundtable featuring voices for other candidates. If you were the actual candidate, you'd be on a roundtable with other candidates. Translation, it's not about you. It's not about your thoughts and your musings and, goodness me, one time . . .
5) Every time your turn to speak comes up, you mention your candidate in your first sentence. Unless your cut off for time, you mention your candidate (by name) in your last sentence. In between those two sentences, you make the case for your party's candidate. That is why you were booked.
6) As much as you may have always wanted to do a monologue on yourself, a political roundtable is not the place for it.
7) If you lack the skill or intelligence that would allow you to avoid a sidebar tangent, you catch yourself in the middle of it and immediately turn the topic back to your candidate.
There's a lot of valid complaints about the media shutting out third party and independent candidates. There's also some whining. It's whining if anyone feels KPFK is at fault for Monday's nightmare. They booked a Green voice. They did so thinking that they would have a lively discussion about the Democratic, the Green and the Republican presidential candidates. It's not their fault that the Green voice didn't care enough or know enough to do her damn job.
She didn't just fail. That would have been bad enough. She might have, for example, referred to Cynthia McKinney as "Cindy Kinney" or she might have completely screwed up some position that Cynthia has. That would have been failure. What Donna Warren did was much worse than failure.
She let her ass take a slot that could have gone to a voice advocating Cynthia and instead made it about Barack. In doing so, she sent the message (willing or not) that Cynthia's run is unimportant and anyone listening took away the message that even Greens would rather talk about Barack so their own candidate must have nothing to offer.
That's how it's worse than failure. Failure would have been making a mistake (even repeatedly). What Donna Warren did was undercut Cynthia's run, undercut the Green Party as a valid alternative and a valid political party.
Earlier this week an e-mail came into the public account asking that we note the roundtable. I noted it. My mistake. We won't note anything to do with Donna Warren ever again. 61 e-mails coming in complaining on what she did. 39 of those coming into the public account. My mistake, my apologies. These were very angry e-mails from Greens who could not believe that their party finally got a seat at the table and their 'voice' couldn't even advocate for the party's candidate.
One complaining to the public account noted that "if Warren wanted to talk about racism, I'd argue Cynthia's entire career has been about fighting racism and she has repeatedly been the target of racist attacks. Warren seemed completely unaware of that."
The entire roundtable on her part played out like someone on week five of a six week diet who hears someone else mention a danish in a passing comment and latches onto danishes even though she's not on to talk about danishes.
Whether she meant to undercut Cynthia's run or not doesn't matter. That's what she did. In doing so, she sent a message that the Green Party had nothing to offer because, if they did, she would have been talking about it. This was not an interview to get Donna Warren's thoughts and reminscenes on life. This was a political roundtable, a presidential roundtable and she failed to advocate for her party. The Republican and Democratic voices appeared to have the points they wanted to make nailed down. Warren appeared to wing it.
Opportunities for the inclusion of third party and independent runs in media coverage are too rare for any 'voice' to blow the chance but that is what Donna Warren did.
Again, there are many valid complaints. There is also whining. Anyone unhappy with KPFK's coverage this week who blames KPFK for that is whining. The problem was Donna Warren. KPFK did not exclude the Green Party (they did excluse Ralph's run and he is on a political party's ballot in California). The Green voice is the one who excluded the Green Party. It was more important to her to fight Barack's battles than to advocate for Cynthia. She didn't just waste her own time, she denied someone who could have advocated strongly for Cynthia a spot in the roundtable.
A few e-mails to the public account were angry with me. I don't blame anyone for being angry with me. I copy and pasted the e-mail in which made the case for a real roundtable. That was my mistake. Again, my mistake. I apologize. We will never promote Donna Warren in any manner at this site again. We will not even mention her name again. She is either hopelessly inept or yet another Green 'voice' who has something better to do than promote her party's nominee.
Since the Green Party (and Cynthia) stand for actually ending the illegal war, there's no reason for any Green 'voice' to promote a War Hawk at all. In fact, every bit of air time or paper space should be used to draw a very clear line for Cynthia's stand against the illegal war and determination to end it as opposed to Barack's desire to decide what to do when he gets into office and 'listens to the generals'. Samantha Power told the BBC that Barack was not bound by any 'campaign promise.' June 5th Barack went on CNN and repeated the same thoughts. July 4th he repeated them to the press and it got enough attention that Tom Hayden finally found a reason to call Barack out. There are many other examples and you can go back to 2004 on Barack and his all over the map positions on the illegal war. Failure to do so is inviting people to see your own alleged desire to end the illegal war as mere words.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4155. Tonight? 4168. Thirteen in a week. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,267,401 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war up from 1,255,026.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
Iraq snapshot
Thursday, September 18, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, a US helicopter crashes, 1 US soldier enters a guilty plea, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader makes news even when the news outlets don't report it, this weekend's NOW on PBS examines women and politics, and more. Starting with Tuesday's US House Committee on the Budget's hearing on Iraq's Budget Surplus. We're focused on the first panel where the witness was the Government Accountability Office's Joseph A. Christoff. Tuesday's snapshot covered some of the statements by the committee chair John Spratt Jr., US House Rep Chet Edwards and US House Rep Lloyd Doggett. Tuesday night, Mike noted some of US House Rep James McGovern's questioning as did Wednesday's snapshot which also noted Bob Etheridge, Dennis Moore and Tim Bishop. Marion Berry: I also think anytime we have a hearing like this, we should first and foremost recognize the contribution and sacrifice that our men and women in uniform and their families have made and we should never ever fail to be appreciative of that. Joseph Christoff: Absolutely. Marion Berry: And show that appreciation in every possible way. As I've listened to this testimony and we can talk about numbers, we can talk about policy and all of those things -- it seems to me that we're in a situation where it reminds me of a bumper sticker you see from time-to-time: "DON'T FOLLOW ME, I'M LOST." You just said a while ago, that there's not a plan. I don't know who doesn't have a plan. It seems to me to be pretty obvious that nobody does. I cannot imagine a more ridiculous situation than we're in right now. I would like to think from some of the things you've said that we may actually have a reasonable expectation that it'll get a little better but at the same time we don't have any reason to think it's going to be cleared up and every thing's going to be in really good shape over there in the next few years. Don't know how you define "few." I'd say anything under five years. But I just -- I don't see any, I'm like Mr. McGovern, I don't see any way to end this. We just keep pouring money into that place. We continue to make deals that no responsible person would enter into, it seems to me. And we thank you for bringing us this information too, at least letting us know what is really going on as best as you're able to determine it and I'm confident that you've done that. And we appreciate all of that. Beyond that, I think it's time for the Congress, the American people, the administration and anyone else in a position of responsibility to being to start figuring out how we're going to get out of there and how we're going to bring this to a conclusion because the American people can't stand much more of it. And I thank you for the work that you've done. We have two more Democrats to note. Other than Pete Ryan (Ranking Minority Member), Republicans elected to skip to the first panel. Allyson Schwarts: I also thank you for this information. And it's important for us to be having this hearing today and I thank the chairman for doing it because we -- and in some ways, you're offering suggestion on how we can see our way out of this if we just really look at things really quite differently which is that -- as has been pointed out, you pointed out and many of the speakers before me have pointed out -- we have, we're looking at working with the Iraqis to make sure that they use their almost $80 billion surplus to start spending their money on reconstruction. And I was particularly struck that recently there was a -- I guess it was back in August -- some discussions about rebuilding police stations in Iraq and spending American dollars to do that. I have to say representing the city of Philadelphia and the suburbs, I go to police stations and fire stations all across my district and they need reconstruction. And so instead of a president saying we're going to spend our dollars on reconstructing our police stations and helping our first responders we're spending American dollars on reconstruction in Iraq when the Iraqis are actually sitting on $79 billion. Now you talked about the politics of why it hasn't happened but my question really is how can we -- is there a way for us to, one, start to say -- we've tried to in Congress -- to say Iraqis should start paying for reconstruction. I believe the last bill we passed actually had the condition of their spending 50% Joseph Christoff: Right. Allyson Schwartz: -- on going forward on that. Is there anyway that you would actually -- that we could insist upon that happening? Is there a way that we could get back some of these dollars that we're spending now that are committed into the future? We were led to believe several years ago that we would not have to pay for this war at all. And that's been pointed out as well. And yet we are right now spending billions of American tax payer dollars to reconstruct Iraq when Iraq has the money. And adding insult to injury we're spending a whole lot, every American family, on the price of gasoline that we're buying from the Iraqis. I mean something about this picture just isn't right no matter how you feel about this war or our going into it. I've been asked just recently this weekend was asked about how we could -- why we're not doing enough to make sure that we get the Iraqis to spend their money on reconstruction. And I understand the politics of it. And I understand even the difficulties on some of the buerocrats. But even if we lend expertise even if we help them figure out how to do this -- why -- is there more that we could be doing to make sure that going forward the Iraqis are spending their money, particularly the surplus -- $80 billion dollars surplus, rather than the American tax payer on reconstruction of basic infrastructure for the Iraqi people which we all agree needs to get done. But why not the Iraqis? And why is this administration -- that's political. What could we be doing even from your perspective to make sure that going forward this is really a changed world, we're not spending American tax dollars on reconstruction, the Iraqis are? Joseph Christoff: Well let's just talk about this concept of trying to get repayment for perhaps what we did. I think we began in 2004 with good intentions. With good intentions to the fact that the Iraqis at that time did not have the resources. So when you appropriated the $18.4 billion dollars in IRRF 2 (Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund) it was "to jump start the reconstruction process" under two premises that generaly did not pan out. One that it would be a benign environment where you could do reconstruction without violence and secondly the Iraqis would step up to the plate and third the international community would contribute. Those premises never really panned out until quite frankly recently where we see the Iraqis now have a substantial amount of money. I shouldn't say recently. They had surpluses in '05, '06 and '07 as well because they didn't spend on the investments. Allyson Y. Schwartz: But you're making a good point, if things are more secure if the issues around violence allows them to do some of this reconstrutcion without spending so many dollars on security can we actually get them to both repay us and get them to pay going forward? Joseph Christoff: Yeah, I don't know if we want to take back our generous contributions to try to jump start -- because I thought they were good intentions back in 2004. But again going forward I do think you should have the healthy debate about cost sharing. And you began it with the roughly three billion dollars that you put and the restrictions you put on the economic support fund -- that it should be a dollar for dollar cost sharing. The State Department in two weeks has to send a report to the Congress certifying that the Iraqis are engaged in cost sharing on the ESF so it will be interesting to see exaclty how the State Department can confirm that that is actually occurring Allyson Y. Schwartz: I should say not just interesting but also important to our financial security here at home and to respond to the Amercian people that we've actually said that there had to be cost sharing dollar for dollar and it will be important for us to see that that is actually happening going forward. And of course we'd like to see at some point the Iraqis pick up much more of the reconstruction if not all of it. The last Congress member to question Christoff was Marcy Kaptur. Pay close attention to his final answer to her. She's asking for very basic information, stats and figures (including arrests) and that information, according to Christoff, isn't public. It recalls his earlier comment to House Rep Tim Bishop who merely asked about the possible impact of the de-Baathifcation legislation (passed but not implemented) which resulted in Christoff informing Bishop that it was classified information he could not reveal in an open hearing. What are the possible effects of that legislation -- labeled a benchmark by the White House -- can't be made public. Now Bishop and Kaptur both have clearance. They can get the information as members of Congress. But what Christoff's testimony repeatedly underscored was how much information is being kept from the American people. Marcy Kaptur: I've been looking over one of the charts that we've been provided that shows the increase in spending by the people of the United States on the war in Iraq and I think everyone knows that every year it gets larger. I remember Secretary [Paul] Wolfowitz coming up before our defense committee saying that we didn't have to worry about this because it would all be paid for. Well, where is he now? I have no idea where he is but he certainly wasn't correct in those statements which I think influenced a lot of the members of this Congress to vote in the way that they did. But one of the bits of information that I have here, that I want you to clarify for me deals with the, what appears to me to be two structures operating in Iraq -- one by the United States and one by the government of Iraq. It says: "While the United States has spent 70% of the $33 billion that it has allocated for key security, oild, water and electricity sectors." In other words, we're spending down the money that the American people have allocated for this. Iraq has only spent 14% of the $28 billion it allocated to those sectors or less than 3% of the 10 billion that it had programmed from the year 2005 to 2008. So as I read these numbers and I'm looking at the expenditure of our dollars and we look at how much we have spent versus how much they have spent, it seems to me then that there may be two structures operating in Iraq: The American paid for structure and then the Iraqi structure. Because how could the Iraqis be doing such a poor job? Is my perception correct that in fact there are two structures operating there? Joseph Christoff: Well in terms of the -- Marcy Kaptur: For electricity, for water, for oil and security> Joseph Christoff: Well in terms of how things are spent, obviously when the US spends its money, the majority of that is being spent through the Corp of Engineers -- they've been the big builder using US appropriated dollars. So they're using Corp of Engineering contracting, procurement, budgeting procedures. When you look at how the Iraqi government is spending its resources, it's going through its own ministries -- oil and electricity, water -- to try to do the types of contracting and procurement. So yes there are seperate procedures because there are seperate pots of money. Marcy Kaptur: I appreciate that because if in fact oil production has gone up it's been because of US expenditures because obviously the Iraqi expenditures aren't locking in. Joseph Christoff: Right. Most of the money on oil infrastructure has been the US funding. Marcy Kaptur: Then why would Iraq sign its first contract with China? You have any -- Joseph Christoff: I don't know. Marcy Kaptur: -- clarity on that? Joseph Christoff: No. Marcy Kaptur: And Royal Dutch Petroleum, Royal Dutch/Shell is the next one they signed a deal with? I just find all of this very, very strange. Could you also tell me in terms of the sabatoge and the smuggling -- Joseph Christoff: Mmh-hmm Marcy Kaptur: -- it's estimated by some that at least a third of what is occurring in the oil sector -- and again, it's unclear to me who is really managing the oil sector? Is it the US dollars that have been allocated or is it the Iraqi dollars that really have a handle on what is happening in the oil sector? But regardless, if you have any comments on that I would appreciate it, of the dollars being expended, why is so much being smuggled out of there? Who doesn't have control of what's happening in the oil fields? Joseph Christoff: Well I think actually the smuggling and the diversions have declined over the past couple years. The biggest problem that occurred back in 2006 was massive smuggling -- estimates of up to two million dollars out of the Baiji refinery because there was not sufficient protection forces around it. The US and the Iraqi government have responded by putting more protection forces around the majory refinery in Iraq at Baiji and also trying to set up these oil facility police forces that are trying to manage and protect the oil pipelines and the infrastructures particularly in the north. But there are still interdictions that are occuring because you can't cover everything and -- Marcy Kaptur: May I ask you, sir, who hires those security officers for those oil installations? Joseph Christoff: Yeah, right now it's the Ministry of OIl but it's supposed to eventually be subsumed in the Ministry of Interior's police forces Marcy Kaptur: But if we look at the expenditure of Iraqi dollars to do all of this, it looks like the US contracted operations are spending their dollars down without them, Iraq wouldn't be able to function. Am I correct? If you just pulled the US contracts and llet them fly on their own. Joseph Christoff: Well we have lots of reconstruction projects in all of the critical sectors including the oil sector so we have been investing over the past several years in trying to build pipelines, trying to improve the refinery capacity -- a lot of individual projects have added up to billions of dollars. The Iraqis are trying to spend more money in terms of the oil sector. One of the problems with the Ministry of Oil is that, unlike the Ministry of Electricity, it has not developed any type of a plan to determine what its needs are, its priorities and exactly where it should be spending its future resources. And the Ministry of Electricity has a pretty good plan. The Ministry of Oil does not yet have a plan to try to set its own priorities. And he himself has estimated that he needs $30 billion to try to improve the oil infrastructure in Iraq. Marcy Kaptur: I know my time has expired. If I wanted to read one clear report on what is really going on inside the Iraqi oil sector what would I read? Joseph Christoff: Inside the Iraqi oil sector? Marcy Kaptur: For security officers. Who's paying for it, how much is being smuggled, who did the smuggling, was anybody aprehended? Where do I find that? Joseph Christoff: Well I'd probably have to go back to some of the CIA reports that I read that you wouldn't be able to read in public domain. Marcy Kaptur: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Kaptur is asking for very basic information. She's not asking for information on how to build a weapon. Stats is all she's asking for and she's informed that the information isn't for the public. The operations Christoff is reporting on are paid for by the tax payer and the tax payer is repeatedly told that things are 'improving' in Iraq. So why is very basic information being kept from the tax payers. And if, dropping back to Bishop's question, the US anticipates that there will be some awful bloodbath as a result of the de-Baathification legislation, since the White House has labeled it a benchmark and since it has yet to be put into effect, shouldn't both the American people and the Iraqi people have a right to know the projections that have been made on that? Turning to Iraq, last night CNN reported that a helicopter has crashed in Iraq claiming the lives of 5 US service members. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) said the death toll is "seven U.S. soldiers" and cites M-NF as the source. M-NF updated it today announcing: "Seven U.S. Soldiers were killed when a CH-47 Chinook crashed about 100 km west of Basra at approximately 12:01 a.m. Thursday. The Chinook was part of a four-aircraft aerial convoy flying from Kuwait to Balad. The seven Soldiers were the only ones onboard the Chinook at the time of the crash. A British Quick Reaction Force team was dispatched from Basra to assist at the site. A road convoy in the vicinity was also diverted to the scene. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and official release by the Department of Defense The incident is under investigation, however enemy activity is not suspected." The Washington Post notes, "There was no word on the cause of the crash or whether hostile fire was involved." Camilla Hall and Michael Heath (Bloomberg News) report that the military is now publicly stating that this should be considered "an accident" on their 'initial' information but that the US military added, "At this time we are uncertain of the cause, but hostile fire has been ruled out." Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) observes, "In total, that means 11 U.S. service members have died since Sunday for non-combat-related reasons" while noting the helicopter crash itself "was the deadliest U.S. helicopter accident in Iraq since Aug. 22 of last year, when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed in the northern part of the country, killing 14 U.S. soldiers." Joseph Giordono (Stars & Stripes) notes, "The AP reported that an aide to U.S. Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Okla., said four Texans and three from Oklahoma were among the seven National Guardsmen killed in [the helicopter crash[ . . . Fallin's spokesman Alex Weintz says the four Texans killed were soldiers from the Texas National Guard." ICCC lists 4168 as the number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war with 17 for the month thus far. On shootings, yesterday's snapshot noted: "Meanwhile, AP reports that Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin's deaths on Sunday in Iraq are under investigation and a US soldier 'has been taken into custody' due to the deaths. Troy Moon (Pensacola News Journal) reports that Dawson was 'a father of four' and a graduate of Escambia High and quotes his stepmother Maxine Mathis stating, 'It's bad enough he had to fear the enemy. But he had to fear a fellow soldier. This is senseless. Not only did (the alleged shooter) take our son's life, he took another man's life as well. It's just horrible. I want people to know what happened.'' Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports that Durbin was from Dallas and 'an honor student and 2001 gradute of Dallas Luterhan School. He volunteered in the Civil Air Patrol in high school, then joined the Marines. After he left the Marine Corps, he joined the Army two years ago'." Greg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) notes the silence on this story and then amends an AP story at the end which, please note, raids Troy Moon's report and does so without credit. Today Nicholas Spangler (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Dawson was on his third tour of duty and that his stepmother (Maxine Mathis) states, "He was telling me about these nightmares he'd have. He'd wake up in a cold sweat, seeing the things he was seeing over there. It really was messing with my son's mind." NYT's Stephen Farrell (for the Times' owned International Herald Tribune) explains that April of 2005 saw "Seargent Hasan Akbar, of the 101st Airborne Division, was sentenced to death over a grenade attack on his comrades in March 2003 in Kuwait, at the very outset of the war" and "In November 2006, Staff Seargent Alberto Martinez, serving with the New York National Guard, was arraigned in a military court suspected of murdering two officers in a grenade and mine explosion at one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces in Tikrit in June 2005. He has consistently maintained his innocence but if convicted could face the death penalty." Yesterday's snapshot also included this: "BBC reports that Sgt John Hatley, Sgt 1st Class Joseph Mayo and Sgt Michael Lehy Jr. are charged with murdering four Iraqis ('blindfolded, shot and dumped in a canal in April 2007'). . . . CBC notes, 'The killings are alleged to have been retribution for casualties suffered by U.S. forces.' CBC also states that four more are being held and are under investigation (with two of the four US soldiers having been charged). AP, however, says the four additional soldiers 'have already been charged with conspiracy in the case'." None of those three soldiers charged with murder has entered a plea but one of the four charged with conspiracy has: Spc Belmor Ramos. AP reports that Ramos "pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder and was sentenced to seven months in prison Thursday in the deaths of four Iraqis, saying he stood guard from a machine-gun turret while the bound and blindfolded prisoners were shot." In some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 Baghdad roadside bombings that left twelve people wounded (including five Iraqi soldiers), a Nineveh roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers (one more wounded) and, dropping back to last night, a Nineveh car bombing that wounded one police officer. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers, 2 Tal Afar roadside bombings that left nine people injured and a Hawija roadside bombing that left two people injured. Shootings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a man shot dead in Mosul and his wife and daughter injured in the shooting and 1 person shot dead in Nineveh province. Reuters notes a Mosul home invasion that claimed 4 lives and 2 drive-by shootings in Mosul that each claimed the life of a "retired security personnel". Corpses? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 3 corpse discovered in Mosul. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Yesterday the campaign was able to announce that Nader - Gonzales was on the ballot in Florida (officially). Today they announce Nader made 46 ballots. That is the 45 states ballots they set as their goal (and achieved before their self-declared deadline) as well as the ballot in the District of Columbia. Team Nader notes that residents of Texas, Georgia, Indiana and North Carolina will be able to vote for Nader - Gonzalez via write-in which means the residents of 49 states (and DC) can vote for them. The 45 state ballots is eleven more than in 2004 and one more than in 2000. The Nader campaign's Michael Richardson explains, "This means 85 percent of the American electorate will actually see the names Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez on their ballots. . . . This is quite a feat since states generally make it really hard for third-party candidates to get on state ballots. But in every state, our volunteers collected more than enough signatures to qualify. The response has been positive -- much better than in 2004. It's obvious that there is national interest in more choices and independent candidates outside the two-party system." Tomorrow the Nader - Gonzalez campaign holds a rally in Lousiville, Kentucky (6:30 p.m., University of Louisville, Swain Student Activities Center, Suite W310). I have always been skeptical when people blame a lack of news coverage on some nefarious plot by the media. Most people who cry media 'blackout' aren't that newsworthy, have stories that don't check out, or don't pitch their story that well. The truth is, unless you have a compelling, timely, well pitched story, today's media will not cover it. They are too burdened by ever tighter web-driven deadlines, fewer reporting staff, and the barrage of sophisticated public relations professionals who definitely do know how to pitch a story, and outnumber reporters 5-to-1. But after a full week working as Ralph Nader's media coordinator, I have a new perspective. The story of the decade is breaking, we have the candidate of the century on this story--and we are getting no coverage by major media. After years of neglect, deregulation, and sharp declines in corporate transparency and corporate accountability, the gig is up and Wall Street is being shaken to its foundations. What has already happened towers over the savings and loan crisis, and we are not even close to the end, or even the beginning of the end. The Wall Street bailouts and wipe outs are on track to be the biggest frontal assault on financial consumers and taxpayers in history. Ralph Nader, America's undisputed protector of consumers, has uncannily tracked the chain of events--on the documented public record--that has led our economy down this devastating path. In countless letters, testimonies and reports--all warning of the dangers of unrestrained greed absent accountability and transparency (check for yourself at Nader.org), Ralph proposed alternative paths, and all along the way he was ignored or ridiculed. Now he has a plan to soften the blow, get us out of the morass, and help ensure it doesn't happen again. But no major press will cover it. No New York Times. No Wall Street Journal. No Associated Press. No network news. Nothing but a pundit on C-Span, kudos from a newsletter and a little article on the web site Politico. The September 16th Washington Post summed up the gravity of this issue on its front page: "Yesterday's meltdown on Wall Street brought the economy roaring back to the center of the presidential campaign, and the question for the final seven weeks of the general-election campaign is whether Barack Obama or John McCain can convince voters that he is capable of leading the country out of the morass." If the meltdown on Wall Street and bailout by taxpayers is the deciding factor of this election:
His name is not Barack Obama or Senator McCain, and he is invisible as far as the media is concerned. Yesterday, Ralph Nader issued a chronology of the lead-up to the current meltdown, and his ten-point plan to restore a semblance of accountability, transparency, and incentives that would steer Wall Street away from short-termist, out-of-control casino capitalism toward fulfilling its proper function of efficiently allocating capital to advance our long-term economic well-being. The plan was sent out to 6,000 reporters, including specific e-mails and phone calls to the editors and reporters from the major newspapers that are on this beat and evening TV news producers. Aside from the Fox cable business channel, no major media picked it up. After a series of editorial board meetings we did this week with the Washington Post and New York Times Washington Bureau, I think I know why. When we asked them what their standards for covering Ralph Nader were, it was clear they didn't have any. But Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor at the Washington Post, hit the nail on the head. He said, "I like some of your issues, but I don't see how you being a presidential candidate affects them. I see you more as a consumer advocate." In other words, if Ralph was just some guy running for president on the ballot in 45 states with 5 percent support in the polls, he might actually get some coverage in that role, rather than having his giant stature as a consumer advocate trivialize his presidential candidate stature. So today, when AP broke a story that the Federal bank insurance fund was dwindling and in danger of needing a taxpayer bailout, I tried taking Fred up on his advice and pitched to the economic editors and financial reporters, emphasizing 'Ralph the consumer advocate.' It happened that just two months ago Ralph wrote a letter to Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who have oversight over the FDIC, warning of exactly this and suggesting some measures to shore up the FDIC reserves before it was too late. As usual Congress dismissed Ralph's warning, with Congressman Spencer Bachus saying there was "no factual basis" for his concern. Six years ago, Ralph warned of the potential shakeout from Clinton giving most of the commercial banks free federal deposit insurance since 1995, saying, "Don't be surprised if this latest banking reform deteriorates into little more than another version of the savings and loan deposit insurance reforms of 1980 which helped fuel that industry's demise and lightened taxpayers' pockets by several hundred billions of dollars." Here we have a substantive story where Ralph is right in the sweet spot from the beginning of the problem to the present. I phoned up Marcy Jones, the AP SEC reporter who had broken the story to let her know Ralph had called it six years back, and that he now had a plan to fix it. But Marcy didn't want to hear from Ralph either, and referred to me to the political desk. I called the AP Washington Politics Editor, Donna Cassata, with great enthusiasm, saying "Now I have something that is too good to pass on." But she passed. The Wall Street meltdown story has Ralph Nader's name all over it, and as a candidate or as a consumer advocate he should be getting an avalanche of requests and invitations--not a stone-wall. That's ok. This story is not going away and neither are we. If need be, our supporters will overwhelm the political and economic editors and producers, taking the public relations professional-to-journalist ratio to a new order of magnitude. In the mean time, thank goodness for our Cardozo the Parrot video, which goes to show that even sheep cannot ignore a talking bird. Team Nader then links to this Washington Post piece by Chris Cillizza. Staying with politics, this weekend's NOW on PBS offers: How have women in politics changed America and the world? NOW on PBS investigates with an hour-long special hosted by Maria Hinojosa: "Women, Power and Politics: A Rising Tide?" See the show on television this weekend or watch online STARTING SATURDAY [. . .] Show Description: Given the hoopla surrounding Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton's historical political ascendance, why does the U.S. rank so low among countries for percentage of women holding national office? On Friday, September 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), in a one-hour special, NOW's Maria Hinojosa talks to women leaders around the world and here in the United States for an intimate look at the high-stakes risks, triumphs, and setbacks for women leaders of today and tomorrow. Among these women are President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, the first woman leader in Latin America who did not have a husband precede her as President, and former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, now in a tight race for a seat in the U.S. Senate. We also travel to Rwanda, where, 14 years after a horrific massacre left nearly one million people dead, women make up nearly half of parliament; and to Manhattan, where ambitious high school girls are competing in a high-stakes debate tournament. "Women, Power and Politics," is also about the personal journey of mother and award-winning journalist Maria Hinojosa as she strives to answer the question: "What does to mean to be a woman in power?" Watch a preview and excerpt of this special program at this web address: Use this directory tool to find out where the show is airing in your area: The NOW website ... will feature web-exclusive commentary from noteworthy women including Maria Bartiromo, Sandra Cisneros, and Tina Brown; a personal essay from Maria Hinojosa; an interactive debate over Sarah Palin's candidacy; as well as opportunities for all women to post and share their stories of ambition, success, and discouragement. (The "interactive debate" over Sarah Palin's candidacy is live now ...) |
troy moon
greg mitchell
the washington post
sudarsan raghavan
camilla hall
stephen farrell
now on pbs
pbs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)