Let's start with the good: Tim Arango's "Protests in Iraq Bring Fast Promises, but Slower Changes" (New York Times):
For five Fridays now, thousands of Iraqis -- mostly, but not entirely, youthful and secular — have gathered in central Baghdad’s Tahrir Square to demand change. At first, the demands were small — improve electricity amid a summer heat wave -- but the list has grown longer and more complex: Fix the judiciary, hold corrupt officials accountable, get religion out of politics.
The protests have come to overshadow the fight against the Islamic State, Iraq’s
main preoccupation over the past year. Change, at least on paper, came
quickly. Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announced a set of sweeping measures to placate the protesters. He called for the elimination of several senior government positions, including the three vice presidencies; the end of sectarian quotas in politics; the reduction of ministries; and a new drive to eliminate corruption.
Several
weeks later, few of the measures, aside from the firing of three deputy
prime ministers and a few ministers, have been carried out, and many
protesters now say they are pessimistic about real change.
“We haven’t noticed anything yet,” said Ali Farras, 25, who joined the protests on Friday. “It is just ink on paper.”
It's an important article with a variety of implications.
Turning now to the embarrassment . . .
Ms. magazine's blog finally writes about Iraq -- four e-mails note -- and I ignore it?
Yes, I did ignore it.
I was trying to be kind.
Is Ramadi in "northern Iraq"?
No, it's Al-Anbar Province.
So when idiot Leslie Absher can't even get the facts right, I'm not really inclined to note her garbage.
I also believe there's been far too much CIA creep into the left of late.
Trina and I are on the phone. Here's her comment she just posted to Ms.' latest nonsense (it's awaiting moderation):
With past rumors, I’m not sure Ms. needs CIA-linked writers. It’s also the Islamic State. Not the “so-called Islamic State.” The IRA wasn’t the “so-called IRA.” It wasn’t the “so-called al Qaeda” or the “so-called Weather Underground,” or the . . . They’ve picked their name. It shouldn’t be too much for your delicate sensibilities to report it.
I agree completely.
Gloria Steinem's past actions -- which she has 'reshaped' starting in the early seventies (but videos on YouTube have her, in the sixties, bragging about her work with the CIA) -- are bad enough.
Accusations by The Red Stockings and Betty Friedan clearly had more validity than Gloria was willing to admit in the 70s (or since) so I'm not really sure Ms. needs a writer whose tagline brags, "Leslie Absher is a freelance writer who grew up with a CIA dad. You can find more of her work at leslieabsher.com"
I'm not big on penalizing children for the actions of their parents.
But let's be clear that Absher's not a journalist. Her big Ms. story a few years back, about the piece she published at the Los Angeles Times, demonstrated that. She wrote about it, she finished her drafts but, prior to publication, she showed the piece to her father and let him edit out details in an article regarding what it was like growing up with a CIA parent.
Repeating, her story was edited by her father.
For his and the CIA's comfort.
At that point, she's not not a journalist and needs to stop kidding the world that she is.
At that point, she is a willing tool of the CIA.
And considering the rumors that trash the feminist movement as a CIA effort to split the left, the last thing Ms. magazine needs to be doing is publishing a CIA minimizer who allows the agency input in her articles.
By the way, in her 2011 Ms. magazine article, the minimizer provides numerous links but not one to the Los Angeles Times article she allowed others to edit for content. She doesn't even tell you the article ran in the Los Angeles Times. The piece that was CIA approved is 2009's "My Dad, The Spy."
Gloria's work with the CIA went beyond college -- as she is shown on YouTube bragging in public interviews prior to becoming known as a feminist.
She probably thought those videos would never surface.
She had friends (like me) who shut down the conversation for years because they didn't believe that Gloria could have been that up the CIA's rear.
She had friends in publishing (Clay among them) who covered for her.
She had the fact that The Red Stockings were 'too militant' for the sensibilities of the mainstream press so they were more than eager to shut down the story. (Also assisted by Gloria's threats of lawsuits -- that of course resulted in a complete reshaping of The Red Stockings published history.)
But the videos are out and more will be emerging (I know that for a fact, a particularly damaging one is being held until after she passes -- which is why I have repeatedly stated in the last years that she needs to get honest and clean up her mess, not leave it for feminists to do for her after she's gone).
The last thing at this point that Ms. magazine -- now only loosely associated with Gloria -- needs to do is start publishing CIA-linked writers who allow their copy to be vetted by non-editors prior to publication.
That sort of nonsense will drag Ms. down.
Also, the writer's worthless.
She read a Marie Clair article, did she?
Wow.
The research she put in!
Nobody bother her for the next few weeks, she's leafing through the latest Vogue!
Between that, having no idea where, in Iraq, the Islamic State has seized territory, she really needs to find a topic she might have some knowledge on such as how to sanitize pieces for the CIA prior to publication?
Third?
I said last night I wasn't staying up.
I'm en route to the airport. I will be speaking about 30 minutes after we land. I will continue speaking until about 9:30 pm EST. If I'm helping (beyond the piece Ava and I wrote), Third will go up around 10:30 pm EST.
