House cleaning

Some house cleaning.

1) Three visitors are bothered that other coverage of Watada wasn't noted. One cites a radio program that I don't listen to. I'm not real sure where I'm supposed to find the time to hunt down an archive of a program that has no archive, but when I do figure it out, I'll get right on it.
The other two note programs I am familiar with that I think are strong programs. And they offer that if I'm going to write down what was on "all those other radio programs," I should note others as well. First off all, Megan and Zach transcribed the bulk of the programs this week. They are community members, I had no problem going with their transcriptions because I trust them. A word or two might be wrong (no one's suggested that) but that's true when I transcribe something myself. As for other coverage, two people are upset (visitors) that their paper's coverage wasn't noted. They note that they e-mailed this morning. They did e-mail about it. I didn't have time to read those e-mails but, if I had, it probably wouldn't have been noted. That was the same AP story that we provided a link to via ABC (and went with ABC because it offered the photo of Margaret Prescod with the article). Sorry to be the one to break it to those two, but when it says "AP" or "Associated Press" in the byline, your newspaper did not write that story. I'm sure we missed a ton of coverage available online in text form and I'd hoped to expand on the coverage in the snapshot but that wasn't possible due to internet problems today. We may pick up other things. But we do go with Hawaii for Watada because that is his home state and Joan's usually the one finding those (that's her home state).

2) The private accounts, which members e-mail to, come first. The public account is always overlowing with things. One of which will be noted in this entry that have been waiting since last week. If you're e-mailing the public account you need to (a) know no one (Ava, Jess, Shirley, Martha, Eli or myself) is opening attachments and (b) you'll be read quicker if your subject line states what your e-mail is about. There was a time when I felt every e-mail had to be read. Then it became, "Okay, I'll settle for general consensus from the public account." Now, if the heading isn't clear, it generally gets trashed without being read. There are too many e-mails.

3) This entry will be cross-posted at the mirror site. At the mirror site, there's some function that allows you to send a brief message where you don't even have to go into your e-mail account. When those arrive at the public account, if you don't note what you're talking about, no one knows what you're talking about. It doesn't come in with "Re:___" -- it just says "Contact Form" and the sender is "Blogdrive." One person has written an impassioned thing about "please, please, write more about this" and I have no idea what "this" is. I have no idea what was being read, whether it was something current (today) or something from somewhere further back. Another person uses that forum to provide us with laughs as he claims to be the boyfriend of a woman (who is not a journalist) that he feels we were unfair to. (Or I, I don't think a member commented, I think it was just me.) Since the woman is a lesbian, his claim of being her boyfriend is as laughable as his defense of her politics (right-wing). He writes every day and since there's no way of knowing, until the e-mail has been opened, who's writing, and since, once opened, there's no way of knowing what most people are commenting on, we're probably going to start disregarding "Contact form" from "Blogdrive." There are 105 today, according to Jess, and they're useless because no one knows what anyone's writing in about. (Well, one's not useless. The man who keeps claiming to be a long term boyfriend of a lesbian is quite funny -- even though it's probably not intended to provide chuckles.)

4) The public account is for people to note things. That includes something they think can be highlighted here (which means Iraq related). That also includes if you have a problem with something I say. By all means, e-mail. You may not get a reply, but the complaint is read and factored in. I could be wrong, I often am. That also includes people who write in to say that something's not getting the attention it needs. But I'm not calling you, you may not even get a reply back from me or anyone else, so everyone who's e-mailing providing their phone numbers, I'm sure you're wonderful and it's my loss, but there's only so much time in the day. There are six people (that includes me) working the private accounts and the public accounts and we're still behind each day. (Correction, I'm behind. Ava, Jess, Shirley, Martha and Eli are doing me a favor. They're not behind.)

5) There are a lot of great e-mails every day where people share their losses or their triumphs. That's more than fine. (And they're a pleasure to read.) Complaints are taken seriously. But whatever you're writing about, if you want your e-mail to be read, you need to note what it's about in the heading. Ava, Jess, Shirley, Martha and Eli all have permission to respond to any e-mail they read that needs a response. That's their judgement call. E-mails that they think I need to read get put in a folder and I read those as soon as I can.

6) If you have a suggested link, you need to realize that members know how to make suggestions. They grab a section or the entire thing and copy and paste it into an e-mail with the link. Ava just found the perfect example of something that won't be noted. A vistitor e-mailed a link to something at the Seattle Times with "check this out" on it. Why? When members (and many visitors) are already waiting and are very clear about why something matters to them, why should anyone reading your e-mail go to some link you provided? We don't have the time. Other people are waiting, and we don't have the time. (Ava and Jess are going through the e-mails right now when they could be out with everyone else getting something to eat.)

7) A testimonial on a new film, Fired, came into the public account. This is one of the things I've been trying to note but time has run shot for two weeks now.

Jonathan Tasini: I recently attended the premiere of a movie called "Fired." I highly recommend it. The movie is opening in theatres Feb 2nd: in NYC at the Village East, and in Fort Lauderdale, Buffalo, Chicago and others on a schedule that only makes sense when you know how low budget a documentary this is.
When actress Annabelle Gurwitch was fired from a play by Woody Allen, she wondered how she would cope with being downsized by a cultural icon. Turning to friends in show business she was assured she was not alone. Everyone she knew, from her rabbi to her gynecologist, had their own account of getting the boot. Featuring interviews with comedians, economists and regular working folks, and drawing on a series of live literary events and her hugely popular book, FIRED! is a humorous look at downsizing in America.
A film by Annabelle Gurwitch
Click here to see play dates in other cities
"Entertaining and slyly subversive." – Rebecca Rothbaum, O Magazine
"Genuinely Affecting…A free-wheeling, first person documentary
that recalls the early efforts of Michael Moore." – Joe Leydon, Variety

Featuring:
Tim Allen - Andy Borowitz - David Cross - Andy Dick - Tate Donovan - Illeana Douglas - Jeff Garlin - Judy Gold - Richard Kind - Stephen Adly Guirgis - Anne Meara - Bob Odenkirk - Robert Reich - Jeffrey Ross - Harry Shearer - Sarah Silverman - [. . .] - Fisher Stevens - Paul F. Thompkins - Fred Willard
and
Actress and humorist ANNABELLE GURWITCH, best known to television audiences for her many years as the co-host of the cult favorite “Dinner and a Movie” on TBS.
She is currently a contributing writer and commentator on “Day to Day” on NPR.
“A Frank and Funny look at job loss and downsizing.”
-- Madeleine Osberger, Associated Press
If you spend any time at all in the workplace, chances are you may get laid off, down-sized, let go, out-sourced, axed, terminated, canned, cancelled, dismissed…FIRED!
“The best kind of comedy -- rooted in empathy but with a serious point.”
- Patrick Beach, Cox Wire Service
Fired! features interviews with a who's-who of top-rated comedians and actors, including Tim Allen, Sarah Silverman, David Cross, Illeana Douglas, Bob Odenkirk and more. The film also examines the state of employment in this country, interviewing laid-off GM workers in Lansing, Michigan, [. . .], former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and even the recently fired White House Chef. It seems everyone has been touched by the national epidemic known as "downsizing."
IS THE ECONOMY REALLY FIRED UP?
Compiled by Annabelle Gurwitch
Whose economy is it anyway? Jobless rate in America is the lowest since 2001; but since 2001, 95% of working people in America's wages have been flat or falling. Only the top 5% have shared in the economic growth. Real wages and salaries makeup the lowest share of the GDP since 1947, corporate profits are the highest they’ve been since the 1960’s.
Where's my gold watch?
You won't be receiving a gold watch if you were working for any of these companies:
AOL said so long to 5,000. Employees in Aug 06.
Intel cut its ties to 10,000 employees in Sept 06.
Ford offered 75,000 workers buyout packages in October, and announced that 14 plants will close by 2012 eliminating 30,000 jobs. GM also offered buyouts to 100,000 workers if they said goodbye to their jobs.
Dupont declared in the week before Labor Day that new workers will no longer receive defined benefit pension plans and more tenured employees' pensions will be reduced. And uh, we're not offering health care either - Happy Labor Day!
Ratio of average CEO salary to the average American worker is now 435 to 1
People who are unemployed stay unemployed fifty percent longer than they did in the seventies, and only about half as many receive unemployment insurance as did so in 1947.

And that's going to be it. There are 12,351 unread e-mails in the public account currently. If you aren't specific in your heading about why you're writing (topic, whatever), it's going in the trash can. For future ref: If you're writing about something that's up here somewhere in the two plus years of this site but you don't specify the title and date (both, "And the war drags on" is a title twice a week, "Iraq snapshot" five times a week, "Other Items" many times a week -- you need a date and a title) and you end up being read by someone other than me, it's going in the trash. If I read it, I can usually narrow it down but I'll probably end up following everyone else lead and assuming that if it really mattered, you'd note where it appeared and not expect everyone to know what you mean when there are 20 plus entries a week and two years plus of entries. I believe every entry has a title here and a date. You can also copy the link to the entry. But people don't have time to try to figure out what you're talking about when you can't be clear about it yourself. Someone, (Kat? Rebecca?) pointed out last week, that if you wrote about (complaining or complimenting) something you saw in a paper and didn't note what it was, your letter/e-mail would go right in the trash. So, especially if you're a reporter, you need to be specific. And, a helpful hint, hearing that something is up here is not the same as knowing it is. Someone was very offended when a mutual friend played a joke on them (and on me) and told him I'd ripped him apart for something. I hadn't. It had never been commented on here. So before you waste everyone's time, don't even bother writing an e-mail that says "I understand you . . ."

Lastly, if you get a reply from someone, other than me, and you're offended by it, tough. You've had your response. If Ava (who really had it with independent media whiners last week) hurt your feelings by pointing out your minimizing efforts or, in one instance, someone trying to lie (and it was a lie) about how they got something wrong, tough. I don't care. You wrote and you got a response. Most people don't. And I don't respond myself. (A rule I've broken twice.) I'm not going to read your, "Ava was short with me" e-mails and think, "Oh, bad, Ava!" The community stands together.

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, February 8, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the court-martial of Ehren Watada comes to a surprising end (Aaron Glantz: "It seemed at the beginning that it would to be a slam dunk for the prosecutors but here we are, three days into the trial, and it's ended in a mistrial."), more US troops die are announced dead and the AP total reaches 31114 since the start of the illegal war; Baghdad's health ministry gets stormed and the "gunmen" aren't whom you might expect,

Starting with Ehren Watada. Yesterday, Lt. Col. John Head (aka Judge Toilet) decided to interject him into the proceedings -- going so far as to question Watada -- and then decided he would declare a mistrial. Aaron Glantz spoke with Sandra Lupien on yesterday's The KPFA Evening News and explained that the 'judge' was "essentially throwing out the agreement that the prosecution and the defense made together on the eve of the trial." The agreement was the stipulation that the defense and the prosecution came to an agreement on whereby Watada acknowledged making statements that were published and broadcast (thereby removing the need for reporters to come to court and affirm their reporting). Both sides agreed to the stipulation and the judge was aware of it and poured over it. Until Wednesday, it was not a problem. Daisuke Wakabayashi's (Reuters) explains the agreement, "In the stipulation, Watada said he did not board the plane with the rest of his unit to Iraq and admitted to making public statements criticizing the war and accusing U.S. President George W. Bush's administration of deceiving the American people to enter into a war of aggression. Watada does not dispute the facts, but said it was not an admission of guilt because it does not take into account the intent behind his actions." John Nichols (The Nation) picks up there noting the judge felt there was no "meeting of the minds" and without such a meeting "there's not a contract" -- despite the fact that both the prosecution and the defense agreed there was a contract -- and so, overruling efforts by the prosecution to again state "that they were not arguing that the agreement represented an admission of guilt by Watada." Eli Sanders (Time magazine) observes that Judge Toilet's declaration of a mistrial was "a surprising development that left military prosecutors clearly frustrated, observers stunned and defense attorneys claiming that the military had blown its only chance at a conviction." Frustrated? Stunned? As The Honolulu Advertiser notes this was "a weird bit of courtroom drama, both parties agreed with each other that Head was wrong." Sam Howe Verhovek (Los Angeles Times) reports that, regardless of what happens next, "the judge's ruling amounted to a temporary moral victory for the lieutenant in a case that many legal observers had considered a virtual slam-dunk for the Army."

So what does that mean? At this point, meaning is up in the air. Corey Moss (MTV News) was among the ones noting that Judge Toilet had scheduled a court-martial for next month. No, he's not planning on court-martialing himself though that would qualify as justice. He thinks Watada can be retried. Others aren't so sure. Mike Barber (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reports that Watada's defense doubts that assertion and that John Junker ("University of Washington law professor") feels that another court-martial would be double-jeopardy for Watada, "The notion is that you can't just stop in the middle and say, 'I don't like the way it's going' and start over." Howe Verhovek quotes Ann Wright (retired State Department, retired col.) who declares, "The legal mess we saw here today reflects the major mess the Bush administration has made with the war in Iraq." If you can follow the above, consider yourself smarter than William Yardley (New York Times) who drops the issue of double jeopardy by merely noting that "the circumstances surrounding the mistrial, including the fact that the judge rejected a stipulation he had initially approved, could allow Lieutenant Watada to avoid prosecution altogether" -- all in the concluding sentence. Where it stands now for Ehren Watada? Aaron Glantz told Sandra Lupien (The KPFA Evening News) that if it another court-martial is held, "We're going to go back to the original charges. Some of the charges were dropped as a result of the agreement . . . Those charges are now back on the table."

Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March 6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.

In Iraq today, the violence continues.

Bombings?

AP reports 20 dead and 45 wounded in Aziziyah as a result of a car bombing "at a meat market". CBS and AP note a car bomb in Baghdad that killed seven on a minibus with at least more hurt.

Shootings?

The BBC reports that 14 members of one family were shot down in Balad. Al Jazeera reports that an attack on police in Baquba left 4 police officers "and a civilian" dead.

Corpses?

Today the US military announced: "Four Marines assigned to Multi-National Force - West died Feb. 7 from wounds sustained due to enemy action in two separate incidents, while operating in Al Anbar Province." The AP count of US troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war is now "at least 3,114."

Meanwhile the US military is boasting of having 'captured a senior Military of Health official today' -- Hakim al-Zamili. How difficult is it to capture someone serving in the Iraqi ministries? Apparently quite difficult, Al Jazeera reports that "US and Iraqi forces have stormed the health ministry building in Baghdad" and quotes the ministry spokesperson (Qassem Allawi) saying: "American forces accompanied by Iraq forces broke into the ministry, forced the guards to lie on the floor and took Zamili." Damien Cave and Jon Elsen (New York Times) report an eye witness saying that the US troops were "like cowboys, firing their weapons into the air" and that "they broke dooors and window glass as they made their way through the building". AP reports: "A large white boot print was left on the bullet-pocked office door, which apparently had been kicked in by troops, and shattered glass and overturned computers and phones were scattered on the floor." Those details don't make it into the US military's official press release though "suspected of" "kickback schemes" is all over the place. In the US, that would be the equiavlent of storming the offices of Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of Health & Human Services, or one of his undersecretaries; in Iraq, it's all rah-rah, all the time. No surprise, Al Jazzera reports that there is a talk that the health ministry will "go on strike unless al-Zamili is released" and their correspondent Hoda Abdel-Hamid states: "Under the current situation in Baghdad, that could have a devastating effect on the citizens."

The same rah-rah that leads to attacks on governmental offices in Iraq, also leads to the deaths in Amiriyah. What are the commanders hopped up on that the US military sees anything worth boasting of in those events? Let's start off with reality. AP reports: "Police and hospital officials in the area offered a conflicting account, saying the airstrike hit the village of Zaidan south of Abu Ghraib and flattened four houses, killing 45 people, including women, children and old people. An Associated Press photo showed the body of a boy in the back of a pickup truck at the nearby Fallujah hospital and people there said he was a victim of the Zaydan airstrike. Other photos showed several wounded children being treated in the hospital." Now you just know all of that gets left out of the official US military press release. What is included? "Intelligence reports indicated an individual associated with foreign fighter facilitation was in the targeted area." Intelligence reports indicated? Civilians were targeted and killed. At some point Americans are going to have to start asking questions about actions like this. This was one person "associated" -- who may or may not have been present. Not only is his or her presence in doubt, so is any link -- "associated." If you can grasp that, start asking who sends troops in to attack civilians? Four houses were flattened, civilians were targeted and killed. These are the actions that breeds the resistance. There's no, "Oops, meant well!" Not when it's your family or your friends who are dead. This is the (still illegal) war Bully Boy is selling. More US troops on the ground mean more dead civilians. More dead civilians mean more Iraqis joining the resistance. This is the never ending cycle and those not addicted to revisionary tactics recognize the echoes from Vietnam.

In the United States, Senator John Warner and other Republicans are pushing for support of the non-binding resolution. CBS and AP report that Warner and six other Republican senators are attempting to buck their party's shut down on the non-binding resolution. In their letter (PDF format), Warner, Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith and George Voinovich write: "The war in Iraq is the most pressing issue of our time. It urgently deserves the attention of the full Senate and a full debate on the Senate floor without delay" . . . before concluding: "We strongly believe the Senate should be allowed to work its will on our resolution as well as the concept brought forward by other Senators. Monday's procedural vote should not be interpreted as any lessening of our resolve to go forward advocating the concepts of S. Con. Res. 7. We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate on the Senate floor. The current stalemate is unnacceptable to us and to the people of this country." The non-binding, toothless resolution is purely symoblic and you can be sure the signers of the letter know that and also know that "The war in Iraq is the most pressing issue of our time" will be picked up everywhere and give them the cover of appearing to have actually addressed ending the illegal war and bringing US troops home -- the message voters sent in the November elections.

They are also, no doubt aware, that next week the other half of Congress, the House of Representatives is set to address the war quite a bit more seriously than anything the Senate has done all month. Jeff Zeleny (New York Times) reports that, next week, the House is expected to devote at least "three days of debate" to the Iraq war; that "[s]eventy-one Democratic representatives signed a statement urging Congress to take a strong stance against the war, including setting a six-month timetable for withdrawing American forces from Iraq" and he quotes Rep Dennis Kucinich (also 2008 presidential candidate) stating of the Senate's measure: "The nonbinding resolution is like putting your foot on the brake for a moment and a few weeks later, putting your foot on the accelator. . . . Congress has a chance to do something real on the war. A nonbinding resolution just doesn't cut it."

As Anthony Arnove (ISR) observes: "All of the reasons being offered for why the United States cannot withdraw troops from Iraq are false. The reality is, the troops are staying in Iraq for much different reasons than the ones being touted by political elites and a still subservient establishment press. They are staying to save face for a U.S. political elite that cares nothing for the lives of Iraqis or U.S. soldiers; to pursue the futile goal of turning Iraq into a reliable client state strategically located near the major energy resources and shipping routes of the Middle East, home to two-thirds of world oil reserves, and Western and Central Asia; to serve as a base for the projection of U.S. military power in the region, particularly in the growing conflict between the United States and Iran; and to maintain the legitimacy of U.S. imperialism, which needs the pretext of a global war on terror to justify further military intervention, expanded military budgets, concentration of executive power, and restrictions on civil liberties. The U.S. military did not invade and occupy Iraq to spread democracy, check the spread of weapons of mass destruction, rebuild the country, or stop civil war. In fact, the troops remain in Iraq today to deny self-determination and genuine democracy to the Iraqi people, who have made it abundantly clear, whether they are Shiite or Sunni, that they want U.S. troops to leave Iraq immediately; feel less safe as a result of the occupation; think the occupation is spurring not suppressing sectarian strife; and support armed attacks on occupying troops and Iraqi security forces, who are seen not as independent but as collaborating with the occupation.


ehren watada
aaron glantz
kpfa
the morning show
the kpfa evening news
sandra lupien
anthony arnove
corey moss
the new york times

Other Items

With two more helicopter crashes near Baghdad, including a Marine transport crash on Wednesday that killed seven people, the number of helicopters that have gone down in Iraq over the past three weeks rose to six. American officials say the streak strongly suggests that insurgents have adapted their tactics and are now putting more effort into shooting down the aircraft.
The number also includes a previously unreported downing of a helicopter operated by a private security firm on Jan. 31.
Some aspects of the recent crashes indicate that insurgents have become smarter about anticipating American flight patterns and finding ways to use old weapons to down helicopters, according to military and witness reports. The aircraft, many of which are equipped with sophisticated antimissile technology, still can be vulnerable to more conventional weapons fired from the ground.

That's Richard A. Oppel and James Glanz' "Copter Crashes Suggest Shift in Iraqi Tactics" in this morning's New York Times but it could be filed under nonsense. The only reason the military is showing concern is because the press won't let it go (and shouldn't). It's amazing that witness accounts are treated as suspect and that all Oppel and Glanz can find is officials handed to them. The paper is all about the unnamed source except on something that the military heads (and the administration) are embarrassed about -- and they should be embarrassed and ashamed. They have ignored this problem, they have denied it and it wasn't until January that they were forced to admit to it. Speaking to any number of US troops serving would have told both reporters how serious the problem was, how the helicopters land in the same locations unless it's a response to a back up call (which means their patterns are known by resistance fighters who can wait for their expected landing).

The report is nonsense but I'm sure the administration is happy. I know at least three serving in Iraq aren't happy (I'm sure more but I've only heard from three this morning). That maybe the paper's goal (it often plays like that is their goal) but that's not reporting.

Martha notes Renae Merle's "5 Indicted in Probe of Iraq Deals" (Washington Post):

Three Army Reserve officers and two civilians were indicted yesterday on federal charges of participating in a wide-ranging bribery and contract-rigging scheme involving millions in Iraq reconstruction funds.
The 25-count indictment handed up by a Trenton, N.J., grand jury expands a probe that has resulted in three guilty pleas. Those indicted yesterday were accused of participating in a scheme to funnel $8.6 million in reconstruction contracts to an American businessman in exchange for cars, $3,200 Breitling watches, plane tickets, $3,000 Toshiba laptop computers, weapons and stolen money. Named in the indictments were Col. Curtis G. Whiteford; Lt. Col. Debra M. Harrison and her husband, William Driver; Lt. Col. Michael B. Wheeler; and Michael Morris.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

the new york times
the washington post