Thursday, June 03, 2010

I Hate The War

Straight people do not automatically hate gay people. Some gay people do not automatically have self-loathing or shame for who they are attracted to.

Those things are taught.

Hatred is taught. And hatred is taught to garner support for a war, to stigmatize and blame some segment of society and often just to distract from the theft of public resources by big business.

And on some level, society's knows, collectively, that hatred is taught. For example, you read and hear reports and 'reports' that the oldest members of our society are more likely to oppose equality for LGBT members. And this is treated often as the youth (and younger) being more open minded.

That's a lie.

It's a lie that lets powerful institutions off the hook.

People in their seventies today, for example, did not wake up one day and ask, "Who can I hate today?" Nor is it something as simple as their parents taught them to hate. Their parents may have helped the hate along because they were also victims of powerful institutions. But they didn't instill it by themselves.

The press, the medical profession, go down the list. If you were an adult in 1920 and were considered "well educated" by that time period, there's a good chance -- whether you were gay or not -- you were educated to believe there was something criminally and socially wrong with anyone who was gay. You were educated by the press coverage of the day, you were educated by the mental health community, by law and enforcement and the courts and from there you can drop down to lower levels.

The quacks today who claim they can "cure" someone of being gay have always been with us. Today they make a fortune on this claim in Los Angeles with various under 35 y.o. male actors and their 'cure' for the last ten years is nothing more than prescribing viagra to these young men, I'm not joking. In the seventies, there were many such quacks including one couple who was held up by the New York Times as worthy of admiration. They 'cured' Anthony Perkins. Who somehow died of AIDS despite being 'cured' and 'cured' in the 1970s. They cured a lot of people. They cured one man who recently passed away and the lack of saturation coverage on his passing had to do with the fact that most people were pretty embarrassed that this man -- who repeatedly tried to film The Front Runner (but always chickened out for fear of being seen as gay) -- went to his grave still pretending. (That's also why they've done nothing to build up the widow in the lavender marriage as the 'grieving widow.' Show biz reporters just aren't willing to work up fairy tales the way they used to.)

But today the 'cured' throughout the country are usually people who think they have to stay in the closet for their careers. And that huge, HUGE, change is not due to "youth," it's do the historical progression that has taken place. In the twenties or thirties, you would have wanted to be "cured" so you weren't criminal or a "pervert" or any of the many things that being gay supposedly meant. These things were lies, they weren't accurate. But don't mistake them for old wives' tales. Meaning, don't assume some know nothings repeated them and repeated them again and again until they took hold. The best in society was promoting these lies and doing so as "experts" and as "knowledgeable."

One of the biggest factors in someone being pro-LGBT rights has been whether or not they know someone who is gay. I think that's moving to the past now and would guess that in 15 years that wouldn't be the criteria.

That's not to take anything away from the power of face-to-face but that is to note that people who came out in the sixties and seventies and eighties and nineties and even today often were the human face on the issue -- which the narrative usually notes -- and they were the rejection not of gossip and rumor from the uneducated but of the message put out by the media, the medical community, the courts etc. That part, that second part is usually ignored in the telling of the story. As though the whole country was controlled by an army of Gladys Kravitz, spreading rumors they made up or misheard throughout the neighborhood.

The hatred wasn't accidental. The hatred was intentional and the most powerful parts of the system taught it. And maintained it was fact.

The system largely has moved past that and that's why knowing someone shouldn't be the primary indicator in the future. (Though I could be wrong -- often am -- and it may continue to be the chief factor for determining whether or not someone is pro-LGBT rights.)

Where am I going with this?

The plan was that tonight's entry would be about a piece at a paper's website where hopefully the title was not written by a soldier but whomever wrote it needs to be called out. I'll try to work into Friday's snapshot instead because there's so much e-mail about today's snapshot.

First off, Robert Byrd lovers, I am not one of you. I'm aware that many gas bags on the left worked overtime to paint Robert Byrd as the second coming of MLK. He is far from that. This site has never sang his praises for obvious reasons. If you're not who you appear and I know that, we don't waste time singing your praises. That's why we never got caught up in the Keith Olbermann love-fest.

Some visitors feel that Byrd's being held to a different standard because others are homophobic too.

There are members of Congress who are homophobic and if they say something stupid in a hearing I attend, they may get called out for it here. If they say something homophobic, they will be called out for it.

I like Ike Skelton who chairs the House Armed Services Committee. I've known him for years and I like him. He's opposed to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I'm not ripping him apart for his opinion and I hope (as do many) he changes his mind.

But Ike or anyone else in Congress doesn't have Byrd's history. Byrd's refusal to lead on this issue is appalling. It's part of why I don't trust him and never have. He was a KKK member. That's years ago, people want to whine. And I'm sure that someone his age could have been a member of the KKK and could have later learned how horrible their support for and membership in that organization was. I believe that. We can learn, the human species has the capability to learn from mistakes.

But here's the thing with Byrd, he wants to be forgiven (and more than that, he wants it forgotten) that he once very publicly was against equality. We're all supposed to believe he learned a lesson in that. I see no evidence of a lesson. The man's got a foot in the grave, I'm not going to pretty it up. His time is greatly limited on this earth. And he's wants to be seen as someone who would now support equality though he didn't in real time. But now he would. He insists. Then why wasn't he leading on Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

I'm sorry, I don't think you're that close to death and you work against equality if you truly want to put your past behind you.

Some will argue that LGBT rights aren't the same as Civil Rights for African-Americans. And I would normally argue with you on that. But this time I'll agree: They aren't the same. Basic rights, Civil Rights, were put into legislation for African-Americans. By that I mean, it's easy for a racist who used to wear a sheet and maybe participated in some lynchings to say today, "Oh, if I had to do it over I wouldn't be in the KKK and I'd support this and that." It's easy to do that because the Civil Rights legislation applied to African-Americans has been passed. Point, it's just empty words from Byrd. If he wanted to back those words up, you better believe he'd be leading on every equality issue. And he's not, and he doesn't, and there's a reason for that.

Now some will say -- and a few visitors have already e-mailed to say -- he's so old and for his time and blah, blah, blah. Here's the thing, if he was your crazy over-90 y.o. relative that you could apologize on behalf of after a family dinner, fine. But he's not. He's a US Senator. He's determing policy. And, again, wants everyone to believe that he now supports equality. But his actions have never shown that. His actions have only demonstrated that after any battle is fought and won, he'll go over to the winning side. That's not leadership and it does nothing to make up for KKK membership. He's the one who says he's changed, he's the one who says he's learned. Therefore it is on him to demonstrate and he never has.

I do not assume that everyone against repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a homophobe. I do assume some are damaged from the years of lies that the media, the medical community, the courts, et al put out as facts. And I assume some are opposed just because it's a change and we're often reluctant to change. We like what's familiar, we like what's known. But when you've got KKK membership on your CV and you've supposedly moved beyond it and learned from it, it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate that.


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 4400. Tonight? 4402.

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




Posted by at

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, June 3, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces multiple deaths, violence claims at least 4 Iraqi lives today and leaves at least 39 injured, the PKK calls off its ceasefire, and more.
 
The Defense Dept announced late yesterday, "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pfc. Alvaro R. Regalado Sessarego, 37, of Virginia Beach, Va., died May 30 at Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, of injuries sustained April 18 from a non-combat related incident at Dahuk, Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas. For more information, media may contact the Fort Bliss public affairs office at 915-568-4505." WAVY (link has text and video) adds:

"It was his goal to give back to this country that was doing so much for him," said mother-in-law Jackie Dayton. "He saw it as way to take care of his family."
He was not yet an American citizen when he enlisted in the Army at the age of 36.
"I never thought he would get into the Army at such a late age," Dayton said. "I never did, but his intellect spoke volumes for him."

Bill Sizemore (Virginian-Pilot) reports he took his oath of citizenship one month prior to his deployment to Iraq and that his survivors include Teresa Dayton-Regalado, "a 13-year-old daughter who lives in Peru" and "three stepsons in Virginia Beach: Andrew Dayton, 19, Derrick Dayton, 17, and Richard Dayton, 13."  In addition, the US military issued the following today: "BAGHDAD -- A U.S. Soldier died here Wednesday from injuries sustained in a non-combat related accident. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/.  The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation."

Meanwhile AP reports that 1 US soldier died yesterday in Baghdad ("noncombat related incident") according to USF. Those deaths will bring the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4402. And the number may be 4403. Tim Stanley (Tulsa World) reports on the death of Spc Mark Andre Harding: ". . . on Friday, he died at St. Francis Hospital in Tulsa of complications from a cranial injury. His death has not yet been officially declared service-related, although he had been treated for a traumatic brain injury while in the service, according to a Veterans Affairs spokesman.  Harding was 21." Were there not any deaths announced today the next paragraph would have been the opening because it's an important issue.
 
"When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men, and a discharge for loving one."  So reads the tombstone of Leonard Matlovich, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Air Force.  After 12 years of outstanding service, Matlovich wrote a letter to his commanding officer explaining he was gay.  This was March 6, 1975 and he was then subjected to a week long hearing (starting September 16, 1975) at Langley Air Force Base.  Nearly 22 year before Ellen DeGeneres declared "Yep, I'm Gay" on the cover of Time magazine (April 14, 1997), Matlovich appeared on the cover of Time magazine (September 8, 1975) announcing "I Am a Homosexual." ( where he was released from the military.  Matlovich fought back for years, eventually taking a settlement (including an honorable discharge and $160,000 in back pay).  (Martin Duberman covered the hearing for the New York Times Sunday magazine in "The Case Of The Gay Sergeant; Leonard Matlovich's strange trial betrayed a profound shift in American attitudes -- and not only toward sexuality" with an indepth look at the witnesses and events -- including Matlovich being asked to sign a statement swearing he would never practice same-sex relations and you can click here for Time magazine's much more brief September 1975 report on the hearing.)  35 years after Matlovich began his fight for equality within the military, the battle continues.
 
KPFT's Queer Voices (out of Houston -- and Mike covers it at his site) is among the programs that features This Way Out's weekly newswrap and we'll note this from the latest:
 
A critical US Senate Committee and the full House of Representatives each took steps this week to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in America's military. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16 to 12 to approve a repeal admendment to the annual national defense authorization act earlier in the day on May 27 and the House voted 234 to 194 later that night comfortably above the required 217 to add the amendment to similar legislation.  Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican on the Senate panel to vote for the amendment while Senator Jim Webb of Virginia was the only Democrat to vote against it.  Five Republicans in the House, breaking with their party's stated opposition, supported repeal. [. . .]  The drama is far from over; however, some Republicans have vowed to filibuster on the entire defense spending bill if it includes the repeal provision when it comes up on the Senate floor in June and the White House issued a statement deploring some of the specific appropriations for military hardware in the House passed bill generally pushed by Congress members whose districts financially benefit from them. The statement warned that the Pentagon has indicated that it doesn't need nor want some of those military products and the president might veto the entire measure if those appropriations remain.  Meanwhile Defense Secretary [Robert] Gates confirmed in a video message to the troops that the ban remains enforced  and Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the pro-repeal Servicemembers Legal Defense Network cautioned that, "It is important for all lesbian and gay active duty service members including the reserves and the National Guard to know they are still at risk. They must continue to serve in silence under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law that remains on the books."  While most LGBT advocacy groups applauded the progress made on repeal this week, not everyone was celebrating.  Kip Williams, co-chair of the new grassroots queer rights group GetEQUAL was among the non-celebrants: "The sad fact remains that this vote in Congress won't stop the firings of lesbian and gay service members," he said in a media statement.  "We keep asking the question 'When will the military discharges end?' -- and have not yet received an answer from the legislative and executive branches.  It is the president's moral responsibility to issue an executive order banning the firings under Don't Ask, Don't Tell until the process can play itself out.  LGBT Americans, especially those serving our country admirably in uniform, need their 'fierce advocate' now."  Lt Dan Choi and Capt Jim Pietrangelo -- each twice arrested for handcuffing themselves to the White House gates to protest Don't Ask Don't Tell -- announced that they've begun a hunger strike because the actions this week don't end the anti-les-bi-gay policy fast enough.  Choi, a West Point graduate, fluent Arabic linguist and Iraq War veteran outlined their three demands to Newsweek magazine. "Stop firing people," he said. "Stop the study that insults everything America is by considering the question of whether or not discrimination is America.  And replace the current military discriminatory policy with comprehensive non-discrimination policies."
 
Monday, Marcia noted, "Again, I support Dan Choi. I like him. He's a real leader. But I wish he wasn't on the hunger strike. I just don't see this ending well. I hope I am wrong."  This community supported the hunger strike staged by CODEPINK in the summer of 2006.  But some of us took it seriously.  Others, who swore they'd stay on it until the Iraq War was over didn't.  (I am not referring to Diane Wilson or Cindy Sheehan who took the hunger strike very seriously.)  Hunger strikes have a long political history but when that one ended, Ava and I made it clear that we would never endorse a hunger strike again and that we were surprised and caught off guard by that one.  (The US has enough eating disorders without further equating strength with starvation through political action.)  We're noting Dan's hunger strike now.  What does that mean?
 
Jessic Green (Pink News) reports it has thankfully ended and that he and James Pietrangelo "abandoned the protest yesterday evening after supporters voiced fears for their health. Unfortunately, Dan has "hinted" it may come up again.  It is a political action but we won't support it.  I'm sorry I've spoken to too many groups over the years about body issues and eating disorders.  It used to just be young girls and young women.  Then it became more and more boys and young men.  Some of the males -- not all - are gay.  I just cannot personally support a hunger strike again.  We'll continue to note Dan, he's a wonderful leader but this is a longterm issue (eating disorders) that many people struggle with and I am very uncomfortable sending any sort of message that we show strength or garner attention by starving ourselves.  That's me.  Others can do what they want, especially if they're adults.  (But I am very glad Dan and Jim are off their hunger strike and think it would be great if they would stay off but they're going to do what they think is best and more power to them on that.)  And to be very clear (because as usual Lez Get Real is yet again attacking Dan -- we're not linking to that site ever again), I am sure the strike was powerful and sparked many thoughts, I just personally do not support hunger strikes (for reasons outlined above). Overturning Don't Ask, Don't Tell will require a variety of actions and each person should pursue the ones they can tolerate (go beyond comfort zone).  Rev. Irene Monroe has long covered issues of equality and she breaks down the basics on where things really stand for San Fransico Bay Times:
 
But at the end of the day of all this historic voting, last week, the plight of our LGBTQ service members remained unchanged. 
Investigations and discharges for being an openly LGBTQ service member will continue on as usual. Why? Because the Pentagon has not completed its study, reviewing how to maintain the military's "unit cohesion" while integrating LGBTQ service members.   
December 1 is the day the country will know the results of the Pentagon study. We will also know if the welcoming mat will truly begin to unfold for our LGBTQ service members.

 
That's the reality.  For fantasy, see this ridiculous editorial in the Vacaville Reporter. Nothing is "virtually assure[d]."  Nothing except a year long study will take place.  A study?  Has anyone ever done a study?  You start out with one set of beliefs, that doesn't mean you end with them.  The study is supposed to find out what the military rank and file feel about the issue and about how to best implement a change.  The study could very well argue that the best way to implement a change has yet to arrive and that the policy (discrimination) should continue. USA Today offers a much more reality-based editorial here.  Sean Kennedy (New York Magazine) notes that the bill doesn't include an anti-discrimination measure (would it be covered by Bill Clinton's executive order -- possibly unless a future president issues an executive order nullifying Clinton's). Today Ryan Grim (Huffington Post) outlines some of the craven deal making that led to the nothing yet to brag about moves by Dems and informs that one-time KKK cover boy Senator Robert Byrd insisted that there be sixty days after the review is released before any repeal can take place.  So in other words, you can attempt to legally buy a gun and submit to a background check quicker than Byrd would have people come out.  You can get your hands on a gun quicker than you can be open about who you are?  Some old men in the Congress really need to retire and Robert Byrd is one of them.  In fact, maybe we need to pass amendments wherein death in office might result in state's seeking compensation from the Congress member's estate for the costs of special elections?
 
Adm Mike Mullen is the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and he spoke at Fort Bragg yesterday.  Martha Quillin (Raleigh News & Observer via Miami Herald) reports, "Openly gay recruits will likely be admitted into the military, and the services will adjust to their presence, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a group of soldiers at Fort Bragg on Wednesday." The military's Sgt 1st Class Michael J. Carden quotes Mullen stating, "The law needs to change. Fundamentally, it's an issue of our values. It's very critical for us as an institution, and I'm hard-pressed not to support policy and a law that forces individuals to come in and lie everyday."  At Iraq Veterans Against the War, Wes Davey offers a look back at the policy and he's incorrect when he writes of Bill Clinton, "Members of Congress from both sides of the political aisle did everything but pour boiling oil over him, and in the end he settled for a compromise that did absolutely nothing for gays and lesbians serving in the military."  If it did nothing, Bill's actions wouldn't have outraged anyone.  The "Don't Ask" aspect was never seriously implemented (and court cases should have resulted from that) by the military.  But to say it did nothing is to rewrite history.  George H.W. Bush was against gays serving in the military and so was Ronald Reagan (decorating his house and dining with him or comforting them over the loss of longterm partner were apparently different for Reagan) and you can go back further on that.  But the policy was that the witch hunts were taking place.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell revolved around the premise that your sexuality was your business. 
 
Today we can rightly see it didn't go far enough (something Bill himself admitted and listed as a regret in his final presidential interview with Rolling Stone).  But with the climate at that time, this was a huge step.  It went from "You're sick and disgusting!" to "You have no right to stick your nose into my sexuality."  When the policy is repealed (which may or may not be in December), it'll be a futher step forward.  But it's wrong to say that it did nothing ("absolutely nothing").  It also helped establish new boundaries (ones of respect) for a national dialogue that's been taking place since 1993 on this issue.  Bill took a hit on it, he didn't walk away from it.  He pushed it as far as he could at that time.  I personally wish he would have brought back it up but I'm also aware that gas bags like Michael Tomasky were already sharpening their knives on gay rights and that the balance in Congress was shifting away from Democrats (whom Wes Davey rightly notes did not all agree that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly). And to clarify, Michael Tomasky (and Toad Gitlin and other left, White, male, presumably straight gas bags) led an attack on LGBT rights (and on feminism and Latinos and all subgroupings except African-Americans -- they were too scared to attack the Civil Rights Movement but not to say it's work was "done") following the Don't Ask, Don't Tell passage.  That's not noted in any of the histories.  These screaming mimis hissing "identity politics" and attacking those attempting to work towards equality had quite the platform and very few people confronted them directly (Ellen Willis, as always, didn't run scared from the crazies and did reject their nonsense).  History is the tale of progression.  Before 1993 (immediately before), the military's policy was that any gay male or lesbian wasn't fit to serve.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a step away from that. And the attacks on this step did not come solely from the right-wing, centrists and supposed leftists attacked the policy as going too far, as distracting from 'real issues' and much more.  That's the real history and it goes beyond what Congress did and what Bill did and what a few others did.  This was a national dialogue and there were many, many players.  (And the Tomaskys big fears were that the Democratic Party -- by embracing equality -- was running off White male voters and would never win an election that way.)
 
How does this relate to Iraq?  Well the LGBT community is persecuted.  You have LGBTs in the US military and they are Iraq War veterans.  So you can justify it that way if you need a reason for why it's in the Iraq snapshot and in it at such length.  But this is a really important issue (and I'm glad Wes Davey and IVAW weighed in -- I've only picked apart one sentence of Davey's and that just because I do not care for the revisionary history that's set in on that time period and is now being taught to other people -- such as Davey -- as fact) and there are a lot of people (including Tomasky) who are starting to whisper that Democrats need to move away from it now as election season creeps up on the country.  So we'll probably go into this issue in this much length many more times this year. 
 
Moving on to . . . Turkey.  KRG President Masoud Barzani is in Turkey on a five-day visit, his first since 2004 and his first since becoming president of the KRG which notes, "President Barzani, who is heading a senior KRG delegation in this visit, will discuss with the Turkish leadership several issues of mutual concern including bilateral trade relations between Turkey and the Kurdistan Region, border security and Iraq-Turkey relations." AFP adds, "The separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which has fought Ankara since 1984, has bases in remote mountains in Barzani's autonomous region in northern Iraq, which it uses as a launching pad for attacks on Turkish targets across the border." AP reports that Barzani met today with Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey's Foreign Minister, and the PKK was one of the topics the two discussed. Today's Zaman adds:

"Turkey wants all regional relations and the historical course in its region to normalize," Davutoglu told a joint press conference with Massoud Barzani, head of the regional administration in the north of Iraq, in Ankara.
Davutoğlu said, "of course, we will respect our borders, and implement all factors that are the requirements of international law, but we will know that we can build our common future with all the sister nations."

 
Meanwhile a not unexpected announcement was made today. Shamal Arqawi (Reuters) reports that the cease fire the PKK had with Turkey is now off according to "PKK spokesman Ahmed Danees [. . .] in Kurdistan."  Not unexpected?  Over the weekend PKK leader (one of them) Abdullah Ocalan, in prison in Turkey since 1999, stated he was no longer engaging in any dialoge with the government of Turkey.  That announcement laid the groundwork for the PKK in the KRG's announcement today.
 
March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections.  The winner was Iraqiya with 91 seats in the new Parliament, followed by State Of Law with 89. To rule, the a power-sharing coalition -- there are 325 seats in Parliament -- must be built and must number at least 163 MPs.  Nouri al-Maliki heads State Of Law and wants to continue as Prime Minister of Iraq.  He has formed an alliance with the Iraqi National Alliance (which puts him 4 seats short of the needed 163).  Alsumaria TV reports that there are rumors -- which State Of Law is denying -- "that talks between State of Law and Iraqi National Alliance have failed."  The current discussion have been over how to select candidates for prime minister.  While the Iraqi National Alliance does not say they have split, they do say that "negotiations are not progressing."  The United Nations notes, "The Security Council today welcomed the certification of the results of Iraq's parliamentary elections, three months after the polls were staged, and urged the country's political leaders to re-double their efforts to form an inclusive and broad-based government.The 15-member panel calls on 'all political entities to respect the certified election results and the choices of the Iraqi people,' according to a statement to the press read out by Ambassador Claude Heller of Mexico, which holds the Council's rotating presidency this month."  The US military issued the following yesterday:
 
The Commander of U.S. Forces-Iraq, General Ray Odierno, congratulated the people of Iraq and the Iraqi Supreme Court after the high court announced the certification of the March 7th election results.       
When Iraqis voted in large numbers at the polls on March 7th, they demonstrated their desire to build a brighter future with a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq.  The elections were viewed by the Iraqi people, Iraq's regional neighbors, and the international community as credible and legitimate, and today's certification of the results formally affirms this fact.   The leaders of Iraq continue to demonstrate that they support a transparent political process for all Iraqis carried out in accordance with the Iraqi constitution and the rule of law.  The Iraqi people strongly support a participatory form of government that holds elected officials accountable for their actions and benefits all Iraqis.  They reject the bankrupt philosophy of violent extremists.               
It is time for all parties involved with the political process to form an inclusive and representative government that will work together toward Iraq's future.            
We look forward to the seating of the Iraqi government and the opportunity to strengthen the long-term strategic partnership between the sovereign nation of Iraq and the United States of America.
 
 
Voting has not resulted in a new government and Nouri's cabinet really didn't do anything to improve Iraqi lives.  An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy notes that the ration program has again been cut: "The Iraqi ministry of trade decreased the number of food substances provides by the card. Now, Iraqi families are given only flour and oil because for many months, the ministry which is renowned for corruption failed in providing the other basic needs like sugar, rice and many other things. In fact, the ministry canceled all other staples formerly included in the monthly rations like tea, cleaning substances, legumes and other things. Moreover, the ministry decided to deprive those whose monthly income is more than two million Iraqi Dinars ( about $ 1700) from their share of the rations because their high income."
 
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Reuters notes a Sinjar car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left twelve people injured in an area "mostly inhabited by Yazidis," a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured four police officers, a Mosul cart bombing which injured three people, a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one police officer, a Baghdad bombing (targeting a train) which injured fourteen people, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured four people (and apparently targeting "a deputy agriculture minister") and a Baghdad sticky bombing which injured one person.
 
Corpses?
 
Reuters notes 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul.
 
Meanwhile in England, Owen Bowcott (Guardian) reports on what would be England's second known deportation of Iraqis -- forcible deportation.  The last one, you may remember, resulted in a British plane landing in Iraq and Iraqi guards refusing to allow everyone to disembark so the plane returned to England. Bowcott notes that approximately 70 Iraqis will be forcibly deported Wednesday, June 9th: "The operation, deporting them via the central provinces of Iraq, is in direct contravention of United Nations guidelines. The UN high commissioner for refugees opposes forced returns to the area because of continuing suicide bombings and violence. The UN guidance was explicitly restated last autumn after the UK attempted to deport 44 men to Baghdad. That abortive operation resulted in Iraqi airport officials refusing to admit all but 10 of the men. The rest were told to reboard the plane and flown back to the UK."
 
We'll close with this from Tina Susman and Nicole Santa Cruz' "New Orleans: Protesters Rage at BP" (World Can't Wait):

Despite pelting rain and occasional blasts of thunder, some 200 people gathered in New Orleans' French Quarter on Sunday to hear speakers demand the ouster of BP and other oil giants from the gulf region and to plead for volunteerism to save turtles, birds and other wildlife.                
Organized by locals in the last week, the rally was publicized through social networking sites, including Twitter and a Facebook group, BP Oil Flood Protest. Homemade signs waved by the boisterous crowd spoke to the anger: [. . .] "BP oil pigs" and "Kill the well now." And one sign, "BP sleeps with MMS" spoke to what President Obama has called a "cozy" relationship between oil companies and federal regulators at the Minerals Management Service.                            
Many speakers, including the president of the United Commercial Fishermen's Assn. and an environmental studies professor from Loyola University in New Orleans, assailed what they saw as the inadequacy of BP's response to the spill. More people took the stage after showing up and asking to have their say.           
"I'm a little upset that the perpetrators of a crime that killed 11 people are still in charge of the crime site," said musician Dr. John, an impromptu speaker, referring to the crew members who died after an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig April 20.
 

Posted by at

Barzani's Turkish visit, refugees and more

KRG President Masoud Barzani is in Turkey on a five-day visit, his first since 2004 and his first since becoming president of the KRG which notes, "President Barzani, who is heading a senior KRG delegation in this visit, will discuss with the Turkish leadership several issues of mutual concern including bilateral trade relations between Turkey and the Kurdistan Region, border security and Iraq-Turkey relations." AFP adds, "The separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which has fought Ankara since 1984, has bases in remote mountains in Barzani's autonomous region in northern Iraq, which it uses as a launching pad for attacks on Turkish targets across the border." AP reports that Barzani met today with Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey's Foreign Minister, and the PKK was one of the topics the two discussed. Today's Zaman adds:

"Turkey wants all regional relations and the historical course in its region to normalize," Davutoglu told a joint press conference with Massoud Barzani, head of the regional administration in the north of Iraq, in Ankara.
Davutoğlu said, "of course, we will respect our borders, and implement all factors that are the requirements of international law, but we will know that we can build our common future with all the sister nations."

Alistair Lyon (Reuters) reports from Syria where 165,000 Iraqi refugees have registered with the UN -- most do not register. Nahla is a refugee who did register and she left Iraq after her 12-year-old son was murdered:

In a black robe, with a green headscarf framing her soft, pale face, she wipes away tears as she pulls legal documents, newspaper clippings and medical reports from a faded folder, along with family photos of Usama -- and one of his body.
Animals had gnawed his face, so his parents only recognized him by his clothes and a scar on his chest. A post-mortem found the boy had been tortured, raped and mutilated by his captors.
There is also a photograph of Nahla's brother-in-law, who was killed later as the family pursued a case against the kidnappers, three of whom were caught and are now on death row.

Baha Mousa was an Iraqi working in a hotel when the British military arrested him on September 14, 2003 and September 16, 2003, while in British custody, he was dead having been beaten so badly by British troops he had over ninety-three injuries. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports on the ongoing inquiry into Baha's murder:

The minister responsible for the conduct of the armed forces today admitted that he misinformed MPs about the abuse of Iraqi detainees.
Adam Ingram, armed forces minister at the time Baha Mousa, a Basra hotel worker, died in the custody of British soldiers, blamed his officials and his own "failure to recollect" for misleading information given to parliament.

Adm Mike Mullen is the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and he spoke at Fort Bragg yesterday.
Martha Quillin (Raleigh News & Observer via Miami Herald) reports, "Openly gay recruits will likely be admitted into the military, and the services will adjust to their presence, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a group of soldiers at Fort Bragg on Wednesday." The military's Sgt 1st Class Michael J. Carden quotes Mullen stating, "The law needs to change. Fundamentally, it's an issue of our values. It's very critical for us as an institution, and I'm hard-pressed not to support policy and a law that forces individuals to come in and lie everyday."

We'll close with this from Sherwood Ross' "Opening Soviet Archives Providing New Insight Into Stalin's Mind" (Veterans Today):

Historians today are only coming to understand the complex and sophisticated individual that was Joseph Stalin, who ruled Russia for nearly thirty years until his death in 1953. Much of the information shedding light on the character of the dictator is being unearthed from the archives of the Soviet Union, opened in the 1990s after the collapse of Communism, and which is the source material for a series of some 25 books titled The Annals of Communism, published by Yale University Press. Now Jonathan Brent, former editorial director of the Press, has written a companion “Inside The Stalin Archives” to help get at what he terms is “a true understanding of one of the giant phenomena of the 20th century” that was Soviet Communism. Brent said in an interview with host Lawrence Velvel on the television show Books of our Time, produced by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, that understanding the archives is vital not only for political and educational reasons but for “the moral education of our children and of future generations.” Even during the height of the Cold War, Brent says, the West did not recognize “the true dimensions of the system that was being fought by the United States.” It was “a system that attempted to define everything in your life, from the toothbrush you used, to the wife you married, to the children you had, to the profession you had, and to your belief system in general.” Brent asserts that Soviet Communism “was successful to a greater extent than we understood, which is why today Russia is returning in many respects to that world that we thought collapsed in 1991.”
To begin with, people err who dismiss Stalin as some sort of paranoid madman. The man was not a criminal who personally beat, tortured, or shot people, even if he was responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings. He didn't, himself, torture people, not like Ivan the Terrible who threw people out the window, who killed his own son. He was a highly functional individual who was also a man of simple tastes and the father of three children “who did not believe that he was constrained by any moral law, because all moral laws were relative to him,” Brent says. Stalin would never criticize things on the basis that they were bad or approve them because they were good. “He would never use the word ‘kind,’” Brent says. “He would never use any of those words that are in our moral vocabulary. He had no moral vocabulary. If he wanted to denounce you, he would say you were an opportunist, or a deviationist. He wouldn’t denounce you on the grounds you’re a bad person because you broke a moral code.” Those denounced were accused of breaking a code of discipline of the Communist Party. In the world that he constructed, he was “utterly rationalistic,” Brent says. “You could say that Stalin was blind to pragmatic solutions to a problem, which would from time to time be brought to him, and the people who brought (the solutions) to him would normally be shot," the historian said. Where the U.S. today has many institutions that help disperse power by breaking it up into bits and pieces "that keeps us sane,” Soviet society concentrated its power all in one place, so that it was “monstrous and utterly horrendous---murderous."


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




























Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)