Sunday, November 29, 2009

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Rolling In It"

Rolling In It

Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "Rolling In It." Barack at the State Dinner declares, "With double-digit unemployment, with the unemployment rate increasing in 29 states, home foreclosures set to increase next year, some say I shouldn't be wallowing in tax payer wealth. I say a celebrity's got to do what a celebrity's got to do. And can the trash talk of She-Hulk. Do you know how much a tarp for her shoulders would've cost? Probably shouldn't say TARP." Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.







And the war drags on . . .

In a think piece of the Week In Review section of today's New York Times, Steven Lee Myers becomes the first reporter to point out that the benchmarks were never achieved. If you dispute that and e-mail, I'm just going to laugh at you. For over a year now we've stressed the benchmark issue here, the failure of it. And various e-mails from government officials and reporters and activists have come in claiming otherwise. The perception was that the benchmarks 'worked.' That was in part due to a lot of crap from a lot of asses including some on the tax payer payroll. The benchmarks were never achieved. Never. The only person other than Steven Lee Myers that can take any recent credit is US House Rep Lloyd Doggett. Dropping back to the September 16, 2008 snapshot:

Lloyd Doggett: I think there are probably a lot of Americans who are paying for this so-called reconstruction in Iraq that would be mighty glad if they could get $1.18 gasoline. Did you play a role in the analysis of the benchmarks that the Government Accountability Office provided last year?

Joseph Christoff: Yes, sir.

Lloyd Doggett: What was that role?

Joseph Christoff: I was the director in charge of that report.

Lloyd Doggett: And have you also played the same role in responding to questions about the benchmarks from [House Armed Services Committee] Chairman [Ike] Skelton this year with the report that you just did in the last few weeks?

Joseph Christoff: Yes, I was the director on the progress report as well.

Lloyd Dogget: All of us remember, except maybe President Bush, that in January of 2007, he selected the benchmarks, the guidelines by which to measure success, by which to measure victory in Iraq and when we sought an analysis so we would have an objective information instead of just the propaganda from the administration about whether those benchmarks had been met the Congress turned to the Government Accountability Office. And my recollection is that when you came out with your report on August the 30th of last year that you determined that . . . 11 of the 18 benchmarks that President Bush had set were not met. Is that correct?

Joseph Christoff: Based on that prior report correct.

Lloyd Doggett: Yes, sir. And you found that of the 18 benchmarks the president set himself to measure success in Iraq that only three had been met as of August 30, 2007. Now this year, a year later, you did some evaluation again. You did not evaluate every single benchmark but you really found that there had been very little progress in the year. We know that fortunately fewer Americans are being killed there. But in terms of the objective of the Bush policy in Iraq, you had a grand amount of success in that they met one more benchmark than they had the year before, isn't that correct?

Joseph Christoff: Well we didn't go through a benchmark by benchmark analysis but we did provide a report that talked about progess on the security front, the legislative front and the economic front in our June report.

Lloyd Doggett: Right and I believe you found one more benchmark met than the year before.

Joseph Christoff: Again we didn't do a benchmark by benchmark analysis, sir.

Lloyd Doggett: Well if you look at the -- it may not have been called a benchmark analysis -- but you looked at some of the same factors you had the year before. Just to begin to go through them, on the Constitutional Review Committee, you found that they'd formed the committee but the committee hadn't done anything. Right?

Joseph Christoff: And that's still true.

Lloyd Doggett: Well they hadn't met that. On enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification you found that they had enacted the legislation but they hadn't implemented and of it, right?

Joseph Christoff: That's correct.

Lloyd Doggett: Well they hadn't met the second benchmark. On the question of enacting the hydrocarbon or oil legislation, you concluded that they had not met that again this year, did you not?

Joseph Christoff: Correct, and no progess this year either.

Lloyd Doggett: On enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions -- that was the fourth benchmark President Bush had -- you found that that was only partially met. Again they passed a law to allow the provinces to act but it hadn't been implemented.

Joseph Christoff: Well on that one it will be implemented when provinces come together to form regions so that's an open --

Lloyd Doggett: Right, but we're not there yet.

Joseph Christoff: Well no provinces have voted to form regions other than the KRG originally.

Lloyd Doggett: On enacting and implementing legislation for an Independent High Electoral Commission you found only partially meeting it. Again, they passed a law but hadn't implemented it.

Joseph Christoff: The commission was established. The provincial election law -- the date was established for October 1 but the implementing laws have not been enacted.

Lloyd Doggett: Right. And they won't have the elections they've been promising us they'd have for a year in October.

Joseph Christoff: October 1, they will not meet that date.

Lloyd Doggett: On the enacting and implementing legislation for a strong militia disarmament program --

Joseph Christoff: That's not met.

Lloyd Doggett: That's not met. And I see my time's up but, Mr. Chairman, we can keep going down the objectives that President Bush set himself for success, for victory in Iraq, and you'll find that it continues to fail. That this policy has been a failure, American tax payers are having to fund the failure while the Iraqis pay a fraction of the price we pay for a gallon of gasoline. Thank you.


That was from the September 16, 2008 House Committee on the Budget hearing on Iraq's Budget Surplus and Christoff is with the Government Accountability Office. Doggett was exactly correct and there was Christoff trying to spin. Doggett didn't let him spin it. The benchmarks were a total failure. That was obvious in 2008 and it's only more obvious today. And you better grasp that if you're one of the self-deceivers who still don't. We stressed it here over and over not to score points in public opinion on the illegal war. (I don't think that's even possible at this point.) We stressed it here over and over because it matters and because it was a failure and because, pay attention, it is always going to be a military failure. The military is not equipped, is not trained to do these functions and should not be tasked with them. Is anyone able to? Myers seems to think so in his piece. I disgaree. You can't make democracy for another country. The people of that country can if that's the system they want. But the Iraqi people have not been in charge of their own country. Instead the US government installed exiles as 'leaders' and used the US military to prop these puppets up.

Why does it matter? It matters for many reasons that have to do with the continued war in Iraq; however, it also matters with Afghanistan. You're going to see a song and dance from Congress after Barack's announcement. It's going to go like this: Well, we're opposed, but we'll go along, if you include benchmarks.

Don't buy that s**t when they try to sell it. Congress did not pull the plug on the Iraq War despite the fact that the benchmarks were not met -- were NOT met. The Iraq War didn't just continue, it still continues. The benchmarks were meaningless and they will be meaningless for the Afghanistan War. A vote to continue the Afghanistan War -- despite any qualifiers -- is still a vote to continue the eight-year and counting war. And grasp that only one member of Congress was outraged by the benchmark failure enough to press on it in a committee hearing. Only one.


They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4365. Tonight? 4367. The count includes today's announcement: "BASRA -- A Multi-National Division -- South Soldier died Nov. 29 of non-combat related injuries. 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." Turning to some other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Today Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Saturday Baghdad bombing which left two people injured. Fang Yang (Xinhua) reports an al-Ghalbiyah roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Sahwa member and left two more injured last night and a Saif Sa'ad roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 person and injured another.

Shootings?

Today Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Wadhah Al Obeidi (local politician) was shot dead in Baghdad yesterday.

We're going to move the focus to England but first, new content at Third:

Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: Barack The Never Ending Liar
TV: What's the return policy?
TV: Good As He's Been To You
The Iraq War's British roots
Roundtable
The numbers and the outrage
Don't Steal This Look!
When Bully Met Poodle
Highlights

Tonight Andrew Grice (Independent of London -- and it's this morning in England now) reports:

Ministers fear the inquiry into the Iraq war will create a new public backlash that will harm the Labour Party's prospects at the general election.
Although Sir John Chilcot's investigation will not report until after the election, alarm bells are ringing in the Government that the evidence sessions, which began last week, will remind voters about the war and further undermine public trust in Labour.


Why did we wait on that? Because in Third's "Roundtable," Rebecca's telling you the same thing but she told it late Saturday night. I don't think Rebecca ever got the credit for reporting on Labour leadership's concern over Gordon Brow's low polling last spring, on their asking him to step down, on his refusal to do so, on his claim that he would bounce back in the polling, etc. She reported all of that before Brown went on his August holiday. She reported it when the British press wasn't even aware of it. She's known about the concern Grice is reporting on for two or three weeks now because her friend doing polling asked for her input on how to word the questions they'd poll with once the inquiry started public hearings (which began last Tuesday). On British Labour politics, before you read it in any papers, you usually hear about it from Rebecca. Except for two reporters in the US, I don't think Rebecca's ever gotten the credit she deserves and I want to note her work here tonight. (And, yes, Rebecca's one of my oldest friends. That's not why I'm noting it. I'm noting it because she's earned praise.)


Why is Labour having problems? In part because then-prime minister Tony Blair was told a war with Iraq would be illegal. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) explains, "nvasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein would be a serious breach of international law and the UN charter.
Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, issued the warning in an uncompromising letter in July 2002, eight months before the invasion. It was becoming clear in government circles that Blair had had secret meetings with George Bush at which the US president was pressing Britain hard to join him in a war to change the regime in Baghdad." John Bingham and Jon Swaine (Telegraph of London) add, "The existence of the letter, disclosed in a Sunday newspaper, emerged after a week in which the inquiry heard that Tony Blair and George Bush, the former US President, 'signed in blood' a deal to invade Iraq as early as April 2002. [. . .] Tony Blair is due to appear before the inquiry next year when the Goldsmith letter is expected to form a centrepiece of the questioning." Blair's policies were continued by the increasingly unpopular Gordon Brown. From Toby Helm and Rajeev Syal's "Gordon Brown urged to lift Iraq inquiry secrecy" (Guardian):

Gordon Brown is facing demands to change the rules of the Iraq inquiry this weekend amid fears that the most explosive documents explaining why Britain went to war will not be made public.
As the inquiry enters its second week, the prime minister is under pressure to make key evidence relating to secret government discussions public, including minutes showing how the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, changed his mind about the legality of the war.
The demands are made in a letter to Brown from the Liberal Democrat leader,
Nick Clegg, who insists that unless the lid is lifted on secrecy, the Chilcot inquiry will fail to satisfy the public's demands for honesty.
Last night the Mail on Sunday claimed Goldsmith wrote to Blair in July 2002, eight months before the war, telling him that deposing Saddam Hussein was a blatant breach of international law. The intention was to make Blair call off the invasion but he ignored the advice, the newspaper says, and banned Goldsmith from attending cabinet meetings. The letter has been handed to the inquiry and both men are expected to be questioned about it in the new year.


James Denselow (Guardian) puts the whole wars of this decade into perspective, "Both the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts highlighted how our foreign policy is driven by decision makers who hide their real intentions behind a bulletproof cloak of ethics and values. The reality was that both wars were interest-driven and largely about maintaining relations with the Americans in a post-9/11 world. The chimera of weapons of mass destruction was designed to 'play the UN system' to secure legitimacy. When this failed, the back-up plan was always the 'Saddam is evil' argument that justified our presence as designed to help the Iraqi people."

Myers article, noted at the top of the entry, also goes over the current situation re: Iraqi elections. Also on that topic, the Lousville Courie-Journal has an article worth reading.
Kat's "Kat's Korner: Joni Mitchell's unearthed treasure" went up this morning, Isaiah's latest goes up after this. Pru notes Sian Ruddick's "New revelations as Iraq war inquiry opens" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):

The official inquiry into the 2003 Iraq war began its public hearings on Tuesday of this week amid a storm over leaked documents that show the backroom deals George Bush and Tony Blair made in the run-up to the slaughter.
Many hoped that the inquiry would condemn Blair’s actions and declare the war illegal.
But its chairman, Sir John Chilcot, said the conclusions of the inquiry would be “definitive in one sense, yes, but not definitive in the sense of a court verdict of legal or illegal.
“It is much closer to high policy decisions: was this a wise decision, was it well-taken, was it founded on good advice and good information and analysis?”
The Sunday Telegraph newspaper published leaked documents this week that show that Blair tried to hide his true intentions over Iraq by informing only “very small numbers” of officials.
He tried to claim the goal was “disarmament, not regime change”.
But the documents reveal that “from March 2002 or May at the latest there was a significant possibility of a large-scale British operation”.
This limited inquiry will not stop future wars from happening or call leaders to account.
The inquiry must look at the deals made with the US in the months before the war.
It must expose the fabricated “intelligence”, including the 45-minute threat.
Only by declaring Tony Blair guilty of war crimes will it help to bring justice for those millions of Iraqis who have paid with their lives for a bloody, pointless war.
The following should be read alongside this article: »
Did British soldiers kill Iraqi civilians?
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:
Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by »
making a donation.
» comment on article » email article » printable version


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






mcclatchy newspapers

the guardian





the telegraph of london







Kat's Korner: Joni Mitchell's unearthed treasure

Kat: "Can you hear that?" Joni Mitchell asks on Armchitka, a new live album of a 1970 concert given by her, Phil Ochs and James Taylor for Greenpeace. What most will hear is how important sequencing and track selection is.

Amchitka
One of rock's true and unarguable classics is Joni's Blue and there are some who wrongly insist that with the title track, "A Case Of You," "River," "All I Want" and "My Old Man" on the album any other songs could be included for filler and the album would be just as powerful. While half an album of filler wouldn't have made Blue into Private Eyes or any other of Hall & Oates' substandard recordings, it wouldn't have made it Blue either. The inclusion of "The Hunter" would have turned Blue into a minor classic and that's if it had been the 11th track, forget if it it had been on the album instead of "All I Want" or "The Last Time I Saw Richard." The two tracks replaced "The Hunter" and "Urge For Going" at the last minute.


"The Hunter" is not a bad song, as Joni's live performance on the Armchitka album demonstrates; however, it is not up to the level of any of the ten tracks on Blue. She's singing of a stranger, a drifter presumably and a desirable one at that, a man she doesn't know who she lets sleep in a tool shed but not in the house.



"Well I don't know you, you're a stranger,

"I don't know you, I don't know where you been

"You can't come in here," said the keeper of the inn

"I don't want you in here," said the keeper of the inn.


It's not a bad song, in fact, it's the kind of song Leonard Cohen's been doing and redoing over and over for his entire career. The uptempo number could have fit easily on Ladies of the Canyon, but beginning with Blue, it's substandard Joni. Her leaps and artistic growth are so huge in 1971 and the years that follow that "The Hunter" never found a home on any of her albums. It's got a catchy beat but, for the standards she has been setting, that wasn't enough.


It works well on the live album which is two discs. The first is Phil Ochs and James Taylor performing their songs and the second disc is Joni performing her songs (plus Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man" and the early rock & roll standard "Bony Maroney") and sometimes joined by then-boyfriend James Taylor.


Joni's charming and riveting throughout. On "For Free," following the first chorus, she starts the second verse before declaring, "Sometimes this song gets kind of hard to sing. Let me just putter around here a moment." She does just that, finding her way back to the chords and resumes singing. The audience responds warmly to that and other developments which had me thinking about Joni live. I've seen her live many times and it's Joni's publicly stated belief that the concert halls got too big. I remember the Rolling Thunder tour and she was more or less warmly received from the moment she stepped out on stage. Rolling Thunder was Dylan's How Much Money Can I Squeeze Out and the sound quality was hideous (I covered six of tour's concerts in print publications back in the day, just FYI) but Joni, and all the performers, were warmly received.


Joni's publicly stated belief is that the smaller clubs were a better setting for her and that's surely true compared to the disaster that was the Amnesty benefit of the late 80s in Denver. Joni was pelted by the audience with water bottles and cups and assorted other items (I believe the term she used was -- rightly -- "s**t" to refer to all of it collectively.) It was shocking to see because (a) she was in fact turning in a fabulous set (and I wish she'd stuck with the arrangement of "Number One" she performed which was far funkier than what later ended up on Chalk Mark In A Rainstorm), (b) if this allegedly enlightened audience would treat Joni like that, what would they do to others?


It was a truly shocking moment and a telling one that confirmed that the just-do-something 'activism' of the 80s (Buy a ticket! Buy a CD! You've changed the world!) was as shallow as it's supposed beliefs and actions. I don't care if Joe Montgomery, that you never heard of, showed up on stage and his voice cracked on every note, an Amnesty International audience shouldn't be booing. But it wasn't an Amnesty audience. It wasn't a rock audience either. It was a 'hipster' audience, people who wanted to see Tracy Chapman, Bruce Springsteen and whomever else they considered the flavor of the month. Joni's the only one I remember get things thrown at her but I do remember several other acts being loudly jeered and heckled. I also remember middle-aged men (miles and aisles of them) wearing that annoying 80s 'cologne' of pheromones -- which always smelled like dried cum to me. And they were all decked out in their shades and pushed up jacket sleeves, an army of Don Johnsons, while the women were heavily tarted up, trying to paint over the years, with the whole thing reeking of the cocaine fad that had long since passed.


Whenever I read an interview with Joni and she's complaining about the stadium audiences, I always fall back to that concert. "Can you hear that?" Joni asks beginning "Carey" which she quickly merges into the Dylan classic of 'play a song for me' with Taylor joining her for the latter.

In her spoken remarks between songs, she's joking with the audience and laughing and the apparent difference between the decade apart benefits is that Greenpeace was not a hidden aspect. With the Amnesty tour, as noted in real time, it appeared the organization was using Tracy, Bruce, et al as Pied Pipers to lure in an audience and that audience wasn't necessarily concerned with human rights but they could afford the over-priced tickets (I got in on a press pass). By contrast, as Irving Stowe explains to the audience at the start of the 1970 concert (and track one of the first disc), "By coming here tonight, you are making possible a trip for life and for peace. You are supporting, you are supporting the first Greenpeace project: Sending a ship to Amchitka to try to stop the testing of hydrogen bombs there or anywhere."


Phil Ochs pleases the audience as well. Months before, in April of 1970, he'd bombed spectacularly at Carnegie Hall and on the quickly canceled tour that followed. This was when the protest singer Phil was squeezed into a too-tight gold lame suit and claiming to be a hybrid of Elvis Presley and Che Guevara. In all published accounts of Phil's career, that begins a downslide that continues through 1971. Of course those accounts (including Marc Eliot's Death of a Rebel) don't mention the Greenpeace concert. Here's Phil in October of 1970, supposedly after his career is over, and someone forgot to inform the audience.


"Oh, but he was doing his audience favorites!"


He did do his standards like "I Ain't Marching Anymore," "Changes," "The Bells," "Rhythms of Revolution" and "I'm Gonna Say It Now" as well as the folk classic "Joe Hill." But he also did the then-new songs "Chords Of Fame" and "No More Songs" (from 1970's studio album entitled Greatest Hits -- it wasn't a greatest hits, all the songs on the new album were new ones). "No More Songs" actually has recognition applause when Phil begins playing it. "This is a song about the dangers of show business," Phil mumbles right before he starts singing "Chords Of Fame." The song's well received and it's actually a bridge for singer-songwriters.


Phil began as a protest singer and remained that on much of his Elektra work. When he switched over to A&M, he began writing more personal and less topical songs. "Chords Of Fame" is about the price paid for fame -- presumably paid by Phil. Dismissed by many as a form of naval gazing in real time, the song was just the sort of approach singer-songwriters of the seventies would take. Some, like the Eagles, would do so with a special style. Others would fare far less well.


James Taylor was Joni's boy toy when the concert was thrown. As arm candy goes, he was the sort you might find in your grandmother's purse but nothing you'd search out on your own. In fact, the first time he registered with me was when he landed on the cover of Time and I thought, "It's Roger Chillingworth" -- a portent and that only became clearer in the passing years.


That was 1971 and he'd already had his minor hit with "Fire & Rain," a song containing all the stiff-non-rhythmic qualities that would characterize his later work as well as the poor intonation and nasal qualities. On the negative side, you won't find any of Taylor's big hits among the seven tracks on the live album; however, that's due to the fact that he'd yet to enter his Pat Boone period when he began dominating the charts with soulless covers of R&B classics such as "Handy Man," "Up On The Roof" and "How Sweet It Is (To Be Loved By You)." Instead he offers two tracks from his 1968 debut (which would become a best seller in 1971), three from his Sweet Baby James album (1970) and two tracks that would be featured on his 1971 album. His performance has a freshness that should delight Taylor fans who will no doubt overlook the insincerity that is as much a hallmark of any Taylor recording as is the thin, nasal vocals.


Introducing "Sweet Baby James," Taylor notes, "It's a lullaby, it's half for him [his nephew] and half for me." I include that because C.I. was including a mention of this new album in an "Iraq snapshot" at the start of the month and noting James Taylor's vanity. As she dictated the snapshot, I stopped her and said, "'Sweet Baby James' was written about his nephew." C.I. gave me a look but pulled the section on that track from the snapshot. I had Amchitka for about two weeks before I finally got around to listening to Taylor's tracks. At which point, I was mortified because, yes, Taylor's vanity is so immense that as a young man he was writing lullabies to himself. At the time C.I. had said the song was as much a lullaby to Taylor himself but that if I wasn't aware of that then most people wouldn't be and "it's not going to be worth all the e-mails that will come in disputing it." So for those, like myself, who were not familiar with JT's self-sung songs, I'll note that here.


As I said, I skipped Taylor's tracks for two weeks. The first week, I just listened to disc two, the Joni disc. The second week, I started listening to some of Phil Ochs' tracks as well after I ripped Amchitka onto my laptop via Windows Media Player. But the set belongs to Joni.


Her performance of "Cactus Tree," for example, is superior to the version included on Miles of Aisles (1974) or Song To A Seagull (1968). "The Gallery" live sounds as wonderful as it does on Clouds (1969). But it all sounds wonderful. So much so that when Joni asks that question ("Can you hear that?"), you want to scream back, "Yes!" The sound quality is amazing and Greenpeace deserves huge praise for that as well as for unearthing this largely forgotten concert. Most of all, they deserve huge credit for having the foresight to invite Joni Mitchell, one of the few acts of that period to achieve legend status and to have pursued art so relentlessly that she's one of our modern masters. "We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall," she sings in "My Old Man"; however, any serious music lover needs Amchitka in their collection. Greenpeace is selling the two-disc album for a limited time only, click here, and they are also offering it (in full and in individual tracks) for download.