Friday, February 10, 2012

Iraq snapshot

Friday, February 10, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, implications of Iraq are noted in a series by the New York Times, Nouri faces rumors of involvement with the US CIA, veterans suicides get some attention, banks profit off veterans, and more.
 
 
"Asking what the United States should do in Iraq today is an awful question," observes Brookings Institution's Kenneth Pollack.  He took part in the New York Times' "Room for Debate" feature yesterday.  We'll note four of the participants, two men, two women.  It's an interesting discussion and their views are highly similar because it's a range of center to right.  There are no leftists involved in the "room for debate."  We should probably underline that.  In what the New York Times bill as their "room for debate," room for actual debate does not include anyone from the left.
 
 
One of the most prominent right-wing voices on Iraq in the last two months has been the Hoover Institution's Kori Schake.  In her piece, she argues the White House made various mistakes and Iraq is now splintering, "This is not what Iraqis wanted, not what they voted for. The political culture of Iraq waas trending toward trust beyond sectarian lines, political leaders seeing electoral benefit in reaching across religious communities and emphasizing the achievements of governing." Also from the right is Cato Institute's Christopher Preble who offers, "A small group of 'true believers' who were instrumental in starting the war want to double down on that losing wager.  They assert that a large U.S. presence might forestall a possible civil war, and counteract Iran's rising influence.  In reality, they simply don't know if a U.S. presence would have this effect. But, as before, they are willing to risk the lives of U.S. troops, and the fortunes of U.S. taxpayers, to cover their high-stakes gamble."  The centerist (some would argue right-leaning) Pollack feels that there are methods the US still can utilize, "We still have some capacity to name and shame, although that requires Iraqi leaders who are not shameless.  We still have some things -- aid, weapons, diplomatic clout -- that the Iraqis want, although that will depend on our own willingness to place long-term interests ahead of political expediency and so provide them.  And we still have some ability to shape the region in which Iraq lives, although that requires an American leadership willing to take on the challenges of the Middle East and not flee to East Asia or some other easier part of the globe." 
 
The non-partisan Institute for the Study of War's Marisa Cochrane Sullivan argues, "United States policy today is focused on maintaining the status quo in Iraq, offering unqualified support for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in the name of stability.  But the status quo is inherently unstable.  Maliki, emboldened by this support, feels few contraints on his actions and has little incentive to compromise." He has steadily consolidated control over Iraq's security and intelligence institutions, and has effectively isolated and fragmented his political rivals.  Even in the current political crisis, Maliki has used questionable and even unconstitutional tactics to remove rivals without reducing American support. At the same time, the Maliki government has committed widespread human rights abuses in its crackdown on political dissent in Iraq. While the United States may feel Maliki offers the best chance for stability, his consolidation of power may make Iraq more unstable as Iraq's rival factions seek other means to check him -- either through politics or ultimately through force."   And we'll note Schake's simillar observations, "First, we must stop turning a blind eye to Prime Minister Maliki's creeping authoritarianism.  Maliki returned from his White House meeting declaring the end of the war and issued an arrest warrant for his vice president. The White House was silent, as it has been on Maliki's earlier unconstitutional arrogation of power and political machinations, such as arresting hundreds of Sunnis and striking candidates from electoral lists.  While it is probably too much to expect the Obama administration to vigorously contest what is occuring in Iraq's internal politics, we ought at least to bear witness."
 
It's a serious discussion which would have benefitted from some left voices and from some antiwar voices (left, right or center).  In fairness to the paper, there aren't a lot of honest discussions about the Iraq War on the left these days.  Apparently spines were removed by many to assist with easier ass kissing.  Cindy Sheehan (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox) notes the sad case of cat got your tongue plaguing a large number on the left:
 
I, and many others, were in favor of a large demo in DC that year [2008], as we always did, but one of the lead antiwar(Bush) organizations actually told us, since Democrats were in the majority in the House and they were continuing to fund Bush's wars and not impeach him, that a demo in DC would, "embarrass the Democrats."

Now that we have had two years of a complete Democratic tyranny in DC and almost four years of a Democratic regime in the White House, the antiwar movement has continued its tailspin because it was mostly populated by "liberal" Democrats, or other Democratic functionaries like the Communist Party, USA.

A recent poll commissioned by the Washington Post shows, that by a vast majority "Liberal" Democrats favor keeping Guantanamo Prison (53%) camp and torture facility open and the drone bombing campaigns (77%) that their president has increased by at least 300 percent over the Bush years. Unbelievably, "liberal" Democrats also are in favor of the Presidential Assassination Program where Obama can have any American executed by his order, only. Trials? Like John Yoo's Constitution, these anachronisms will soon be considered "quaint."
 
 
 
In Iraq, the political crisis continues. Shihab Hamid (Dar Addustour) offers that national reconciliation is important to the political and social future of Iraq as well as to the security and stability of the country and that all Iraqis should be able to participate because, otherwise, the price paid with millions dead was for nothing. Al Mada notes that Iraqiya has confirmed to them that there are various plans being put forward for the national conference and that, at Monday's meeting, the National alliance offered a working paper, as did Iraqiya and the Kurdistan Alliance. The plan is for the three proposals to be discussed at the next meeting which is currently scheduled for Sunday. Yes, another meeting to make preparations. President Jalal Talabani and Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national conference since December. It's February. Is it going to take eight months of preparation? Or, more likely, in a month or two is Nouri just going to say that since they've managed this long without one, they really don't need it?

When Nouri returned to Iraq, his war against Iraqiya and Sunnis became more obvious and he began demanding that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his position and that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested on 'terrorism' charges. Al Mada notes that Saleh al-Mutlaq is stating that the problems in Iraq remain serious and that he will not return to Cabinet meetings until there is a guarantee that the political proces will be fixed and that the groundwork for a real partnership is in place. He maintains this needs to take place before the Arab Summit which is scheduled to be held in Baghdad currently. Al Sabaah notes that the meeting is scheduled for March 29th and is part of a series of planned visits by foreigners to Iraq -- a list that's said to include UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visiting.  Aswat al-Iraq notes al-Mutlaq is going on a visit, "An al-Iraqiya Bloc MP described the visit of deputy premier Saleh al-Mutlaq's visit to Turkey as personal, not governmental, pointing out that Mutlaq 'should solve his problems internally without any external intervention'."  But while they acknowledge al-Mutlaq's visit, they say another is not taking place, "Al-Iraqiya Bloc's spokesman denied the news of vice-president Tariq al-Hashimi travelling to Turkey, stressing he is present in Sulaimaniya province, Kurdistan."
 
 
Meanwhile Pakistan's The Nation offers "CIA to stay in Iraq, Afghanistan: WP"  which refers to Greg Miller's Washington Post report from earlier this week:
 
The much-feared Central Intelligence Agency is planning to maintain a large and secretive presence inside both Iraq and Afghanistan long after American troops leave those nations, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
In Iraq, where most US troops have already left, the massive CIA presence in Baghdad has been re-purposed. Once focused chiefly on tackling Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgents, the American spies are now "monitoring developments in the increasingly antagonistic government."
In many ways thing have come full circle for the CIA, which had a presence on the ground spying on the Saddam Hussein regime before the 2003 US invasion. Now, having spent the last eight years helping the military prop up the Nurul Maliki government, the agency again finds itself there spying.

 
It's amazing that foreign outlets can reference the important article but in the US we have so much silence over what Miller reported.   Prensa Latina notes, "The CIA's stations in Kabul and Baghdad will probably remain the agency´s largest overseas outposts for years. According to The Washington Post, this will happen even if they shrink from record staffing levels set at the height of American efforts in those nations to neutralize insurgency attacks."

Still on the topic of the CIA, Nouri is facing rumors that he's cooperating with the CIA or assisting them. Al Mada notes State of Law MP Adnan al-Sarraj has issued a statement denying any involvement Nouri has with the CIA -- presumably current involvement is being denied since Nouri and the CIA had a pre-existing relationship prior to 2003 -- and stating that when Nouri met with US President Barack Obama in December, Nouri made clear that the CIA wasn't welcome in autonomous Iraq. Al Mada notes not only Miller's report for the Washington Post but also Iraqi intelligence sources who have that Iraq's leadership and the CIA have an extensive relationship.

On the issue of violence, Aswat al-Iraq notes, "More than 12 casualties were caused due to clashes yesterday between the Turkish PKK party and the Turkish army in different areas along the Iraqi-Turkish border lines, border security forces reported today." And they note a Falluja sticky bombing claimed the life of 1 Sahwa (Sons Of Iraq, "Awakening").
 
 
"What my clients want to know is why -- when they're living at home or under supervised care -- their veteran suddenly has to have a VA fiduciary at all?" attorney Douglas J. Rosinski asked Congress yesterday.  "My veterans have had decades of family members giving them care and handling their benefits without VA interruption.  Suddenly, VA appoints a perfect stranger -- perfectly unknown to the veteran --  who has never contacted a veteran, who will not contact a veteran and is paid money from that veterans account to withhold the money from the veteran, to place it in bank accounts that they will not disclose to the veteran and they will not even disclose under FOIA [Freedom Of Information Act].  They will redact the veterans own information about his own money from the files they give out.  My clients want to know why, that if there is a need, for a VA-appointed fiduciary, it has to be this stranger.  They want to know why this veteran is told to take all of the veterans finances, all of his bank accounts and ask questions about his CDs [Certificate of Deposit] and whether he owns a boat and what his wife's salary is and where is that salary put and then go into the banks and take all of it and not tell them where it is.  They want to know why VA not only will not correct that when I've had personal discussions with members sitting -- or people sitting -- in this hearing today and then they will not fix that problem? They want to know why VA defends those practices at every turn, in every court, in every discussion?  This is not about numbers and procedures and policies.  My clients don't care about policies and procedures.  They want to know why they have $100,000 in the bank and they cannot afford the medicine that the VA doctors prescribed last month?  They want to know why the power company's in the front yard when they have $50,000 in the bank?  And it takes an emergency motion to the Veterans Court before these people will call the power company and tell them they'll pay $178."
 
Rosinkski was appearing before the House Veterans Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations yesterday as they held a hearing on the VA's fiduciary system -- where someone's appointed by the veteran or by the VA to manage/oversee/control the veterans benefits.  Rosinski appeared on the second panel and noted, "That's what my clients would like to hear today.  And I did not hear any of that from the prior panel."
 
 
The hearing had two panels (and many breaks due to votes on the House floor).  The first panel was the VA's Dave McLenachen (with the VA's Diana Rubin), the second panel was composed of Katrina Eagle with the Veterans Law Office of Michael Wildhaber, Veteran Fiduciary Pam Estes, attorney Rosinski with the Law Office of Douglas J. Rosinski, and Vietnam Veterans of America's Rick Weidman.  We covered the first panel in yesterday's snapshot.  US House Rep Bill Johnson is the Chair of the Subcommittee.  We'll note this exchange.
 
 
Chair Bill Johnson: Ms. Eagle, if VA is paying a fiduciary a percentage of a veterans' compensation, only to allow VA to have the final say , then why pay a fiduciary in the first place?
 
Katrina Eagle: I have many veterans and clients who ask that same question.  I don't understand it myself. I find it ironic that I have several cases where the veteran is paid also [clears throat], excuse me, his Social Security benefits and he has no fiduciary managing his Social Security benefits but the VA finds that he must be appointed a fidcuiary for his VA benefits which also then get sucked into including his Social Security benefits. Moreover, as Mr. Weidman was saying, with respect to veterans who try to get out of the program, I've seen many instances of retribution, so to speak, in that when the veteran applies to get out of the fiduciary program, he is then found perfectly fine with his medical condition, the underlying medical condtion be it physical or often a psychiatric condition, and therefore he [his benefits] is reduced.  And that is encouraging the veteran to say nothing, go along and not question or cause problems.
 
Chair Bill Johnson: I want to read this paragraph for everyone's attention out of that form we're discussing. It says, "Approval for use of VA funds" -- and this is the 21-4703 that we're discussing -- "VA must approve any use of a veterans VA funds.  You" -- and I'm presuming that's the fiduciary -- "agree to use these funds only as specifically authorized by VA.  You agree to request VA approval for all spending of these funds unless VA has previously authorized the expenditures.  Any questions regarding authorized expenditures should be addressed to the fiduciary activity at the address and phone number on the front side of this form."  Ms. Eagle, in your opinion, should VA remove this paragraph in question of form 21-4703?
 
Katrina Eagle: Yes.
 
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay, thank you.  Ms. Estes, you mentioned that you submitted the anual report to VA but have heard nothing since.  When is your last date to be informed of the status of this issue?  You said today, correct?
 
Estes: They told me I had 30 days so I'm assuming -- I took 30 days from the postmark, that would be today.
 
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay.  What results good or bad have you experienced in the fiduciary program.  Now that's -- that's a big question but . . .
 
Pam Estes: When there is contact, it's fine. They come out and I talk to them and we go over the expenditures and stuff. I don't have a problem there. It's like a black hole. I don't get any return calls when I leave a message. I was afraid to send the accounting because they require originals of everything -- original bank statement and stuff like -- and you're not handing it, you're mailing it so I suspected something like that might happen so we sent it certified and everything.  And I followed up with a phone call saying I did this.  I know I'm supposed to have an audit but nobody came out so I'm submitting it. And so then we got the letter that said I hadn't submitted it at all.
 
Chair Bill Johnson: So basically, it's miscommunication, lack of communication?
 
Pam Estes:  They were being -- No communication.
 
Chair Bill Johnson:  No communication.
 
Pam Estes: It's no communication.
 
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay.  Ms. Eagle, on the first panel, we discussed VA waivers for fiduciaries.  And if I recall the testimony, they were not aware of waivers being granted for certification or fiduciary qualifications.  Do you have any experience with VA fiduciary requirements being waived?
 
Katrina Eagle: I do.  And what I find and what Mr. McLenachen was talking about is a fiduciary for the first time will be reviewed, background checks perhaps performed.  What I see happen in all of the cases I have reviewed in assisting the veteran is that if that fiduciary has been at all ever in the VA system as a fiduciary previously, the background check is waived, criminal background checks are waived, etc., etc.  So once he's in, it's good to go.
 
Chair Bill Johnson: Mr. Rosinski, is the issue of a person with a criminal background being allowed to serve as a VA fiduciary an isolated incident in your view?
 
 
Doug Rosinski:   Mr. Chairman, there's no way to tell. As Ms. Eagle just said, they waive all the background checks I've ever seen. And my experience is all they ask is they're asking, 'Check a box, have you ever been convicted and served more than one year for a felony, yes or no?'  So I'll leave it to you whether a convicted felon is going to answer that yes or no.  That is, as far as I know, the background check.  And that is what is waived on top of it.
 
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. Mr. Rosinski, in your experience and clients you've represented, what is your background of some of the VA fidcuiaries? Have you -- have you seen incidents where fiduciaries have been removed?
 
Doug Rosinski: The only fiduciary that I know that was removed was the daughter who was taking care of her 81-year-old father and was a registered nurse and had been taking care of her father full time for two decades, had retired from being a nurse to do that.  She took her father to an Alzheimers clinic because he has advancing Alzheimers and VA turned around and fired her as fiduciary and registered a complaint for misuse of those funds because they were not pre-authorized.  I've also -- that's my example of firing.  The issue of qualifications, I had the privilege of deposing two actual fiduciaries in the state of Texas. One was a cabinet salesman who in 2009 got his first fiduciary appointment. In 2011, November 2011, when I deposed him, [he] had 53. He had never heard of a fiduciary until someone suggested that this would be a good job to have since he had had a heart attack.  The other fiduciary there is the full-time, single working mother who said her father had been a VA fiduciary and that's how she found out about the program.
 
Chair Bill Johnson:  Okay. Ms. Eagle, given the 3 to 5% paid to a fiduciary for administering a veterans account, what purpose would a fiduciary have for hoarding a veteran's money?
 
Katrina Eagle: I think that the issue of hoarding has nothing to do with how much they're being authorized from the veteran's money on a monthly basis.  The reason they would be hoarding -- and there's two kinds of fiduciaries that I've dealt with.  The hoarding is encouraged by the VA program leadership  because they are to save as much money as possible in case of certain emergencies. Keep in mind that these are monthly recurring benefits. So needing to save $100,000 when the veterans going to get paid $3,000 every month until and unless he passes, there's no need to save that much money.  Second of all, lots of these fiduciaries are banks. It is in their best interest to keep as much money in their accounts as possible.   
 
 
Staying with veterans issues, I've noted my opinion on the national parade issue earlier this week (see this snapshot) -- briefly, veterans of the current wars will get the nation's attention for only a short time and there would appear to be more serious issues to address while the nation is paying attention.  (My comments are on a national parade and that's a Congressional issue and we covered in January how Congress de-funded the planned parade some time ago. I've noted that various people -- including a governor -- can stage a local, county or state wide parade.)  We're going to note a few opinons on the issue.  Jerry Maza (Salem-News.com) offers:
 

 

It isn't like starting a war in Iraq on lies, that Saddam Hussein had WMD when no one, not even the UN's inspector (referee) for nuclear weapons, Hans Blix, could find nary a missile, poison gas, Niger yellowcake uranium, or any secret locales for the stash. There were no goal posts in Iraq. No fighting from your 20-yard line to the 50 and marching down it to a touchdown, a kick for the goal, and your seven points up. The stated purpose of the shock and awe of the linemen was bringing democracy to Iraq. You might as well bring sea bass to a Thanksgiving dinner.

In fact, the last thing on anybody's mind was democracy, given the unilateral and illegal attack on Iraq. Now, who's going to march over that shameful premise? Sorry to say, our brave players were sent on a fool's mission once again. The field had no markers, no big rectangle broken into ten yards ten times. The war was one you had to find, break down doors, terrorize families, looking for the man with the ball, the I.E.D. or hidden weapon, and knock him to the ground. In frustration for often not finding those things, soldiers took it out on innocent viewers of the ongoing chaos. Also, soldiers had to watch their buddies go nuts, over the top, at the atrocities they often had to commit (albeit much like WWII), but mostly back then there were victories and a people were spared from total holocaust. What they learned from it seems questionable sometimes.

 
Larry Mendte (Philly Post) calls for a parade for Philadelphia's veterans (and for those in surrounding areas -- he's in fact calling for every big city to stage a parade):
 
 
I have put together an online petition asking Mayor Michael Nutter for a parade in Philadelphia to honor the more than 100,000 men and women from our area who served in Iraq. Please sign it and then pass it on through emails, Twitter and Facebook. Philadelphia should lead the country on this. The positive national media attention will be well worth the cost. More importantly, it is the right thing to do.
 
 
Iraq War veteran Colby Buzzell pens a piece for the Washington Post which focuses more on the bigger problems veterans of the current wars are facing:
 
While all this arguing is going on, veterans are struggling. In this country, an average of 18 veterans commit suicide every day. The jobless rate for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is as high as 15 percent. They are trying to find work despite having been labeled ticking time bombs, unable to assimilate back into society, plagued with post-traumatic stress.
Later this month, on an evening like any other in America, nearly 70,000 veterans will spend the night on the street while President Obama and the first lady host a special White House dinner to honor 200 or so hand-picked Iraq veterans from a war that produced more than 30,000 wounded in action. Across the country, on any given night, nearly 5,000 dinner tables have an empty place where a loved one who never came home from the war used to sit.
 
 
On the issue of suicides, Michael Moran (Global Post) points out, "Statistics on Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, obtained in 2011 through a Freedom of Information Act request by a San Francisco newspaper, found that more than 2,200 soldiers died within two years of leaving the service, and about half had been undergoing treatment for post-traumatic stress or other combat-induced mental disorders at the time."
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by at

Like the political crisis, the CIA continues in Iraq

The much-feared Central Intelligence Agency is planning to maintain a large and secretive presence inside both Iraq and Afghanistan long after American troops leave those nations, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
In Iraq, where most US troops have already left, the massive CIA presence in Baghdad has been re-purposed. Once focused chiefly on tackling Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgents, the American spies are now "monitoring developments in the increasingly antagonistic government."
In many ways thing have come full circle for the CIA, which had a presence on the ground spying on the Saddam Hussein regime before the 2003 US invasion. Now, having spent the last eight years helping the military prop up the Nurul Maliki government, the agency again finds itself there spying.

The above is from "CIA to stay in Iraq, Afghanistan: WP" (Pakistan's The Nation) and they're referring to Greg Miller's Washington Post report from earlier this week. It was an important article and has garnered a great deal of attention from the press . . . outside the US. As noted earlier this week, NPR's Morning Edition ran with Tim Arango but ignored Miller's report. That's fine, Ava and I were already toying with doing "A Tale Of Two NPRs" this Sunday, highlighting the rank hypocrisy and lack of standards -- including the need to tack a 'warning label' on anything to do with women's reproduction, including how some contests matter and some don't, including so much. So we can easily squeeze the ignoring of a major report in -- especially after the propaganda piece Morning Edition aired yesterday that didn't contain a critic. It sure is cute that if that were an anti-war group, they would have felt the need to present both sides but when it's a group associated with the US government, one size fits all. Prensa Latina notes, "The CIA's stations in Kabul and Baghdad will probably remain the agency´s largest overseas outposts for years. According to The Washington Post, this will happen even if they shrink from record staffing levels set at the height of American efforts in those nations to neutralize insurgency attacks."

Meanwhile Nouri is facing rumors that he's cooperating with the CIA or assisting them. Al Mada notes State of Law MP Adnan al-Sarraj has issued a statement denying any involvement Nouri has with the CIA -- presumably current involvement is being denied since Nouri and the CIA had a pre-existing relationship prior to 2003 -- and stating that when Nouri met with US President Barack Obama in December, Nouri made clear that the CIA wasn't welcome in autonomous Iraq. Al Mada notes not only Miller's report for the Washington Post but also Iraqi intelligence sources who have that Iraq's leadership and the CIA have an extensive relationship.

In Iraq, the political crisis continues. Shihab Hamid (Dar Addustour) offers that national reconciliation is important to the political and social future of Iraq as well as to the security and stability of the country and that all Iraqis should be able to participate because, otherwise, the price paid with millions dead was for nothing. Al Mada notes that Iraqiya has confirmed to them that there are various plans being put forward for the national conference and that, at Monday's meeting, the National alliance offered a working paper, as did Iraqiya and the Kurdistan Alliance. The plan is for the three proposals to be discussed at the next meeting which is currently scheduled for Sunday. Yes, another meeting to make preparations. President Jalal Talabani and Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national conference since December. It's February. Is it going to take eight months of preparation? Or, more likely, in a month or two is Nouri just going to say that since they've managed this long without one, they really don't need it?

When Nouri returned to Iraq, his war against Iraqiya and Sunnis became more obvious and he began demanding that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his position and that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested on 'terrorism' charges. Al Mada notes that Saleh al-Mutlaq is stating that the problems in Iraq remain serious and that he will not return to Cabinet meetings until there is a guarantee that the political proces will be fixed and that the groundwork for a real partnership is in place. He maintains this needs to take place before the Arab Summit which is scheduled to be held in Baghdad currently. Al Sabaah notes that the meeting is scheduled for March 29th and is part of a series of planned visits by foreigners to Iraq -- a list that's said to include UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visiting.


Of the Sadr Festival yesterday, Al Mada reports on Moqtada al-Sadr's speech and who knew Moqtada was such a chicken He calls out the illegal war and he calls out the American troops but is apparently too scared to call out the Ahmed Chalabis who didn't just live in exile but actively courted and lobbied the government of England and the US to go to war with Iraq. If you're going to talk "blood on their hands," it seems you start with those who begged and lied to get the western invasion of Iraq.

We'll close by noting this from The Bat Segundo Show:


The Bat Segundo Show Returns!

Greetings from The Bat Segundo Show, the long-running (and free!) cultural radio program devoted to goofy, thoughtful, and comprehensive conversations with the cultural figures and eccentric minds of our time. You can listen to the show at the main site or subscribe through iTunes.

We have three new and exiting shows to tell you about, as well as an enticing live event that's going down at McNally Jackson next Thursday which you may want to attend. We'll express more exuberance in this email in a bit, but in the meantime, here are sundry social media options. Join us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and check out our supplemental Tumblr, in which we offer additional contextual notes.

Stewart O'Nan at McNally Jackson Live 2/16

As previously announced, the great Stewart O'Nan will be making a New York City appearance at McNally Jackson on February 16, 2012 to discuss his latest novel, The Odds. Odds that Our Correspondent will be baking cookies shortly before the event? 2.2:1. If you're not up to speed on O'Nan, we check out our lengthy email volley with him last year or listen to our previous show with him.

A Bit of Fry, Sewer Talk, and Wanted Women

As this one hour conversation demonstrates, Stephen Fry is indisputably a world-class raconteur, a gentleman and a scholar who has rightfully promulgated erudition and the miracle of language. But why is he so reticent to confront Foxconn? Academy Award-nominated filmmaker Agnieszka Holland discusses In Darkness, how to find the right sewer, and the present state of Holocaust cinema. Two wanted women, one dual biography, one 35 minute conversation.

Feel free to visit the main Bat Segundo site and listen to these free programs! There are more than 400 additional shows for your listening pleasure!

If you wish to subscribe to the show with a podcatcher program (for later transfer to your iPod), copy and paste the following URL into your program:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/segundo

You can also subscribe to the show through iTunes.

These conversations will put a smile on your face, tickle your funny bone, and may just challenge you.

Thanks again for listening!

The Bat Segundo Show

www.batsegundo.com

The Bat Segundo Show
315 Flatbush Avenue, #231, Brooklyn, NY 11217
www.batsegundo.com



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






























Posted by at

Living after death

In the desert sun, every step that you take could be the final one
And in the burning heat
Hanging on the edge of destruction
No
You can't stop the pain of your children crying out in your head
They always said that the living would envy the dead
-- "One of the Living," written by Holly Knight, sung by Tina Turner, first on the Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome soundtrack

Thursday a service was held for the late Alan McMenemy. Cameron Hay (Scottish Sun) reports, "More than 400 relatives and pals joined widow Roseleen and kids Erin and Luke at Bearsden Cross Parish Church near Glasgow." Alan McMenemy was a bodyguard for Peter Moore. So were Jason Crewswell, Jason Swindelhurst and Alec Maclachlan. The five British men were all kidnapped May 29, 2007 in Baghdad. The League of Righteous took the five men and killed all but Peter Moore. When US President Barack Obama made a deal with the terrorist organization -- which was responsible fore the deaths of US soldiers and the deaths of Iraqis -- allowing their main leader, his brother and other League of Righteous officials out of US custody, they released the corpses of three of the bodyguards. (Peter Moore was the only one not killed by the League.) Missing was the Glasgow native Alan McMenemy.

Last month, the League of Righteous finally released the body of Alan McMenemy. Cameron Hay reports:

The minister revealed that plans are in place to plant a cherry tree in memory of the man who worked for Canadian ­security firm GardaWorld, having previously served as a paratrooper.
A police escort led hundreds of vehicles to Clydebank Crematorium where his body was committed.
Mourners left the building to the sound of the Norah Jones hit Sunrise.

STV News offers a video report of the service here. In Costa Rica, the Tico Times reports on Carlos and Melida Arredondo whose son Alexander was killed in Najaf August 25, 2004 while serving in the Iraq War and whose son Brian took his own life December 19th last year:


Seven weeks have passed since Brian's suicide. The Arredondos keep themselves going by speaking out against U.S. conflicts and fighting for the rights of current soldiers -- the commandos in Afghanistan, the young recruits serving in posts around the Middle East, the officers still in Iraq as contractors. Mélida speaks of the high rate of post-traumatic stress disorder among troops, the large number of homeless veterans and the lack of spousal assistance for soldiers that are overseas. She and her husband worry that Alexander and Brian died in vain.
"We continue talking about Alex and Brian because we don't want them forgotten," Mélida said. "It turns into a number or a monument, like the Vietnam War, and past that, people forget. We're here to say 'no.' War impacts all of our lives, even here in Costa Rica."

Like Carlos and Melida, Cindy Sheehan (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox) lost a child in the illegal war -- her son Casey -- and she shares, "To me, in the perpetual political hypnosis and hypocrisy that exists in this nation, the most tragic thing is that the dead, too numerous to actually count, were used by the Faux-gressives as convenient weapons to bludgeon Bush and the Republican party, but were so easily discarded as garbage on the dung heap of US electoral politics when victory was declared by the Democratic warniks." Also in the US, Stu Bykofsky (Philadelphia Inquirer) tells the story Iraq War veteran John Milton (not his real name) who is haunted by his experience in Iraq:

In 2003, attached to the Third Infantry Division, he and five buddies were returning from a beer run into town from their base - buying Jordanian Horse Head beer from an Iraqi entrepreneur who served hot grilled chicken in the front of his stand and warm beer in the back. They were riding in two Humvees when a roadside bomb blasted the passenger side of the vehicle Milton was driving. Before the smoke cleared, a shocked Milton looked down and saw his buddy's eyeball in his lap.
Milton and the soldier in the back seat were not injured, nor were the GIs in the second vehicle, who saw the man who planted the bomb and shot him several times. He was down, but not mortally wounded.
The soldiers were screaming, punching and kicking him. Like his buddies, "I was a little crazy," Milton says. Instead of medicating the insurgent, he drew his Beretta and shot him in the head, killing him.
Milton didn't regret it then, but he does now.
He was not yet 21, likely in shock, trained by the Army to kill. Had he fired that same bullet into the Iraqi one minute earlier, when he was vertical, it would have been OK. But because the Iraqi was horizontal, it was not.


The following community sites -- plus Antiwar.com, Cindy Sheehan and NYT's At War -- updated last night:


We'll close with David Swanson's "The Election We Should Be Following" (War Is Crime):

For progressives and populists around the country who take an interest
in Congressional races there are always a few good challengers we
might hope to send to Washington. Incumbents, we assume, can take
care of themselves.

But in Northern Ohio, redistricting has thrown two incumbents into one
district. It's a heavily Democratic district created purposely to
guarantee a number of other districts to Republicans. The incumbents
are both Democrats, both white, both 65, and many imagine that they do
similar work in Washington. In fact, they could not be more
different. One of them does tremendous good for our national
politics, working to move our government in a better direction from
inside it, just as the rest of us do from the outside. We cannot
afford to lose him. We would be obliged to work for his reelection
even if his opponent were far above average. The record suggests
something else.

A useful example to highlight the contrast between Congressman Dennis
Kucinich and Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur is found in the funding of
wars. Between 2001 and 2009, Congresswoman Kaptur voted for $545
billion in war funding, voting Yes over and over again for Bush's
wars. Congressman Dennis Kucinich voted for a total of $17 billion.
(See the chart below.)
In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, Kucinich's was the clearest
voice against it. He circulated evidence of war lies to his
colleagues. He organized many of them to vote No with him. Kaptur,
too, voted No on the authorization.

But once the war had started, many Congress members, including Kaptur,
turned around and voted to fund its continuation and escalation, year
after year, even as the public turned more and more strongly against
the war. While Kucinich was working to impeach Bush and Cheney,
Kaptur was voting to fund their wars. While Kucinich was advancing
resolutions to shift the debate toward ending wars and preventing new
ones, Kaptur was claiming wars made us safer and reciting "support the
troops" rhetoric, as though what veterans need most is the creation of
more injured veterans.

This distinction matters more than ever as the prospect of a war on
Iran looms larger. Kaptur wants NASA and the Pentagon to work
together more closely, while Kucinich opposes the militarization of
space. Kaptur seems to believe the military industrial complex is a
beneficial jobs program, whereas Kucinich seems to believe it is what
Eisenhower said it would be.
Congresswoman Kaptur has been spending a lot of money on television
ads in hopes of defeating Kucinich in the upcoming primary. Where
does her money come from? Well, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org), in the current election cycle,
she gets 77% of her money from PACs, and 5% from small individual
contributors. Kucinich, in contrast, gets 5% from PACs, and 68% from
small individual contributors. Kucinich does not get money from war
contractors. Kaptur is a different story. Thus far, in the current
election cycle, her fourth biggest "contributor" is a little operation
known as General Dynamics. Her third biggest is Teledyne
Technologies. Tied for seventh place are American Systems Corp and
Northrop Grumman. Tied at 16th are Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Most
of these corporations have been among Kaptur's regular funders in past
campaigns as well. They are also among the leading violators of U.S.
laws.
According to the Federal Contractor Misconduct Database
(ContractorMisconduct.org), these are the worst four offenders from
any industry:

Contractor Federal Contract $
Instances of Misconduct Misconduct $
(FY2010)
(Since 1995)
(Since 1995)
1. Lockheed Martin $34367.4m
57 $590.1m
2. Boeing Company $19366.6m
43 $1600.5m
3. Northrop Grumman $15522.7m
35 $850.7m
4. General Dynamics $14908.8m
13 $78.5m

Among the types of misconduct engaged in by these four leaders, as
detailed at the above database, are the following: contract fraud,
kickbacks, defective pricing, unlicensed exports, emissions
violations, groundwater cleanup violations, inflated costs, providing
of bribes and sexual favors, nuclear safety violations, nuclear waste
storage violations, federal election law violations, radiation
exposure, illegal transfer of information to China, violations of the
National Labor Relations Act, embezzlement, racial discrimination and
retaliation, age discrimination and retaliation, unauthorized weapons
sales to foreign nations, retaliation against whistleblowers. And
that's just Lockheed. In fact, that's just a small sampling of just
Lockheed. Why take money from these companies?

According to the National Priorities Project (CostOfWar.com) Kaptur's
Ninth District of Ohio (prior to redistricting) has shelled out over
$3.1 billion for wars since 2001. That expense has been with Kaptur's
full cooperation. And that is an expense measured purely in dollars
taken from tax payers to pay for wars. It does not include further
costs for veterans' care, for interest on war debt, for increased fuel
prices, or for lost opportunities. Nor does it include the cost
already extracted of several times the $3.1 billion for a base annual
military budget that has roughly doubled this decade and done so on
the basis of the wars.

According to a report titled "The U.S. Employment Effects of Military
And Domestic Spending Priorities: An Updated Analysis," (PDF) by
Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the Political Economy
Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
(October 2009), spending the same dollars on the military (without
specifying war spending which would likely make the contrast even
greater) produces many fewer jobs than if spent in other industries.
If Ohio's Ninth District's $3.1 billion had been spent on tax cuts for
working people, instead of on the military, the people of the Ninth
District could have seen a net gain of 9,920 jobs. That's considering
the full impact of jobs lost, directly created, and indirectly
created. Military spending, purely in terms of job creation, is worse
than nothing. Tax cuts -- not for Mitt Romney but for the rest of us
-- does more good.

But the same study also shows a better path. If the $3.1 billion had
been taken away from the military and spent instead on clean energy,
we would have seen a net gain of 17,050 jobs. If instead the
investment had gone to healthcare, the net gain would have been 24,000
jobs. And if the choice had been to fund education, the gain in jobs
would have been 54,250. Could Ohio's Ninth District use 54,250 jobs?
Not many people would choose to chase those jobs away in order to
support wars based on lies, wars that endanger us, wars that devastate
the natural environment, wars that erode our civil liberties, wars
that carry a heavy human cost -- not just an economic one. Not many
people, but one of them is Marcy Kaptur.

If you visit Kaptur's campaign website at MarcyKaptur.com, only one
specific issue is immediately visible, front and center: celebration
of a World War II memorial. At Kucinich.us there is also only a
single issue immediately visible: a petition urging the Congressman's
colleagues to stop funding the war in Afghanistan. In the "Agenda"
section of Kaptur's site there is no acknowledgement that war or peace
is an issue to be considered at all. In the "Issues" section of
Kucinich's site, there is a section on war and peace that addresses a
number of specific wars.

There is also, on the Kucinich site, a lot more detail than on
Kaptur's about numerous other issues. The example of wars and war
funding is fairly typical. In rough terms, Kucinich tends to back
peace, justice, and the will of the public, while Kaptur tends to back
the very same things when and if the leadership of the Democratic
Party happens to do so. Back on February 25, 2010, she voted to
extend the PATRIOT Act without reforms of its abusive procedures.
Kucinich voted No. Back on October 23, 2007, Kucinich had also voted
No on the Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, while Kaptur voted Yes. On
December 8, 2010, she voted against the DREAM Act, while Kucinich and
a majority of the House and of the Democrats voted for it. Any
elected official will let us down sometimes, but Kaptur is just no
Kucinich.
Many organizations agree. VoteSmart.org lists the rankings of various
groups. Planned Parenthood gives Kucinich a score of 100%, Kaptur
71%. The ACLU scores Kucinich 94%, Kaptur 75%.

Also favoring Kucinich in their rankings are the Arab American
Institute, the Human Rights Campaign, the Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights, the League of Conservation Voters, Peace
Action, the AFL-CIO, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty
Law, etc. I'm not being selective here. There don't seem to be any
progressive analysts scoring Kaptur over Kucinich on anything.
Progressives like Alan Grayson and Barney Frank are urging us to
support Kucinich over Kaptur.

How independent and principled a member of Congress is has a direct,
and sometimes devastating, impact on their district and the nation and
the world. Kaptur believes a nuclear power plant at the edge of Lake
Erie with a bad history of safety violations should be allowed to
continue to operate, while Kucinich has asked for it to be repaired or
decommissioned. Only one of these two representatives is putting the
safety of the public first.

I believe people who care about the future of the United States, from
Ohio's new Ninth District or anywhere else, should be following and
supporting Kucinich's campaign. If he loses, we lose. We may not
always agree with him. He may not always be able to win over a
majority of his colleagues. He may sometimes let us down. But were
he not there, votes that helped end the Iraq war would have never been
held. Debates that have helped curtail further war making would
simply not have happened. Articles of impeachment for Bush and Cheney
would never have been introduced. Countless witnesses before House
committees would have gotten off without ever facing the important
questions. Many people pushing for single-payer healthcare in their
states would have never heard of it. Our televisions would be better
able than they are now to pretend that majority positions on major
issues do not exist, because there would not be that one man in the
government willing to raise the issue and publicly lobby his
colleagues to join him.

We're such defeatists these days, that we either condemn Kucinich's
compromises, forgetting that Kaptur outdoes him in that regard
100-fold, or we imagine that because he's so much better he must be
doomed to lose. On the contrary, Kucinich has a long history of
winning congressional elections, both primaries and general. While
the redesigned district includes a larger population from Kaptur's
former district than from Kucinich's, it includes more Democrats from
Kucinich's than from Kaptur's. Kucinich inspires his supporters, and
in primaries it is the relative turnout of tiny percentages of people
that decides.

Who is in Congress or the White House is going to be of far less
importance than who is in the streets and what kind of people's
movement is developed to nonviolently resist injustice and war. But
without a single voice inside Congress willing to speak up in the ways
Kucinich has, the people's movement will suffer. There's no
lesser-evilism required here. Kucinich is actually a good
representative. There's no partisanship required here. Love a party
or hate them all; regardless, we should reward those who have listened
to our demands. Or why would anyone listen again?
##




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






























Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)