sherry wondered if i'd continue posting at the same time? probably so. this is my schedule and how i wind down. she also wondered if there was anything she could do. send me kind thoughts. i asked mike to pass on that people shouldn't worry.
i do understand that's not easy. i know flyboy seems to think i'm a porcelean doll and a non-moveable 1. 'where are you going?' to get a glass of water. 'i'll get it!' and he's running through the house.
i've got a few weeks where i need to be concerned but i've already made it further than i've done before. there's also not been any spotting or any of the other usual signs.
this could end in a miscarriage. i know that. but it doesn't feel like that and even the doctor made a point to stress that.
of course, it means that i yet again quit smoking and probably my irritation over that allows me to worry less because i am so craving.
that will get me through 7 days if past pregnancies are any indication.
after that, the urges won't be as strong and then i may freak out.
but so far, i'm not freaking out.
i'm sleeping in each morning. which, honestly, i'd love to do every day. i hate waking up. but i force myself to get out of bed. not as bad now that flyboy's here. when we split up, i really would have to force myself to get out of bed before ten in the morning. once i stopped working, there was no pressure.
and sadly, i was 1 of those women who spent hours getting ready in the morning. if i was leaving the house at 7, i would be up at 4:30. no, not like c.i. to work out (god bless c.i. and that kind of energy!) but i'd be fixing my hiar and then changing it and then fixing it again. and it would always look pretty much the same. i'd go through several outfits and wonder if it (a) looked good on me, (b) would fit the days appointments and meetings and (c) why i put it on in the 1st place?
dona's already told me i am on limited duty at the third estate sunday review. i'll work in their final hours. which will be the time i would be getting up on sunday if i wasn't up. flyboy's thrilled about that because he was concerned. i told dona i'd do that during the critical period but after it passes, i'd probably go by what my body told me.
i did appreciate the concern. dona said they'd all talked about it and knew telling me 'you're not working with us' would be a problem. so instead i'm on 'light duty' and, hey, that's how i've lived my life so i can live with that. (that was a joke.)
ruth came by today with elijah (her grandson). she told flyboy they're coming over each day while she teaches him how to do stuff. i told her, 'ruth, flyboy does most of the things you probably think i do!' which isn't true but he knows how. (we both split the cleaning chores.) (or did until yesterday's news.)
we both love having ruth and elijah over so that's not a problem. i do feel bad that she's going to be driving because before we were rotating our once a week get together. elijah had a blast with
the ballons that were delivered today (c.i.).
flyboy said we were going to make it through this period just fine but he worries about elaine and c.i. i agree. they are really going out of their way to check in and make sure little treats come my way. elaine's delivery was food which i didn't share - i gobbled it all up. i love them both very much.
flyboy does as well. flyboy always got along with elaine but he really didn't like c.i. when we were married the 1st time. (c.i. knows this. i'm not telling tales out of school.) c.i.'s really protective of friends and flyboy assumed since he and c.i. knew each other (for many years) that it would be friendship all around. but elaine ended up being that way. c.i. is friendly to spouses but just friendly. all the loyalties lay with me. (which i loved!)
they bumped into each other, i learned of this on my honeymoon and may have shared this here already, forgive me for repeating if i have. so after we divorced, they bumped into each other at a party in d.c. (georgetown, actually.) and flyboy was avoiding c.i. they ended up leaving at the same time so had to do more than nod. i love this story and flyboy reminded me of it tonight.
so they have to talk and flyboy was surprised he wasn't attacked, set on fire and kicked up and down the street. flyboy will tell you he had really begun to live in fear of c.i. near the end of our marriage. having nothing else to talk about but feeling he had to say something, flyboy asked about the paper and if i was serious about being bored with it? (the new york times.)
c.i. said something like, 'well your big issue is really that you need to call her.' to check on the paper? no, c.i. told him that it wasn't over between us.
if c.i. hadn't done that, flyboy and i probably still would be dancing around each other. they talked a bit more but the point is that was the start of us getting back together and flyboy and c.i. getting along better. they're friends today.
with elaine it was more difficult. she had been close to him and when we broke up, there was a problem because of the breakup. (which we had both decided to but elaine's my friend.) when we went to nyc for the world can't wait, elaine and flyboy had a long clearing of the air and they're fine now. better than fine. but i think, no, i know, flyboy was expecting that same relationship with c.i., that same type, and what he's learned since is that there are walls and levels with c.i.
elaine lets you in and you're in. if a problem comes along, you'll need to clear the air. that's about it.
with c.i. flyboy was some 1 you know and can speak to and then he married me and it was like starting from scratch. i think c.i. gave him as much of a headache as my mother-in-law gave me.
(i said 'gave.' i've grown and so has she. when flyboy and i got back together, she and i did a clear the air and we're actually closer now. i'm also able to enjoy her more these days. i do think she's more free wheeling, though she might disagree. we also have the bond that the bully boy has driven the country off the cliff. she was more of a centrist the 1st go round - though not a bully boy supporter. but she was more the new republic type. those days are gone, and she'll tell you that herself.)
i intended to talk about other things tonight and got off on a tangent. i promise that always won't be the case. but i do know people are concerned. so hopefully this post will make some people worry less.
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, December 13, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Tuesdays bombings repeat today (on a smaller scale which is the pattern), Saudi Arabia whispers to Dick Cheney, the US military wants more, the Iraqi military has their own laundry list, and is Emily Greene a liar, a fool, a tool, a stooge or an enabler as she rushes to deny abuses of Iraqi women?
Starting with reality, on yesterday's KPFA's Flashpoints Dahr Jamail summarized conditions in Iraq:
What we do have is a situation that's well beyond the control of the US military . . . The two hottest spots we can talk about are Baghdad and Al-Anbar Province. One thing that people tend to overlook is that Al-Anbar Province is one third of the geographic area of the entire country, so that just right off form starters, we can say is completely out of control of the US military. Marines are being killed there every day. Dozens are wounded every single day and we're not getting this information. And it's very interesting. If you look at the news, we see this kind of unquestioning reporting going on where another US soldier killed or marine killed in A-Anbar but what it doesn't say is that it's typically in one of two cities, that's either Falluja or Ramadi almost every single time. So it really indicates how high the level of violence is there. Recently, 3,000 more marines were called off of ships in the Gulf and sent into Ramadi specifically, which, ironically, just yesterday the first female marine [officer][Megan M. McClung] was killed in that area as well. So we have a situation where, as you [Nora Barrows-Friedman] described in the highlights, where, really hundreds are dying every single day, it's not "scores," it's not "tens," it's not "dozens." It's hundreds of Iraqis are dying every single day. On average, it's well over a hundred a day just in Baghdad alone. And then if you look what's happening in places like Ramadi and Falluja which are under a consistent -- somewhere between 'low burn' and 'high burn' seige by the US military -- we have snipers killing many people in each city every single day, US snipers. We still have medical workers being harrassed. We still have all of the things you and I have talked about from almost the very beginning, Nora, back in January 2004, but on a much, much broader level, not just in one city, and not just even in one province, but really across all of Iraq -- even now bleeding into the Kurdish controlled north."
Staying with reality, we'll move to today's violence.
CBS and AP note a Baghdad bombing "near a crowded bus stop" that left at least 11 dead and at least 27 more wounded. Ammar Karim (The Australian) describes the scene: "Bodies of the victims lay scattered around the street amid pools of blood and the burning wreckage of at least two cars and a row of market stalls set up by a nearby bus stations." AP quotes eyes witness Abu Haider al-Kaabi: "A Volkswagen car exploded right near the bust stop, hitting a group of people, including women and children who were waiting to take a bus to a fruit and vegetatble market".
CNN notes two car bombs that exploded in the capital's New Baghdad district resulting in at least five deaths and an additional 10 people wounded. Xinhua puts the count of car bombs in Iraq today at seven (seven total for the entire country) and counts 29 dead from them which includes an attack on an Iraqi army base in Kirkuk that left ten Iraqi soldiers dead. Sameer N. Yacoub and Qais al-Bahsir (AP) report that another bombing, in Baquba, resulted in no physical deaths or injuries but it "destroyed a small Shiite shrine" while, in Musayyib, three roadside bombs exploded resulting in one death and one wounded. Kirk Semple (New York Times) reports a mortar attack in Baladiat that killed one and left six more wounded. Reuters notes a roadside bomb in Jurf al-Sakar left one person dead and three wounded.
Sameer N. Yacoub and Qais al-Bashir (AP) report a home invasion in al-Hesna resulted in assailants shooting dead nine members of a family. Reuters notes the family members killed were "four men, two women and three children" and that, near Balad, an attack on an Iraqi check point resulted in the wounding of four Iraqi soldiers.
Thomas Wagner (AP) reports that seven corpses ("tortured") were discovered in Mosul. Reuters notes that a corpse was discovered in Kirkuk, two corpses were discovered in Mahmudiya, and four corpses were discovered near Falluja.
As the chaos and violence continues day after day, both Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) and John F. Burns (New York Times) report a new 'plan' to cut down on the violence: provide jobs! As Kurdish legislator Mahmoud Othman tells Raghavan, "It's a bit late, as usual. They should have done this three years ago. In this country, they have spent so much on security without results. If they had spent one-tenth of that on creating jobs, more projects and fighting unemployment, things would have been better now."
The stop-gap measure (it's not a plan and it's not implemented) comes as Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reports that both the US marines and army are advocating that Congress provide them with "permanent increases in personnel" and while, as Michael R. Gordon and Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) point out, 'readiness' is just around the corner for Iraqi armies according to the country's national security advisor.
Did someone say, not quiet, not right? AFP reports this 'readiness' isn't just conditional upon future predictions, it also includes a list of wants: "more arms for the Iraqi army, more powers and training in order to be capable of handling security missions all over the country." Those are the words of the puppet Nouri al-Maliki and appear to indicate that when ousted by the US, he may not even grasp it, so removed from reality is he already.
The puppet reflects his master -- Bully Boy -- and shares company with a lazy press that can't stop jaw boning about toothless, idiotic 'reports.' Noting the 'snowjobs' weren't reality on yesterday's KPFA's Flashpoints, Dahr Jamail declared, "The reality is this a permanent occupation. They don't give a damn about the Iraqi people. They're not going to leave They're just trying to get the oil set up. And they're going to stay there until that happens and until it's all extracted."
But all the defocusing on 'listening tours' and 'reports' and other nonsense allows the Bully Boy to give the impression that he's 'active' and 'involved' -- so involved that, possibly, next year he can come up with a 'plan.' Danny Schechter (News Dissector) notes: "I can't wait for the Decider to Decide and for President Bush to announce his new revised version of his unrevised war plan. We will will have to wait a bit longer, perhaps to next year. And no matter that OVER SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people disagree with the current policy, he is not to be hurried with the media still taking him at his word as a rational decision maker. He is stuck. That's for sure. And anyone expecting new leadership in the White House might want to consider buying a bridge I am selling to Brooklyn."
While Bully Boy stalls the (willing) press, Saudi Arabia's not so patient. This morning, Helene Cooper (New York Times) reported that last month (after Thanksgiving), Dick Cheney was told by King Abdullah that if US forces withdraw from Iraq, the Saudi government will back the Sunnis. Cooper's story comes out just as Robin Wright (Washington Post) reports on the fast exist of the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who "flew out of Washington yesterday after informing Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and his staff that he would be leaving the post after only 15 months on the job, according to U.S. officials and foreign envoys. There has been no formal announcements from the kingdom."
Returning to yesterday's KPFA's Flashpoints, Nora Barrows-Friedman and Dahr Jamail discussed the issue of women's rights in Iraq and noted the steady decline since the beginning of the illegal invasion. Prior to that, there were no "dress restrictions on women, they didn't have to cover up or wear a hijab," they could attend school, college, they held doctorates, they held postions in the government ministries. That's all changed. Dahr noted (and pay attention to this for later in the entry) "One of the first things that the US appointed Iraqi governing councile was to pass laws that would have done away with the laws that protect" the rights of women in Iraq. Though that was stopped it did "set the tone of what was going to happen in this inccreasingly fundamentalist" society where "There are no women's rights. Nothing is protected. It's a very fundamentalist government."
Nora Barrows-Friedman: I remember during the invasion and war against Afghanistan. Laura Bush was touting that country as a horrible place for women's rights and she herself was going to personally liberate the women. And now, after the invasion the Taliban has come back ten, a hundred-fold, it is worse for women in Afghanistan. Would you say the same is happening for women in Iraq?
Dahr agreed and noted "one of the consistent things we can see" using Afghanistan and Iraq as an example is that "if you're a woman you might want to seriously consider leaving because it's only a mtter of time before your rights are basically in the waste basket and horrible things are going to start happening to you."
Also addressed were the fact that the daily kidnappings in Baghdad (conservative estimate is thirty per day) target women more and more due to the fact that Bully Boy's 'liberation' has left them with no rights and little safeguards.
Today, the United Nations' IRIN attempts to report on the realities for female prisoners in Iraq. Standing in the way is one Emily Greene, described as "a spokeswoman for the US military in Iraq" who is a liar, a fool, a tool or an enabler? While Green offers denials/lies, Faten Abdul Rhaman Mahmoud, one of the few women in the puppet government with any power (she heads the Ministry of Women's Affairs), attempts to address the situation. There's something very vile about the US government, whose actions have destroyed the rights of women, using a woman as window dressing to hide behind and there's something even more disgusting about a woman who allows herself to be used in a such a manner. Greene lies/misinforms/disinforms that there's no information of any women held prisoner "in Iraqi prisons. The ones that had been held for investigation by them had all been released months ago and no torture has occurred, she said."
Emily Greene meet Um Ahmed who spoke with IPS about her imprisonment that did not take place "months ago" and that involved US forces who "told me they would rape me if I didn't tell them where my husband was, but I really didn't know." When her husband surrendered to the US military, the 'fun' just kept coming. Um Ahmed told Dahr Jamial and Ali al-Fadhily: "They told him they would rape me right in front of him if he did not confess he was a terrorist. They forced me to watch them beat him hard until he told them what they wanted to hear."
IRIN quotes Faten Abdul Rahman Mahmoud: "We don't know the exact number of remale prisoners but there are many being held in different prisons -- even though the [other ministries in the] government and US forces deny it. They are afraid of a counterattack from the country's conservative society." And though they may fear an attack, as noted by Dahr Jamail in his conversation with Nora Barrows-Friedman, the 'new' government set up post-illegal invasion has not given a damn about women's rights. IRIN also notes that Sarah Abdel Yassin of the Organization for Women's Freedom (OWF) whose own research backs up Faten Abdul Rahman Mahmoud's findings and she states, "The Ministry of Interior, [Ministry of] Defence and US forces are denying that there are female prisoners in Iraq but we have enough proof that they are there and that they suffer daily humiliation." An example is Samira Abdallah who was hooded for the entire four moths she was held, released in November only to find that her husband was now dead ("killed by the Iraqi army") as was her oldest daughter ("raped by a soldier" and then the daughter, 16-year-old Hania, killed herself) so it's now just her and her seven-year-old son.
When the Emily Greene's are presented with this 'choice' positions, the smart thing would be to turn them down. It should be perfectly obvious that Willie Caldwell gets all the 'prime' assignments and that they're being used as mere window dressing. By participating in the con, women like that not only enable the destruction of the rights of others, they make it all the less likely that a Faten Abdul Rahman Mahmoud will come along to speak out against abuses to women. But that's the point of using US women in window dressing roles, isn't it?
In war resister news, Jane Cutter (PSL) reports on Saturday's actions in Seattle (despite "rain and wind") which including distributing brochures featuring war resisters such as Ehren Watada and Kyle Snyder and collecting "postcards to be hand delivered to pro-war Democratic senator Maria Cantwell." Meanwhile Lydia Lum (Diverse Education) explores past the 300 Japanese-Americans who refused to serve in WWII due to their families being (illegally) interned. Lum notes that 120,000 Japanese-Americans were held in internment camps, explores the "no-no boys" and ends in the present noting UCLA's Dr. Lane "Hirabayshi says the current case of U.S. Army Lt. Ehren K. Watada, who is of Japanese and Chinese descent, is the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, callin the war illegal and immoral. He faces court-martial and a possible prison term."