8/04/2008

talking post

captaincaveman

that's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels" from sunday and an amazing comic.


now thank you to kat for suggesting a topic.


1st, here's the latest from 3rd:




so that's what we managed to write. kat's idea was to write about what we didn't have time for and she kindly slid the topic to me.


1) jim wanted to do a technology feature but we just didn't have the time.


2) for several weeks, we've talked about doing a horror movie kind of thing (we know which movie) and tying it into the christ-child. it's really only a matter of finding the time. sometimes we just do not have the time. i'll talk more about time in a 2nd, because i just remembered something jim was talking about this morning.


3) betty, c.i. and kat have been wanting us to do something on mae west. a dvd feature most likely. that's not anything any 1's opposed to but it's something we just never seem to have time for. they have been pitching that for 2 weeks now. if it's not done by the end of september, don't be surprised if ava and c.i. grab it for themselves. they could write it right now.


4) an interview with isaiah. we wanted to do that the week before last and again last week. we never had time. we want to discuss the faux outrage over the new yorker cover and a great deal more.


5) an e-mail came in at the start of last week that was supposed to be a feature sunday but we never had time to do all the interviews we needed. we did interview my grandmother and the plan is to finish the interviews needed and write that up next week. my grandmother probably has the opening quote because she was very funny in her interview. (she's a very funny woman regardless.)


okay, jim's going to cover this in some way but he asked me if i would note it here. 3rd's readership has increased and increases all the time. not every 1 was around in 2005 for the big roundtable (no link, jim's looking for it and may not find it - 3rd's archives are a mess due to switching templates in 2007). but in a roundtable - as jim remembers it - a question comes up from e-mails about changes in the t.v. commentaries.


ava and c.i. write those themselves. jim thinks it was august 2005. whenver it was, the question comes up and it's why ava and c.i. changed stuff. they didn't and they don't know what the reader's writing about. jim has been changing stuff. now some typos that ava and c.i. have are not mistakes. they are private jokes for friends. and jokes on who they are covering. there was a closet lesbian, for example, that a word looks mispelled in a sentence about. it's not. they've used the 1st name of her lover. so if the word was 'an' and the lover's name was 'ann,' they would have spelled 'an' 'ann' as an inside joke. ('ann' wasn't the word. but a number of people who've read 3rd for some time will immediately grasp what word i'm referring to and who.) so any way, it comes out that jim's been correcting spelling and jim's also changed a few words (words he thought would be stronger). it's a semi-infamous roundtable. ava and c.i. did not explode or anything. but they made it very clear that jim was not doing that again. other than them, ty is the only 1 allowed to correct their reviews.


in his note this week, jim put some links in and it resulted in several e-mails already (from new readers) about a 2005 piece. he mentioned it to ava and c.i. and they said, 'that's your dance. we never asked you to change anything.' when it came out in the roundtable, this was after months and months of weekly commentaries and ava and c.i. made it really clear they didn't have time to go back and try to figure out what had been changed. so jim's going to do some sort of thing this coming sunday to update new readers.


to explain this, this week in the roundtable, ava and c.i. were talking about how they don't use 'bitch' in real life. (they don't. they really don't.) and ava explains why it was used 2 weeks ago and when it's been used in the past. jim links to a 2005 review by ava and c.i. and that word is in there. but they used 'brat' and when e-mails started coming in about how wonderful the thing was (back in 2005), jim thought, 'yeah, it's wonderful but it should be the other b-word,' so he changed it. that's the sort of thing he would do.


not to be mean, not to insult their writing, but thinking that it would make something even stronger. ava and c.i. didn't approve (i don't think most people would) and when it came up in a roundtable, it became an issue. (that roundtable is infamous.) and in fairness to jim, he saw his role as the editor of the site. he doesn't anymore. dona's the editor. jim's the publisher. but it started out as group writing all the way and the issue was never dealt with. so jim would go in and fix typos. and some typos weren't typos - they were inside jokes. and, as he kept doing that, he would sometimes think, 'brat is funny but __ would be stronger.' so he'd change a word.

now in the case of 'bitch,' that's exactly why ava and c.i.'s attitude was 'stop it right now.' that's a word they're not interested in using unless it's necessary (necessary is when covering soaps and little else unless it's a direct quote).


i use the word ('bitch') in everyday life when i feel it's appropriate. it's not 'rebecca how dare you!' from c.i. or ava. it's just words they don't use. c.i. also doesn't use 'ain't.' that was a problem between us when we were in college because i did (i knew it wasn't a word or proper english) and c.i. would point out 'i fall into other people's speech patterns and i don't want to use that word.' so i limited it (as opposed to 16 times in row when the issue was raised). when c.i. said that, i wasn't thinking 'well, we aren't friends anymore.' but i did think 'well excuuuuuse me.' in the years since (many years), i've seen how c.i. does pick up words and phrases automatically from people that are around a great deal. a curse word (c.i. curses) isn't a big thing because c.i. just doesn't use any curse unwanted curse words. but normal conversational words do pop in all the time. if c.i. was going a trip (and c.i. hasn't had a pleasure trip in years), i could usually guess who c.i. was on the trip with. that also came in handy for guessing c.i.'s latest love over the years. (c.i. does not do the gossip that i live on. neither does elaine really but she's more forthcoming. with c.i., i've always said, c.i. could marry and divorced and i'd hear about it a few years after.)


c.i. can be private but the real reason for that is c.i. walls it off to protect it. that was explained long ago, how easy it can be to complain, complain, complain just because you have nothing else to talk about. i did that on my 3rd marriage and got the point. i've since learned how to not do that. how to just say, 'i have no complaints' and if some 1 thinks that's weird, oh well.


as long as i'm telling stories, i'll tell an elaine 1.


elaine and c.i. have always been wonderful dressers. they came to college with wardrobes that the rest of us would die for. and elaine's style is a little more formal. always has been. she's the audrey hepburn type. now they'd get all dressed up in that manner when it was time to 'hunt bear' (confront the dean over something, etc.) but otherwise, they'd wear (a nicer version) of what every 1 else was wearing. and we were all going out to a club 1 night. elaine was wearing some french designer outfit, a black mini-dress, that was gorgeous.


and she put this strand of pearls with it.


i should say right now that i feel very bad about this story in terms of my actions.


but any way elaine used to wear those pearls at the drop of a hat.


and pearls really weren't something teenagers were wearing. so she asked if she looked okay when she emerged and i said something like, 'wonderful but those pearls? i don't think so.'


c.i. slapped me on the back and started laughing.


c.i. says, 'rebecca loves those pearls. she's been talking about them for months. she told me she was going to pull that joke on you at some point. you should see your face.'


elaine's face had looked like i hit her. when c.i. said that, elaine totally relaxed. and she did a little laugh and then went into the bathroom to check her hair.


at which point i 1st said 'ow' (c.i. had really slapped my back) and then added, 'what's the deal?' c.i. said those pearls meant the world to elaine and that obviously meant they were something of her mother's. elaine lost both parents at a very early age. c.i. pointed out that whenever elaine was happiest and we were going out, she put on those pearls. so c.i.'s explaining to me that obviously those pearls mean a lot to her because they were her mother's and it's sort of like a connection to her mother.


i felt about 2 inches tall. (and should have. but i wasn't even 18 so that's my excuse.) (i started college at 16.) i said i would go apologize to elaine right now and c.i. said, 'no, let her think it was a joke.' so that's what i did for about 10 years. we were talking about something, i forget what, and i said i needed to tell her something. so i told her the truth and we laughed about it. she said, yes, they were her mother's pearls and that her mother would wear them and elaine would always think they were so pretty (when elaine was a little girl) and her mother would tell her that when she turned 18, they (her parents) would get her a strand of pearls. her parents died so that didn't happen. but when she turned 18, her brother gave her those. he had held off on it because he knew the story (he's older than elaine) and thought it would mean something to get the pearls on her 18th birthday. and it really did mean a lot to elaine. (as it would to any 1 and i always get teary when i think about this story). so her freshman year of college, she was wearing those any chance she could. she'd wear them insider a blouse or, if it was a bit fancier of an occassion, outside.


and c.i. was right about how she wore them (on the outside of her outfit) whenever anything really good happened. and i can see how that would matter. and how much that would mean to some 1 in that position. it really was a way of sharing the event with your parent.


if you haven't figured out, this is a talking post. i really had nothing tonight. but sometimes that's how it goes.


i had an e-mail about my comments regarding flowers and it was from dan who asked, 'well what do c.i. and elaine like?' i had written about flowers last week and don't remember when (maybe friday) but explained how i loved flowers (goldie had e-mailed that she's just gotten her 1st flowers from a boy and how much she loved them). i love flowers but not every 1 does.


in answer to dan's question, c.i. and elaine have always enjoyed books or music more as a gift than flowers. they aren't rude when they get flowers. but that's what they enjoy: music or a book. when mike 1st got with elaine (or when i finally found out!), he asked me about a present at some point. he was trying to figure out what to get her?


i explained to him that he needed to stop trying to figure out how to impress her. elaine (and c.i.) have always had money enough to buy anything they wanted. you don't get them big gifts. if it's something big and they wanted, they'd have it already. with elaine, you go to a used bookstore (or a used vinyl store) and find the gift. i remember elaine going on and on (in the 80s!) about a book that had 15 cents marked up on the cover.


it can't just be any book. you don't just walk in, grab something and pay for it. but if you put some thought into something like that, it really means the world to elaine. maybe it's a book she mentioned reading when she was a child. maybe it's a book by 1 of her favorite authors (check her bookcases to make sure she doesn't have it). something like that (or the same with vinyl) always means the world to elaine.


and that's true of c.i. as well. i think i blogged last christmas about what elaine and i got c.i. if not, it was a dvd (and candy - a bag of plain m&ms, c.i.'s favorite). we spent less than 20 buck (ten each) and c.i. loved the gift.


it was christmas in connecticut, the dvd. i knew that some 1 had borrowed that movie in the late 90s and never returned it. and i knew c.i. had waited and waited for it to be returned. i also knew that even after it wasn't returned, c.i. had never replaced it.


with c.i., that sort of thing leaves a really bad taste in the mouth. if some 1 accidentally breaks something, no problem. c.i. will replace it in an instant and not give it a 2nd thought. if some 1 loses something, same thing.


but if some 1 keeps something that is not their's to keep, it leaves a bad taste and c.i.'s attitude isn't just 'i'm done with that person,' it's 'i'm done with that.'


elaine's the same way. i lost a pair of earrings c.i. loaned me in college. and they were nice. and i was freaking out. i told c.i. and it wasn't a problem. c.i. said, 'rebecca, they're just earrings, don't worry about it. thank you for telling me but i lose things all the time.' a few weeks after, a woman borrowed 1 of elaine's chanel dresses for a big party. and 3 weeks went by without the woman returning it. after the 1st week, and this woman would drop by our apartment all the time and she'd always say, 'oh, i forgot the dress.' after the 1st week, it became a very big topic between elaine and c.i.


and i offered to go over and get the dress and elaine's attitude was, 'i don't want it now.'


i think it goes to if you lose or break something, it's an accident and they're fine with that. but if you're keeping something, it's saying you're using them or you don't really value them. now if you love something you borrow from them - true now and true then - unless it has some sentimental value, if you tell them how much you love it, they will insist you keep it. and mean that when they say it. but if you try to keep something without asking, that really ticks them off.


so the person who borrowed christmas in connecticut (and other dvds from c.i. but that was the only 1 that mattered to c.i.) could have called and said, 'i love these movies!' and c.i. would have said, 'aren't they great? why don't you keep them?' and the person could have had them all with no problem and remained c.i.'s friend. if the person had lost them or broken them and called c.i. to say what happened, it would have been, 'no big deal. that happens every day. don't worry about it.' but when you 'borrow' (c.i. and elaine have a great line they've used for years, about 'borrowing, also known as theft') and don't return it and just keep it, they can't stand you.


there was a woman who borrowed elaine's book (gloria steinem's 1st 1, i forget which 1 it was). and gloria had enscribed it to elaine. elaine hadn't wanted to loan it out but the woman was having problems (sexual harassment on the job) and elaine thought, 'maybe it will help her.' so when she was asked to loan it, she said 'sure.' then the woman moves across town and every time they bump into 1 another, she tells elaine, 'i need to get your book to you.' at 1 point, she says she'll drop it by elaine's office. she never does. a day or 2 after christmas, elaine's in a used bookstore and sees a copy of the book. she thinks, 'well the woman is dealing with sexual harassment. i'll just get another copy to keep on my book shelf.' she opens it and immediately grabs her cell. i wasn't home, but she left a long message on my machine. she was on the phone with c.i. while purchasing the book.


if you haven't already figured it out, it was her book. it was the 1 enscribed to her. that woman who had said, 'i'll bring it back,' had sold it to a bookstore. elaine was furious. and it was probably better that i wasn't home and she was on the phone with c.i. because c.i. was going, 'they must have some sort of record, find out when she sold the book.' i wouldn't have thought about that. the bookstore was able to narrow it down (they did have a system because they're right next to a college and often have purchased text books that end up being stolen text books). so it turned out that all the time elaine was bumping into that woman, the woman had already sold the book. even when she was saying, 'i'll drop it off at your office.'


now i wasn't present for those conversations but elaine and c.i. are just alike on this: they do not bring it up. if something borrowed and not returned is brought up, it's by the person who borrowed it.


a boyfriend of mine (for 3 weeks) once borrowed about 7 of c.i.'s records (without c.i.'s permission and without my knowledge - this is where you insert the 'borrowing also known as theft' line) and when i broke up with him, he made the mistake of bringing up those records. c.i. had never said a word to him about it. when he brought it up, he tried to blame c.i. and c.i. was very clear (and very loud) that it is not c.i.'s job to ask some 1 who borrowed something to return it and 'since you didn't ask me if you could take it, why the hell should i have to ask you to return it. don't pin your theft off on me.'


so that woman went from beyond dead to elaine to much worse. and then 6 years later thought she could pick up the friendship. she didn't know elaine. elaine told her off and told her she wasn't friends with thieves or liars. the woman tried to play dumb and elaine wouldn't let her.


and elaine's point was about the hostility in that. to ask to borrow something, to not return it, and then to sell it? the woman didn't even keep it because she wanted it. she sold it for a dollar (maybe less). and, no, elaine and c.i. will not be friends with people like that.


it's also why, when i had a money crisis in the 80s and c.i. helped me out, i kept saying, 'i'll pay you back, you know that.' and c.i. kept saying, 'it's a gift.' finally c.i. said, 'rebecca, you know me. if you say you're going to pay it back and don't - maybe you get sick, maybe something awful happens to you - you will forever be some 1 who promised to pay back and didn't. so let's just make this a gift.'


which is what it was. (but i did pay it back. and when c.i. repeatedly refused, i hid it and when c.i. came across it and called, i said, 'well that was my gift to you.)


but it's probably having grown up with money. they're happy to share anything they have. and if you like it, they will give it you unless it's got some loved 1 attachment. even if it has that attachment, if you break it or lose it, it's not a big deal. but if you keep anything you borrow, it does kick in - on some level - that person is just using me.


i could talk about this with examples for hours.


today, we'd probably call it 'played' and not used. if you make them feel 'played,' you're out of their lives for good. they will not trust you again. they will always see you as some 1 who uses.

i'll do 1 more example. a woman who borrowed from both c.i. and ava in our 2nd year of college. and after nothing was returned, they had this hysterical bit anytime they brought it up (usually when the woman was calling and they weren't taking her calls) about how, 'i'm not her boyfriend, i'm not her daddy. it's not my job to buy her gifts.' (only with more colorful language.)


you may remember when i blogged about jim moving in with c.i. (ava, jess, and ty were already moved in. dona and jim decided much later.) my 1 piece of advice to him was, 'things are going to break and c.i. knows that. but if you break something, just let c.i. know. it will not be an issue if you let c.i. know.' and jim's only broken 2 things (1 was a plate when c.i. was there). just your nomal living from day to day stuff. but jim let c.i. know and it was never a problem. don't have it in the house (this is c.i.'s belief) if it being broken is the end of the world. so that's that and i had more but i'm getting an out of memory message over and over.


let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:'


Monday, August 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, provincial elections do not appear likely in October, the US military announces multiple deaths, a Sunday Baghdad press conference reveals several Iraqi medical crisis, Nader gets on the ballot in California and more.

Starting with war resistance. 26-year-old Darrell Anderson, of Lexinton, Kenutcky, is an Iraq War veteran -- and a decorated one with a Purple Heart. Serving in the Iraq War drove hom that it was an illegal war, he decided to self-checkout. He went to Canada. He married in Canada. He went through the process of attempting to receive refugee status as so many have. Then he decided to return to the US and turn himself in at Fort Knox. He stated that his work opposing the illegal war was a way to "make up for things I did in Iraq; I feel I made up for the sins I committed in this war." Due to the fact that the process largely followed what had been outlined ahead of time, other war resisters in Canada were considering it until Kyle Snyder attempted to return shortly after and found out he was yet again lied to. After being discharged, Anderson has continued to speak out and is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. (He was present to show support for Lt. Ehren Watada in the court-martial that wasn't. Watada, all this time later, has still not been released from the service even though his service contract expired in December 2006, two months prior to his court-martial.) Anita Anderson, his mother, has also remained active and, most recently, was giving support to Helen Burmeister, mother of US war resister James Burmeister who exposed the kill-teams in Iraq. As noted in the Julsy 17th snapshot, Darrell Anderson continues speaking up and supporting other war resisers:
Chris Kenning (Courier-Journal) reported on Helen Burmeister's efforts and spoke with US war resister Darrell Anderson who also went to Canada. Anderson returned September 30, 2006 to turn himself in October 3rd. Like Burmeister, he suffers from PTSD and he also lost his benefits. He told Kenning, "It wasn't the easy choice, it was the hard choice. I lost my GI Bill, my veteran's benefits . . . but I did what's right, and I've still got my pride."

Anderson has gone through it all and continues to give and share with other war resisters. The illegal war hasn't ended and Darrell hasn't stopped fighting it. His story would not have ended in 2006 even if he had decided to pretend the illegal war wasn't taking place. He was already a part of history -- a high point of history -- and he's taken his experiences and his knowledge to share with others in the need. On Saturday Freeople noted a speech he gave last year:

I joined in '03," 'cause I was broke, I needed money, but I was a young American kid, I wanted to fight in a war. I joined up. [A] month out of training I arrived in Baghdad, Iraq, January '04. Saddam's been captured. And I get there and the guys I'm serving with have been there for six months already; they were there in '03. And I go, "Well, you know what, I think it's come out that, you know, these people had nothing to do with 9/11, there was no Iraqi on those planes. We can see around here there's no Al Qaida, there's no terrorist syndicates in Baghdad, or Iraq. Saddam had stamped 'em out." And I asked my buddies, "Well, you know, we're here to find 'weapons of mass destruction'." And they laughed at me. And I said, "Well, you know, we're here to 'help the people.'" And they laughed at me. And I said, "What's our mission? What's our goal?"...They're like, "All we're trying to do is make it home alive..." [. . .] In April, they told us, "In a crowded area, if one person shoots at you, kill everybody." [. . .] They [members of the crowd of people] are letting them [the person or persons firing at the U.S. military] attack you. They're no longer innocent if they're there at the time of the crime . . .


War resisters are doing their part to end the illegal war and war resisters in Canada need your help. To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Yovany Rivero, William Shearer, Michael Thurman, Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


Sunday in Baghdad a press conference took place on the state of health care in Iraq. Iraqis participating were Dr. Essan Namiq (Deputy Minister of Health for Grants and Loans) and Dr. Kahmees al-Sa'ad (Administrative Deputy Minister of Health). For some reason, a medical press conference required the participation of two American generals.We learned that, unlike the United States, Iraq has some form of universal health care (Dr. Essame: "Frankly, Ministry of Health has a heavy weight on the budget of the state for offering free treatment inside Iraq, for sending the patients outside Iraq. Very heavy budget that's affecting the budget of the state. There is no neighboring countries, or all over the world any country . . . there is not country like us that offers free treatment." ). Diyala Province has a shortage of medications (Dr. Essam: ". . . yeah, maybe we are facing a shortage") and there is a serious issue with the limited medications in Baghdad being smuggled out of the medical environments onto the black market (Dr. Essam stated that "we expect to see such problems" and "hope" that a plan to address the problem will emerge at some point by "the end of 2008 to 2009").In addition there have been problems with "spoiled blood" -- which Maj Gen Mohammed al-Askari (press spokesperson for the Ministry of Defense) intentionally avoided in his response. This was pinned on the people coming into Iraq. Though Iraq's borders are porous, Dr. Essam put forward the laughable claim that anyone crossing the border into Iraq is "going to be tested. This is especially in HIV. The . . . once the passport has been stamped, the person is being tested." Not only did al-Askari avoid that specific issue, he grabbed that question that was tossed to Dr. Essam.July ended and the press gave rah-rah coverage in their end of the month reports when the reality is that the medical conditions in Iraq are a nightmare. For example, Dr. Essam admitted that they did not have the necessary prosthetics for patients who have limbs amputated. Shortages of medication, shortages of prosthetics, shortage of beds and, yes, shortage of medical staff. Dr. Essam floated the laughable claim that "many" Iraqi doctors were about to return to the country -- any day now! -- and when pressed on it, put foward the dubious claim that "more than 80% of the Iraqi doctors, and even in the deterioration of the security situation, they were here in Iraq and working. It is a fact." No, it is not. They were among the first to flee, long before there was a refugee crisis. It was part of the 'brain drain' that first hit Iraq. The number fleeing only increased when they became kidnapping targets and were also targeted with violence. Any doctors that do return will neither be housed in the Green Zone, according to Dr. Essam, nor provided with government protection because, he explained, 2008 is not like 2007.It was revealed that nurses were selling medications and Dr. Essam wanted to remind everyone that "it is not within their job description." Asked about the huge increase in cancer rates in Basra and Najaf since the start of the illegal war, Dr. Essam claimed that was true "all over the world, the number of people afflicted with cancer is increasing." The issue of improving the hosptials (beyond exterior work) was raised (and it was noted that Shahad Adnan Hospital has over 13 floors and only two elevators as well as a bed shortage). Dr. Essam responded that, "It is good for their psychological health . . . it is good to take care of the appearance, to see the building a new, clean." Though that's of no comfort to someone climbing over 13 floors of stairs or doing without a hospital bed, Dr. Essan wanted the reporters to know, "We ourselves face problems with elevators." CBS and AP offer an embarrassing (mis)report but they may be the only outlet that covered the press conference. To read their (mis)report is to grasp that the talking point about "doctors returning!" can be teased into several paragraphs with nothing to back it up and that all the very real and serious problems (brought up by reporters at the press conference) can easily be ignored.

From health to homeless, a number of Iraqis are squatters. This situation was encouraged/endorsed by the US government with the White House wanting to privatize everything and willing to endorse state buildings being taken over by squatters. In addition, the Iraqi refugee situation (internal and external) has led to squatting. Today Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on this issue and zooms in Ghania Jassim whose family became squatters after the start of the illegal war and rents soared so they ended up "in the former Iraqi air force headquarters. The family set up a makeshift home in the former Iraqi air force headquarters. There were no government services, sewage ran through the streets and the children's toys were scraps of metal, rubble and garbage. Times seemed grim, but now Jassim looks back on those days as carefree. About four years ago, bandits stopped her husband and demanded his car, his most valuable possession. He refused, and he paid with his life." She is now the sole support for her family and makes her living off the black market -- makes her living as in: barely survives. New troubles have emerged because she and her family were "ordered" to leave. The family now goes house to house between family and friends and Ghania "and her five children sleep in a different place almost every night." Ghania and the many others see no improvement in their lives . . . and Nouri al-Maliki sits on millions. Day after day.


Staying with the political front, Iraq's Parliament ended their session Wednesday. They are now on summer break. Sunday they scheduled a special session that was to address provincial elections which were supposed to take place in October. The always postponed provincial elections ended up postponed yet again when a vote was pushed through (the Kurdish bloc walked out) that brought issues regarding oil-rich Kirkuk into the mix. The bill passed; however, it was shot down by the presidential council (made up of Iraq's president and two vice-presidents). Leila Fadel and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report that the special session resulted in no actions: Despite intense U.S. pressure, Iraqi legislators Sunday failed to reach an agreement to solve an increasingly bitter dispute over the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk. . . . The parliament's inability to resolve the dispute over the city mirrors Iraqi political leaders' inability to make progress on other fronts, including constitutional amendments and the passage of a law governing the distribution of the country's oil revenues, despite the recent improvements in security." Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) note the special session was "to vote for the second time on the elections bill, which must be approved before elections can be held in the country's 18 provinces. But the session never convened, because Kurdish, Arab and Turkmen lawmakers were unable to reach an agreement on Kirkuk, where their respective ethnic groups are locked in a struggle for land and resources." They also note that Bully Boy of the US got on the phone yesterday to Mahmoud al-Mashhadani (Speaker of Parliament) and Adel Abdul Mahdi (one of Iraq's two vice-presidents). Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) point out, "U.S. officials believe the elections, initially scheduled for October, are necessary for Iraq's long-term stability. Sunni Arabs, formerly the country's elite, boycotted the last such elections, in January 2005, leading to the creation of provincial councils dominated by Shiite Muslims and Kurds. The absence of Sunni Muslims from local government helped strengthen the Sunni-led insurgency across central and northern Iraq. . . . The stalemate emphasized the fissurges and entrenched positions among Arabs, Turkmens and Kurds in northern Iraq, which often threatens to spill over into violence." Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 2 lives and left fifteen wounded, another Baghdad roadside bombing left two police officers wounded, a Mosual car bombing that left four police officers wounded and a Mosul bombing that was "targeting the convoy of Khisro Koran, the deputy of Mosul governor" which claimed the life of 1 bodyguard and left six more injured. Reuters notes one Baghdad car bombing claimed 10 lives ("including three policemen") and left thirty-eight injured while another claimed 4 lives and left six more wounded while a Baghdad minibus bombing claimed 1 life and left seven injured, a Hilla bombing that claimed 1 life and left two people (family members of the deceased) injured.

Shooting?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes an armed clash in Nineveh Province that left 2 people dead. Reuters notes 1 person shot dead in Hawija, 1 attorney was shot dead outside of Hillar and, dropping back to Sunday, 1 police officer was shot dead in Iskandariya, while 1 civilian was shot dead in Iskandariya in a separate incident which also left his wife injured..

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes 2 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse discovered in Mosul ("female employee in the governorate office").

Sunday the US military announced: "A Coalition force Soldier was killed and one was injured a result of a vehicle accident southwest of Baghdad Aug. 2. The injured Soldier was transported to a nearby combat support hospital in Baghdad." And they made this announcement: "A Coalition force Soldier died in the vicinity of Forward Operating Base Grizzly as a result of a non-battle death incident August 2. Two Soldiers were also injured as a result of the non-battle death incident." Today the US military announced: "Two U.S. Soldiers were killed and another wounded after an improvised explosive device struck their patrol in eastern Baghdad at approximately 9:30 a.m. Aug. 4."

Turning to the US presidential race. Barack Obama, presumed Democratic presidential nominee, has caved again. Now he likes off-shore drilling and sings the joys of compromise. His latest cave made it a busy day for Amy Goodman who returned to her duties as Chief Cover-Up Artist For Barack. Remember she only plays like she's a journalist. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and he is now on the California ballot. Sharat G. Lin (Bay Area Indymedia) reports he won the Peace and Freedom Party's nomination on Saturday by "a majority of the delegate votes on the first ballot in a four-way contest . . . Nader and Gonzalez promised at the convention to use their national campaign to boost the Peace and Freedom Party in qualifying for ballots in many other states. Nader is already said to be polling the support of 6 per cent of the nationwide electorate." Peter Hecht (The Sacramento Bee) reports that the nomination took place "in a packed, sweaty room at the Hawthorn Suites" and that Nader's speech included criticism of the "Democrats and Republicans alike for condoning sustained war, abusing workers and neglecting families. . . . He prevailed after firing up the crowd with an indictment of the Democratic and Republican parties for supporting 'a state of perpetual war.' He vowed to fight for a workers' bill of rights and stand up against 'systems of cruel and brutal globalization'." John Lyon's "Nader Campaign Submits Signatures For Ballot Spot" (Arkansas' Times Record) reports that 2,000 signatures were turned into the Arkansas Secretary of State's office Friday which should get Ralph Nader's name on the ballot and quotes the Nader Team's "regional coordinator for the South," David Peyton declaring, "The people of Arkansas were exceptionally willing to participate in the Democratic process and welcomed our petitioners into their communities from Little Rock to Fayetteville."

The Nader Team notes:


This is a biggest ballot access week of the campaign to date for Nader/Gonzalez.
With the addition of California on Saturday, we're currently at 23 states with seven to go to meet our goal of 30 states by the end of the week -- on our way to 45 states by September 20.
This is what we need today:
We need more roadtrippers to collect signatures to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot.
Optimum profile for a Roadtripper for Ralph -- energetic, youthful spirit, personable, fun loving, adventure seeking, democracy warrior.
If you can commit a week or more to get Ralph on the ballot in the Mountain West, the South, the Midwest, and the East Coast, contact mark@votenader.org.
This week, we'll be turning in signatures in Maryland, Kansas, South Dakota, Alaska, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa -- to put us at 30 by the end of the week.
We're halfway to our goal of $100,000 by August 10 to fund this 30 state drive.
So, please, donate now whatever you can afford $20, $50, $100 -- let's get it done this week.
Finally, two more installments to the Obama Flip Flop Watch:
Number one:
On May 4, Obama told Tim Russert on Meet the Press that he was willing to debate with "any of my opponents about what this country means, what makes it great."
But on Saturday, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe backed off, saying that Obama would debate only Senator McCain and only in the three rigged debates sponsored by the two parties and paid for by major corporations.
Number two:
Prior to last week, Obama said he was opposed to offshore oil drilling.
Last week, he said he was okay with it.
As we move toward November, and as Obama reveals himself to be the corporate candidate that he is, a significant portion of the American electorate will demand an alternative.
That's why it is so important to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in as many states as possible.
And that is the important ground work we are completing now.
Come September, we will be in a position to demand open debates.
And present the American people with a viable candidacy that will shift the power from the corporations back into the hands of the American people.
If we meet our goal.
So, please, donate now, whatever you can.
And help push us toward our goal of $100,000 by the end of the week.
Together, we will make a difference.
Onward to November.
iraq
darrell andersonehren watadajames burmeisterchris kenning
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadelsahar issa
laith hammoudi
the washington postsudarsan raghavanqais mizherthe los angeles timescaesar ahmedned parker
peter hechtsharat g. linjohn lyon
Posted by at