:D Guess who! Mike blogging for Rebecca.
This is just a talking post. I cut my own post short earlier tonight because it was my turn to rock Rebecca's baby. I've been waiting for that and really, really impatient. :D
To save time, these are the people who will probably get mentioned in this talking post:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude (like you don't know Rebecca :D),
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen (this is my mother)
and Wally of The Daily Jot
I like filling it at Rebecca's site because when I started my site, we were talking about how we'd be like flip sides of the same coin. It didn't work out that way but Rebecca's been a big blogging influence on me. She has let it rip from the start. She doesn't worry about it or try to figure out the polite way to put it.
That's not a slam at C.I. and I'll be talking about C.I. in this post later on.
But I was really getting pissed repeatedly. And that's the main reason I ended up starting my site. Wally and Rebecca were big helps on that. Rebecca because she was doing the sort of thing I thought I could try for and Wally (who wasn't blogging then) because he was listening to me piss and moan (and was the one who suggested I start a site). Me and Wally knew each other from roundtables for the gina & krista round-robin. And our moms had done a moms' roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin and they were calling each other all the time after that because (as you know if you read it) one of them would say ___ and the other would go, "Oh, I love that too!" Back and forth.
I'd also thank Jim because he was talking to me and calming me down as well. This was around the time the West nonsense started.
If you've read Rebecca for any length of time, you know the story. If not, a kid ended up getting slammed by a bully website (for the 'left') and the adults at that site were trying to track down dirt on him (on a kid!) and also sending him these threatening e-mails. Rebecca and C.I. stood up to that b.s. and, like Rebecca will tell you, no one linked to her outside the community. But C.I. was getting noted and linked to by all these outside sites and then it just stopped. A site I link to proved what I thought when a guy there forwarded me the e-mail. I knew it was happening. I knew what was happening. C.I. was being blacklisted for taking up for a little kid.
And I knew it was going on and members knew it was going on. And there are sites that C.I. can say "Check out . . ." and no one will to this day because we know they are COWARDLY SHITHEADS. I printed that e-mail (with permission) in the gina & krista round-robin and I really appreciate the guy forwarding it to me. I had talked about this b.s. at my site.
So that's when I started my site and I really need to thank Rebecca not just for being something to strive for but also for helping me a lot in the early days when I had no idea what to write about. She's a really special person and I love her for that and a whole lot more. She's almost forgiven me for not telling her when Elaine and I became a couple! :D Wally was the only one we told and it was obvious to him because he was staying with me. We'd made the plans for that summer ahead of time and I was really looking forward to it. Then the relationship I was in broke up and a little after that Elaine and I got together. And right after that starts, there's Wally. There was no way we could hide it from him. But we swore him to secrecy.
C.I. found out a little after. That's due to the cleaning report where C.I. heard about how one of our beds was never slept in. :D If Elaine and me had been thinking, we would have messed up a bed. But we weren't thinking. That's when we were all staying with C.I. last summer. C.I. never said a word. I didn't even know C.I. knew. Then we were doing a roundtable Rebecca put together (that ran here) and there's this big edit in that where I'm hinting around about something and C.I. says not to go there. Then you get the edit and Rebecca types that there's an edit and she wished it had stayed in because C.I. had a hilarious joke about how we were becoming Fleetwood Mac. (Rebecca didn't get it even then. No one did.)
But after that, at The Third Estate Sunday Review, it was kind of sort of coming out in a roundtable and C.I. did this long sigh and just spits it out. At that point, Elaine and I really didn't know how to tell anyone because it had gone on for so long. And if you read that roundtable you'll read Rebecca going something like, "I don't believe it." :D
We did a good job keeping quiet.
I got to know Rebecca because she loves the telephone. She'd call to say hi, she'd call to share something. She must make over 100 phone calls a day! And we're close enough to each other physically that she can just ride the ferry in and we can visit. So that's cool.
Her husband is "Flyboy" and I gave him that name because he can fly a plane. He has his own plane. He flew us to NYC for the World Can't Wait thing in 2006 (I think it was 2006). They had started dating again by that point and then they got remarried. He's really cool and really loves Rebecca.
He has money and probably won't be going back to work. I get asked about that sometimes because people in the Friday Iraq Study Group know them from that and they'll ask from time to time. Rebecca was in the public relations field and she made a lot of money and got the hell out. When they got back together, he was still working. That changed after she got pregnant. They were planning to adopt because she had a miscarriage right before they ended up getting remarried. And she had a lot of those. So while they were planning to adopt she said he needed to cut back on his work hours. And then when they found out she was pregnant, he just gave it up because, at first, they were worried about the pregnancy and then, when they didn't have to worry, it was like something they'd wanted the whole time they were married the first time so he just didn't see the point.
I'm like Rebecca because if I made money, I'd be done with working. I wouldn't feel like I had to work. Flyboy grew up with money and did feel like he had to work. But now they have a really pretty baby and that can be their work. :D
Rebecca, Elaine and C.I. have been friends for years and years. And when she went into labor, C.I. had already planned for that and the gang took a plane out here. There were a lot of people around because you had their friends (like me) and their family.
Early on, C.I. disappeared from the hospital and came back a while later with Rebecca's grandmother because Rebecca would have wanted her to be there. And stuff like that was going on and I was going, "Hey, C.I., what's up?" And C.I. explained what I wouldn't have gotten otherwise -- that there were a lot of people there and crowding wasn't going to be helpful. When I realized that I started hanging back and doing like C.I., running errands and taking care of stuff. We came back here at one point, that first day, to get all the stuff in the baby room together so it would be ready.
And Rebecca set up a speaking thing for C.I. at the hospital because one of the nurses was just really concerned about the war (like a lot of people are) so C.I. ended up speaking to some people at the hospital about that and I got to speak too. And so it wouldn't be like Rebecca had to worry about entertaining and stuff, C.I. put together some speaking engagements at high schools and I got to go along on those too. So we'd be in and out. And that made sense because Kat and the gang (Jess, Ava, Jim, Dona and Ty) would be back on the West Coast soon and that way they could spend some time.
So Rebecca laughed each day about what was it like running to keep up with C.I. and when I said I'd blog (Ty was going to but I'm not even sure they've landed yet), Rebecca goes to write about a day in C.I. life. :D
These are EST times because that's time I live in. C.I. woke me up at 4:30 a.m. Thursday morning because I said I wanted to get a sense of the day. So we go and run for an hour. And I'm not talking jog! :D I thought it would be a jog. I work out and all so it wasn't a problem but I was really surprised we were running. I know C.I. works out like crazy but I hadn't gone running before so I'll note here that C.I. can carry on a conversation while running and not be out of breath. (I was out of breath several times. Rebecca laughed at that and said I should put in that on the phone with her, if C.I.'s on the stepper or the treadmill, she never knows it until C.I. gets off and has to put the phone down to do some quick stretches.)
Then it was boot up the computer and hop in the shower. (No, I didn't hop in the shower with C.I. :D) Then it's get dressed, grab a glass of water (a huge glass of water -- C.I. drinks a ton of water), and go through the paper and the e-mails. C.I. usually brings up two screens for the morning entries. There are a lot of e-mails to read and C.I.'s scanning those real fast. Martha gets noted most mornings because she is specific in her e-mail titles. She'll write something like "Washington Post on the corpse count in Baghdad" or something like that. A lot of people (and I've done it too so I'm not slamming anyone) will write something like "Question" or "I saw this" and there's not time to go through everyone of those and do the morning entries. The first one takes about an hour and the second one had links and excerpts in it but it was time to hit the road for the first campus. So we're driving to speak and C.I.'s on the phone with a friend dictating the parts that C.I.'s comments over the phone and the friend posts that. That's the second entry of the morning.
C.I.'s got a big backpack. In the backpack are magazines, books, writing pads, pens, almonds, sunflower seeds and bottles of water. And who knows what else! It's like Felix's bag of tricks! :D So when we get there, C.I. pulls out a steno pad and looks at some basic notes made the night before about what needs to be hit on and one thing got crossed through to add something in the morning papers. Then we're in the school and then we're with the students and this was a bit bigger than we'd expected so we couldn't circle up and had to do the podium thing. C.I. hit on war resisters (including ), on the bodycounts and I forget the other thing. I talked about Congress before C.I. spoke. Then C.I. opens it up and people talk about the war and share their thoughts and there are questions in there too. That lasted about 55 minutes. Some of the students had home room for their next class and so they wanted to stay and talk some more so that added another hour. Then the same thing with another group of students.
Then it was on to the next high school. And C.I. had said, "Mike, when you're hungry, you have to let me know." C.I.'ll just do the bottled water and the almonds and sunflower seeds. If C.I.'s really tired, there might be a candy bar somewhere during the day. (Usually Milky Way dark, Three Muskateers, or plain M&Ms.) The minute we're on campus, C.I.'s got the ringers off on the cell phones. (C.I.'s got two in the backpack.) So we hit three schools, speaking to different groups and my stomach's growling like crazy at this point so I do say, "I'm hungry."
I was in the mood for pasta (C.I. doesn't care what it is) so we get a table and C.I.'s got the cell phones out of the backpack and the laptop on the table. C.I.'s returning calls and a lot of that is friends saying what their outlet covered or what somebody else's covered and C.I.'s either, "Great" or "Can't use that today." Sometimes it will, "Wait, I'm confused. Walk me through this." C.I. will be juggling the cell phones and a lot of times on two calls at once. If C.I. asks, "What's the URL?" it's going in the snapshot. And C.I. will type something -- depending on the time it will be a lot or a little. And it's like that over and over. C.I. had alfredo sauce and didn't eat much of that but did stab at the salad. Mainly, C.I. just drank water. "Thanks, gotta go" is how most of the phone calls end. They're really quick calls. At least twice, C.I. said, "Okay, let me call you back about that later." In the last ten minutes, C.I.'s off the phone and looking at what's in the e-mail. I scanned that and it's mainly stuff like "___ reports" and that's it. Sometimes there will be something after "reports" but mainly it's just names and outlets with links.
So then we're in the car and C.I.'s on the phone and dictating around the links to a friend. That's not done in order. C.I. will sometimes say, "I have no idea on that, let's jump to . . ." We got to the last school and C.I. goes into the phone, "I'll call you back in exactly an hour." If Kat hadn't been on the trip, C.I. would have called and asked her what was on KPFA that day and followed up anything on Iraq with an excerpt.
So we go in and speak like before. And then after the students have had their turn, C.I.'s asked if there's anymore time available. Yes, but 10 to 15 minutes are needed on the phone first is the reply.
So C.I.'s calling a friend (sometimes it's the same one, sometimes it's another one), getting them to log into the e-mail account and pull up the draft. Then it's fill in the spots that were skipped and C.I.'s looking at the watch this entire time and trying to make it take exactly ten minutes. At one point, C.I. was spelling something (I think a name) over the phone. And as time ticks away, C.I. will say "Pull __ and I'll pick up on that tomorrow." Then it's "Okay, gotta' go. Don't worry about typos, just e-mail it to the site."
And then it was back to listening to the students share their thoughts and ask questions.
Then we were back at the hospital and Rebecca wanted to know all about it. (I gave here five sentences, I didn't go all into it.) We were there for about three hours. Then C.I. dropped me off at home (so I could shower and blog -- I was wiped out, seriously) while Ava, C.I. and Jim went to speak to a community group. (Everyone was speaking at one thing or another except for Ty who was either with Rebecca or with his boyfriend who came down from NY.) Then Ava, C.I. and Jim were back. And we all went out (including my folks and my youngest sister and one of my older brothers) for some fun. We got back like a little before midnight and C.I. had the laptop out to start doing the "And the war drags on" entry. I had already crashed before that thing was done.
Then at 4:30 this morning, C.I.'s knocking at my bedroom door again. (By the way, I offered my room to Dona & Jim and Ava & Jess because they are couples. I also offered it to C.I. Everyone said they didn't want to kick me out of my room. Ty and his boyfriend were in the guest room. Ma had already said they got that because they don't get to see each other very often. Ty likes my folks already but he made a point of not just thanking Ma but telling me to tell her how much he appreciated that. The rest of the gang camped out in the living room. My folks have a room. My sister has a room. I have a room. And we have the guest room -- NOW! When I was growing up, forget it!) (I am one of 8 kids.) (Kat stayed at Rebecca's Thursday night.)
So groaning, I open the bedroom door and C.I. says, "Go back to sleep." But I didn't. We went for a run together. Then it was the same as before. And this time it was all of us going to speak (except Ty). We did that at two campuses and then went to Rebecca's. We spent a few hours there and then I drove them to the airport and turned around and came back here.
So what's a day with C.I. like? When C.I.'s speaking, it's crazy. It's hectic. I couldn't keep up. And I was thinking about that after I dropped the gang off at the airport. C.I. was probably up until one or two in the morning and then back up at 4:30 to work out. Kat always talks about how she must be old but she's not old, it's just C.I.'s moving so quick. (Kat would want me to add that she skips the run when she's on the road with C.I. :D)
And C.I. started doing this in February 2003. It's been over 4 years. A slow month is only two weeks on the road speaking. Elaine says one thing that's working to C.I.'s advantadge is being a lifelong insomniac. I know Ava and C.I. have no idea what they're reviewing this weekend. At one point, Jim brought that up and Ava said, "Jim, we don't know and if you suggest something, I will throw this at you." (This was whatever she was drinking Thursday night. :D)
C.I.'s mainly spoken to high school and college students during all of this but also to various groups. The new thing they're trying to work in ("they're" being C.I. and Dona -- Dona will schedule if she knows something's coming up -- whether she's on it or not -- because she thinks C.I. overbooks -- which is true -- nothing get's missed but, before Dona started scheduling, it would be nothing for C.I. to do 8 things in one day) is women's groups because C.I. spoke to a group last month and realized that they're being as left out as anyone else. (Kat wrote about it in "You just never know" and C.I. wrote about it in "And the war drags on . . ."). They spoke to a labor group at the end of last month, C.I., Ty and Kat and that was Kat's favorite of any non-student group so far.
Tonight, Rebecca explained to me how it started out and I'm glad because I forgot to ask. C.I. had a friend who'd scheduled some speaking things in February 2003 (at colleges) but couldn't do it at the last minute. So C.I. filled in thinking, "I'm just filling in." Then some friends found out and they said, "Oh, you've got to speak to . . ." Which was fine. And then, Rebecca says, next thing you know, it's August 2003. At which point, C.I. started working friends who were teachers and professors and principals and deans and started working various groups that C.I. belonged to in college. And that just carried it through 2004. Now those same people will call and ask or someone they know will call and ask. Dona says C.I. will say "yes" to anything so Dona prefers to take those calls and she'll say, "No. Not this month. How about . . ." She also tries to group everything as close together. And Dona will tell you she wasn't asked to do any of this, she just took it on herself. She did that because she's the one who goes out on the road the least. So this is part of her contribution. (She'll speak anywhere in the area they all live now but she really hates to skip class. She'll do it in a minute if they're in her family's area so she can catch up with them.) Ava, Jess, Ty and Jim don't worry so much about skipping (and it hasn't been a problem). It'll be different for Jess when he starts law school.
I just read this over to Flyboy and he said to put in that C.I. does this at no charge. He's right, Rebecca would want that noted. C.I. does not get a speaking fee, C.I. does not ask for (or take) traveling expense or lodging expense. Flyboy: "C.I. really has put life on hold for the war. I don't think that gets noted enough. C.I. could be lying by the pool at home relaxing instead of criss-crossing the country over and over to speak out against the war."
That's no joke. And C.I. has the frequent flyer miles to prove it (and is always asking people if they need them). C.I. travels with the backpack, the laptop and one carry on suitcase. Everything's rolled up (to avoid wrinkling) in the carry on.
I'll add that since The Common Ills started in November 2004, C.I.'s never missed a day. That's got to be a chore by now. I just blog Monday through Friday and just at night and there are some nights when I do not feel like I have something to blog about or I just don't want to (or I don't have time due to studying for classes).
Okay, Flyboy and me are going to get work on something for the nursery so let me put in C.I.'s
"Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, May 4, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces the deaths of more service members, the mainstream press gloms on an apparent lie, a US senator floats his inablity to stand (no spine), and more.
Starting with news of war resisters. Today Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) interviewed US Senator Daniel Akaka, the junior senator from Hawaii. Ehren Watada was brought up. Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. A February court-martial ended in an mistrial. This month (the 20-th through the 21st), pre-trial motions are scheduled. If the judge elects to ignore the Constituion's ban on double-jeopardy, Watada would then be court-martialed beginning July 16th. Before the Febuary court-martial, he spoke to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! Tuesday, January 23, 2006 and Goodman and Gonzalez played a clip for that for Akaka today:
In my preparation for deployment to Iraq, in order to better train myself and my soldiers, I began to research the background of Iraq, including the culture, the history, the events going on on the ground and what had led us up into the war in the first place, and what I found was very shocking to me and dismaying, and it really made me question what I was being asked to do, and it caused me to research more and more. And as I found out the answers to the questions I had, I became convinced that the war itself was illegal and immoral, as was the current conduct of American forces and the American government on the ground over in Iraq. And as such, as somebody who has sworn an oath to protect our Constitution, our values and our principles, and to protect the welfare and the safety of the American people, I said to myself that's something that I cannot be a part of, the war. I cannot enable or condone those who have established this illegal and immoral policy. And so, I simply requested that I have my commission resigned and I separate completely from the military, because of those reasons, and I was denied several times, and I was basically given the ultimatum: either you deploy to Iraq or you will face a court-martial.
Noting that Akaka is opposed to the war, that Carolyn Ho had visited him in DC to ask for his support for her son, Goodman asked Akaka, "Do you think he should be court-martialed?"
Akaka: I know him and I know his dad and his mom very, very well in Hawaii. I admire his position and, for me, it's a position that has grown with him being reared and brought up in Hawaii in a diverse population and with diverse culture and a care for people. And what he has done is so difficult for any young man to take a position like that, to the point where he is willing to resign his position as an officer and to leave the service of the United States. But he bases it on the mistakes that this country has made. And so, he needs to be admired for that. But he has had a difficult time to convince the military courts, as well, to just let him resign. But for me, we'll let the courts decide that. But I admire his position. It's very difficult, and we know that we all love our country, and I know he does too. But his reasons are, as I said, moral and that's really basic for anybody as he makes a difficult decision as he has.
For those lost in Akaka's useless wordage, the answer is "no." He will not do one damn thing. Would the answer have been different if Goodman or Gonzalez had raised the issue of double-jeopardy?
No. Akaka is as useless as his words. "I know him . . I know his dad and his mom . . ." Yes, he does know them. He was happy to have Bob Watada work his butt off for his campaign and many others. And while Akaka's happy to pose as BRAVE SENATOR AGAINST THE WAR he can't won't lift a damn finger to help anyone that's suffering for Akaka and other senators' useless manuevers. What is Akaka so scared of? He was just re-elected in November of 2006. He is 82 years old. Is he afraid he won't be able to be a senator at 88 if he shows some damn courage? When Time magazine picks you as one of the Five Worst Senators maybe it's time you stepped aside ("As a legislator, though, Akaka is living proof that experience does not necessarily yield expertise. After 16 years on the job, the junior Senator from Hawaii is a master of the minor resolution and the bill that dies in committee.") Voting against the war doesn't mean a damn thing if that's where you courage ends. Staying on dumb and useless, let's turn to Hawaii's other Senator (though let's note that when it's time to stand up for drilling in the AMWR, Akaka is present and accounted for), Daniel Inouye. Like Akaka, Inouye has strongly benefitted from the work of Bob Watada. Inouye is 82 as well (he is actually four days older than Akaka).
Inouye voted against authorization for the illegal war. At 82, why is he so scared to speak up in defense of Watada? Greg Small (AP) reported on Inouye's attitude towards Watada last August: not "too happy," rushed to note "he wasn't praising Watada" . . . So two senators, damn well old enough to know better, can't do one damn thing. They can't end the war, they can't speak out for someone forced to take a stand (one they themselves are too feeble or cowardly to take). They both knew Bob Watada. They're thanks for all the hard work he put in is to turn their backs on his son? May voters show them the same sense of 'loyalty' if the OLD FOOLS are idiot enough to run for re-election (2011 for Inouye, 2012 for Akaka). Inouye and Akaka the strongest reasons today for a mandatory retirement age for the Senate.
In other war resister news, this week Camilo Meija's Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia was published and, as Courage to Resist reports, he will be joining Agustin Aguayo Pablo Paredes, and Robert Zabala for a speaking tour from May 9th through 17th in the San Francisco Bay Area. The announced dates include:
Wednesday May 9 - Marin 7pm at College of Marin, Student Services Center, 835 College Ave, Kentfield. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Pablo Paredes and David Solnit. Sponsored by Courage to Resist and Students for Social Responsibility.
Thursday May 10 - Sacramento Details TBA
Friday May 11 - Stockton 6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey 7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco 7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville 7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka 7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197Thursday May 17 - Oakland 4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
Aguayo wants to take part in that but may not be released in time. If the military is thinking they'll clamp down on war resistance by holding Aguayo, they obviously aren't factoring the passion this tour will create and the questions of, "Where's Augie?" All are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth which examines the Iraq war and features Jimmy Massey and Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Dougherty among others. (Filling in for Rebecca, Betty wrote about Sir! No Sir! last night.)
Now let's turn to the apparent lie. CBS and AP report that Manouchehr Mottaki (Iran's Foreign Minister) "walked out of a dinner of diplomats where he was seated directly across from Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, on the pretext that the female violinist entertaining the gathering was dressed too revealing." Cute. Kind of like the lie that Hugo Chavez said Noam Chomsy was dead, no? Other versions take greater strides to note that Rice wasn't walked out on, she wasn't present. But they love this apparently false claim of the scantily clad violinist -- in Egypt? the US State Department can't lie any better than that? -- and most include this non-diplomatic quote by Sean McCormack who is a spokesperson for the State Department: "I don't know which woman he was afraid of, the woman in the red dress or the secretary of state." What's the truth?
Oh, you don't think it's coming out of the braying mouth of Sean McCormack, do you? KUNA reports: "On Thursday evening, Mottaki left dinner in Sharm el-Sheikh before Rice arrived to sit at the same table" and "Asked why he did not meet Rice, Mottaki told a news conference: 'There was no time, no appointment and no plans. A meeting between foreign ministers has certain requirements (such as) political will and it also has to be clear on what basis such a meeting would be held." AFP, to its credit, noted the comments being put out by "US officials" were "a swipe" on the part of "US officials" but somehow Mottaki's press conference just slipped everyone's attention.
McCormack's statements aren't diplomatic but they are the sort of calculated cheap shots. So nice of so many in the press to run with them just because US officials said they were true. Our Hedda Hoppers of the press.
Staying on the topic of the press, in the current issue of Extra! (March/April 2007, put out by FAIR), Pat Arnow explores (pp. 9-10) the censorship the press doesn't fight. Using a photo (by Robert Nickelsberg) that ran with Damien Cave's "Man Down," Arnow explains how the New York Times groveled and apologized to appease the US military, "apparently removed the photos from their website" in order to gladly go along with the latest dictates of the US military: "Now publications of pictures of casualties violates new media ground rules for Iraq from the Department of Defense. The regulation states, 'Names, video, identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without service member's prior written consent' -- which seems absurdly unlikely." The US military has declared that photos of casualties taken in a public area are not, in fact, public. It's the sort of thing one expects from Team Crusie, but not from the US military, and the sort of thing one doesn't expect for news reporters (as opposed to feature writers) to ever go along with; however, go along with it the Times and other outlets have (Arnow also names the Washington Post). Arnow concludes, "Photos of American suffering or suffering caused by Americans might indeed sicken and offend viewers. But by acquiescing to the military's censorship and avoiding most of these images of American involvement, the media does not offer a true portrayal of the consequences of war. . . . By accepting military censorship without discussion, though, the media demonstrates cowardice." (It should probably be noted that no one has yet to touch the much talked of incident where the Times pulled a reporter from Iraq to appease the US military.)
Barry Lando (The Middle East Online via Common Dreams) notes the "pretense that they [journalists] actually know what is going on in Iraq. It is more showbiz than fact. Because of the fearful security situation, they are restricted to the artificial enclave of the Green Zone, literally cut off from the rest of the country. When they venture out, it is usually only with helmet and flak jacket, safely embedded with American military units. Most of Iraq and most of its people are unknown territory. . . . Most reporters also avoid reporting that the claim of the squabbling do-nothing politicians in the Green Zone to be the government of Iraq is another fiction promulgated by the Bush administration. Everyone -- the media, visiting congressmen and officials all seem to play along -- but as retired General Barry McCaffrey recently pointed out: There is essentially not a single province in the country where 'the centeral government holds sway.'"
Today, the New York Times grabbed some ribbon and tied a 'terrorism' bow around any story they could. Damien Cave tries to fix the mess of official statements in opposition and ends up coming off like Faye Dunaway in the My-daughter-My-sister scene in Chinatown. So after wasting a ton of space and ink this week on whether or not this 'terrorist' was killed or that one was, Damien Cave tells us that the US military asserts they "killed a senior propagandist . . . who was involved in kidnapping Westerners, including the American journalist Jill Carroll." Though repeating every word purred by the Giddiest Gabor Green Zone (Willie Caldwell), Cave misses basic reality. As Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) reports "Carroll says she doesn't recognize the photo released by the military of [Abdul-Latif al-] Jubouri." That much was known yesterday. Murphy also reports that Caroll identifies Abu Nour as a major player in her kidnapping and there is "no doubt in her mind that he was the most powerful of the captors". Murphy also reminds that "Over the past the year the US military has detained a number of figures believed to have been involved" in Carroll's kidnapping and that of Tom Fox and three members of CPT. Somehow, Cave misses all of that. But then, he is working for the paper that early on could have interviewed members of the resistance but a vexed look from a US military official was enough to send Dexy Filkins off to his corner, whimpering and sucking his thumb.
These days, very few outlets could get an interview with anyone in the resistance. Alive in Baghdad did get an interview this week, with a member of the Islamic Army in Iraq which has been dubbed "a resistance group" by Iraq's vice president Tareq al-Hashemi. Below is a transcript of the masked man's statements:
In the Name of Allah the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. The new security plan is a huge failure. We have nothing against the American people. On the contrary, we know there are educated Americans and Americans who like the Iraqi people. Our problem is with the American occupiers who invaded our country. I ask any American, if an invader broke into his country, what would he do? Welcome them? He is going to use this weapon by the will of Allah. God is supporting us. Concering the execution of the hero martyr Saddam Hussein, I call on all the TV networks to visit Iraq and find someone who supported the execution of the Iraqi president. May God have mercy on his soul. When he executed the 148 men as the media claims, they were traitors when we were at war with Iran. If the American president faces an assassination attempt, what is he going to do? Is he going to release them from prison? He'll find the terrorists. This is very normal and the Iraqi president was in a war situation where he was about to be assassinated. So what could the man do? Iran sent these men and supported them and even Iranian weapons were found. My late uncle was a senior official in the state. He saw these weapons. All of them were made in Iran. Where did they get them from? From Iran. They say that the Iraqi president was Sunni and execute Shiites but that is a lie. Those executed by the president were traitors. They didn't deserve to live on the land of Iraq. So he was not sectarian. The late Iraqi president was a patriot who loved his country & people. He made us live in safety,
although the country was going through economic difficulties because of the embargo imposed by the Americans and the Kuwaitis. It was what God willed. This security plan has failed and the Iraqi government is loyal to Iran, to the Safavid [Iranians]. This government is unable to run a group of people. So how can it run an entire country with 28 million Iraqis? I call on the Americans to leave Iraq and re-build the former Iraqi army. By the will of Allah, I call upon the American people to withdraw their sons, brothers, and fathers before they are buried her in Iraq because we noble Sunnis do not accept that and the biggest proof for that was how the late president sacrificed himself and his sons for the sake of Iraq and the land of Iraq. And as it is said, we are people who will never surrender.
Alive in Baghdad does a contextual wrap around (at the end they're noting the Mongols) including: "We are aware that some may find this content objectionable or irresponsible, but we feel it is completely in line with our mission to detail facets of daily life in Baghdad." Those who find it objectionable may do so because they've become so used to what passes for reporting in the mainstream press. Alive in Baghdad, as BBC reported last December, "won a crop of 'Vloggie' industry awards for showing the human face behind Iraq's daily toll of deaths and kidnappings."
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that killed 5 police officers and left 2 more wounded, a Baghdad taxi bombing that wounded one police officer, and a Babil car bombing that claimed 1 life and left 21 wounded. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports, "A car bomb and two roadside bombs went off overnight in Kirkuk, killing six Iraqis and injuring at least 33" while a Baghdad mortar attack claimed 2 lives.
Wednesday's rocket attack on the Green Zone killed four contractors. Lelia Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports: "Two of the dead were from India, one was from the Philippines and one was from Nepal." Thursday's snapshot, citing Reuters, noted the four were all from the Philippines.
Shootings?
Hussien Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 guards were wounded by gunfire in Baghdad (Habibiya neighborhood) and two guards of the Imama Ali mosque (in Baghdad's Adhamiya neighborhood) were wounded in an attack that also led to the mosque being burned down, a Shurqat attack that left a police officer dead, and "For the last five days, the tribes of Shimar who live at the villages of Kinaan have been on fighting with the terrorists there with no help from the government having one man killed and five injured."
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 8 corpses in Suwayra, 6 in Baiji (all police officers) and 9 in Falluja. AP notes 7 corpses "found floating in the Diyala River in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, and snipers were preventing police and medical teams from recovering from the remains along with other bodies spotted in recent weeks from the waterway, police said."
Today the US military announced: "An improvised explosive device targeting an MND-B patrol killed one Soldier and wounded three others in a western section of Baghdad May 3."
And they announced: "An MND-B Soldier was killed and six others were wounded when their vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital May 3." And they announced: "A Task Force Marne Soldier was killed and two were wounded when their patrol was struck by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad today." Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reports that there were 65 attacks using projectile bombs.
The deaths announced today brought the total number of US service members to die in the illegal war to 3363.
Finally Rick Rogers (San Diego Union-Tribune) reported yesterday on an ethics study the US military conducted on marines stationed in Iraq. The study found that 40% was the number who stated they "would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian" and Rogers reported: "The report indeed showed that longer deployments and multiple tours of duty were increasing troops' rates of marital and mental-health problems, including post traumatic stress disorder." Pauline Jelinek (AP) reports on the study today and notes that "55 percent of Army soldiers would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian."
iraq
ehren watadabob watada
democracy nowamy goodmanjuan gonzalez
ann scott tysonthe washington post
barry lando
alive in baghdad
the new york timesdamien cave
the los angeles timestina susman
5/04/2007
5/03/2007
Grab bag (Betty blogging for Rebecca)
C.I. forwarded me an e-mail from Sherry. (Betty here, filling in for Rebecca.) She guessed rightly that I didn't have Rebecca's password and that I probably wouldn't think to check my own e-mail without a prompt. Rebecca had already told her (before she gave birth) that photos of her baby would be in the gina & krista round-robin and Sherry wondered if they would be in tomorrow's? Yes. Gina and Krista will have them and they will also have a column by Flyboy about the birth so that goes out tomorrow morning. Sherry also wondered how long I would be filling in? I told Rebecca as long as she needs. She thinks she'll be back to blogging next week. As someone who's given birth three times, I think she may end up needing a little more than that. I'm not doing Fridays. Someone will be doing Fridays. I'm not sure who but there is agreement on everyone's part (including Rebecca's) that C.I. has enough to do already so it won't be C.I. (Now watch, you'll visit tomorrow and have a post by C.I. That may very well happen but it's not supposed to happen.)
Sherry wondered if I'd spoken to Rebecca and if so how did she sound? Yes, I talked to her yesterday and today on the phone and she sounds very happy. I asked Elaine (who was there during yesterday's call), "Is she really not tired?" They could have poured me in a cup and taken me from the hospital after each delivery. I was completely wiped out. But Elaine says Rebecca is really okay. (She said, "Anyone who's had a difficult birth will be envious.") Please read Elaine's "Kevin Zeese, Willie & Annie Nelson" and, let me add from my own experience, how anyone cannot know that they are having contractions is beyond me. When mine were less than an hour apart, I wanted to slam a fist through the wall. I felt them and they hurt so bad. So, so bad. I had natural delivery all three pregnancies and that was a scream-fest. But Rebecca apparently sailed through the whole thing. She did have some really bad morning sickness at the beginning of her pregnancy.
It was worse than anything I ever had and I had morning sickness in each pregnancy, each morning of the early months. But I didn't have it like Rebecca. She usually spent an hour minimum in the bathroom each morning. So that may have been the trade off? A very rough early few months and then a smooth delivery. (Or, as Elaine's offered, this pregnancy meant so much to Rebecca -- due to her history -- that Rebecca was on some kind of natural high throughout the contractions and labor that she didn't even notice.)
She is wonderful and so is the baby.
Checking my own e-mail account this afternoon (when C.I. called to note Sherry's e-mail was being forwarded), I saw three e-mails from people aghast that I'd said Barack Obama wasn't Black. They had written some time ago and it must be from comments I'd made at The Third Estate Sunday Review. I wrote all three back asking one question: "What race are you?" Two replied, the third still hasn't. The two who replied were White.
I am a Black woman. I am the mother of 3 Black children. My parents are Black. I am a Black woman. Barack Obama is not Black. He is not White. He is bi-racial. There's nothing wrong with that and it's a classification our society better start getting used to (multi-racial as well). But if my kids are asking me (and they have) if Obama is Black my answer is: No, he's not. He's bi-racial which means his father is Black and his mother is White.
Bi-racial isn't a bad thing. Mariah Carey is among the people I've heard in interviews (I believe on Oprah back during "Butterfly" days) speak proudly of being bi-racial. Everyone should be proud of their race and ethnicity. There are many difficulties in being bi or multi-racial. I'm not trying to add to those difficulties. I am trying to raise three children who need to know what society is like before they're adults and out on their own.
Is Obama "Black enough"? That's a question worth asking regarding his positions and politics. (My honest answer is no, he isn't.) But in terms of what he is, he's biracial. I will not lie to my children and I won't lie to myself.
I know that a number of gas bags (right and left) have invested some sort of meaning into Obama (he truly is the perfect ink blot) and how it is speaks of how forward this nation is. Is that true? It's true that when a biracial person runs for office they are praised and treated seriously. And I'm sure that's only to be the case if one of the two races are White. If his bi-racial make up was Asian and Black, I doubt George Will's crowd would be doing cart wheels.
But does the Obama mania demonstrate that America can get behind a Black man?
No, it only demonstrates that they can get behind a bi-racial man. We've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.
Due to the current illegal war, I do think about the next president a great deal. I'm for Dennis Kucinich. But I do grasp that anyone (even Hillary) could win the primary. And I do try to work that through in my head. With Obama, I will continue to insist that he is not Black (he isn't Black) because when he puts some of his nonsense into play, I don't want to hear, "Well he's Black." I don't want to hear that nonsense.
It would be very easy to use bi-racial Obama to try to sell Blacks on even further destructions of our communities. I'm not saying he's a Trojan horse. I am saying we all need to grasp he is bi-racial and not Black.
One who wrote back (answering that he was White) told me I was too hard on Obama? I don't think that is true but if it is, consider it the counterpoint to all the soft coverage he gets from big and small media. He wears a suit well and has a nice smile.
Positions? He's working on those. He'll get back to us.
I'm sorry, if you're bound and determined to be president when you haven't even completed your first term in a national body, then you should have some really strong reasons and some really strong programs. Obama's offered nothing but babble that we can hear during a book discussion on Oprah.
I also feel he lacks what Molly Ivins called the Elvis factor. I think Kat's "'The drooling over Obama needs to stop'" captured that. It also brings up a question in an e-mail asking what I thought of the nonsense broadcast on Democracy Now! today?
You know what, I don't mind actors with opinions. But to listen, I either have to know them as activists or actors (or both). Jane Fonda, Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, I will listen to them. I will weigh what they say. Don Cheadle? I don't think of him as an activist and I don't think of him as an actor. In fact, I'll be nice and not repeat what most of my friends say about D.C.
I will note that he's perfect if he's playing in an ABC after school special. He can play the nerd that gets beat up, he can play the HIV+ student that is shunned, he can play any number of roles where he's the victim and some other student (probably White, probably male) comes to his rescue. But he has no Prince (I prefer Prince to Elvis). He can't play a man. He's a joke everytime he tries. He could play Dustin Hoffman's role in Rainman, he just can't play a functioning male.
So when he came on today, I listened at my desk during lunch with some friends, we were all laughing at everything he said. Even his voice cracks Black women up. We think of sexless, neutered Black men like that as the sort that the power structure props up to prevent Black men from sensing their true power.
What did he say? Who knows? We were too busy laughing. (Kat will be addressing the White guest tonight at her site. C.I. and Kat were on the phone with me earlier today and I hope Kat uses some of the one liners C.I. had about the White guest.) (C.I. made no comment on D.C. I would happily borrow were that not the case.)
D.C. was present to give a Black face to a White Man's war. He was a good little puppet. He's probably sing "Bojangles" and tap dance if his White handlers ask him to. I'd made the point, a long time ago in one of the roundtables at Third, that I tend to be suspicious of any White movement to "save" Blacks. For good reasons historically. After I made that roundtable, Cedric told me, "You know they're going to realize that they need a Black face for their White movement?" Now they have it. D.C., the movie "name" (if not star) that no woman I know would fantasize about. I wonder if his career will take off now?
Those are my thoughts for tonight. Someone will be blogging here tomorrow night. I hope it's not C.I. who already does too much. I'll be posting a chapter at my site. Sherry also said I should explain about the difference between my site and here. My site is fictional. I write in the voice of my lead character "Betinna." That's a pain in the rear and the biggest pain is having to read Thomas Friedman's column. But here, I don't have to look at the outline or figure out where in the plot I am and what I can move forward. I don't have to write a "straight" draft and then try to find the humor in it to start working on other drafts. I just blog like I'm on the phone talking with a friend. So it's never a hassle to fill in for Rebecca. I'm flattered when she asks and I'm very grateful to her loyal readers who are always very positive about whatever I manage to babble on about. (So thank you!)
I hope you read Trina's "Walnuts and Cranberry Rice in the Kitchen." I always read her posts on Saturday and always enjoy them. I always try to find a way to work in a link at my site but usually am just so sick of my latest chapter and wanting to get it posted that I post when I hate it the least.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Thursday, May 3, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Democrat leadership continues to indicate that caving is second only to begging for money in their bag of tricks, the attempts to privatize Iraq's oil continues, and the silence on US actions in Canada are broken.
Starting with real news. Gregory Levey (Salon) becomes the first at a US news outlet to break the silence on a development that has angered Canadians, raised issues of sovereignty, and been an intimidation tactic (at best) meant to clamp down on war resistance. Levey recounts what happened to Kyle Snyder the day before his wedding to Maleah Friesen -- being carted off by Canadian polilce from his home, in his boxers and handcuffs, at the orders of the US military as well as "three men wearing trench coats" visiting the Toronto home of Winnie Ng looking for US war resister Joshua Key who identified themselves as Canadian police. We've gone through this all before, but for late comers, Winnie Ng has always been consistent in her statements on this. It's the Canadian police that have changed their stories repeatedly (short version: None of our officers were there; one was there but he didn't identify the other two -- US military -- as police officers . . . we don't think . . .). Levey notes that "While 3,101 soldiers went AWOL between October 2005 and October 2006, more than 1,700 soldiers deserted in the six months between October 2006 and early April, according to figures released recently by the Army. According to the War Resisters Support Campaign, the number of soldiers coming to Canada over the past six months has risen correspondingly." US war resister Corey Glass (who considered returning to the US following Darrell Anderson's lead but reconsidered when he saw how the military lied to Kyle Snyder) speaks with Levey: "Corey Glass, a former National Guardsman who worked in military intelligence in Iraq before deserting to Canada in 2006, says he once considered it his duty to serve. But he says that in Iraq, he was directed to 'sanitize' intelligence reports. 'I was told to pretty much go with the story you're given, take out the real details, and paint a picture for the commander,' he told Salon. Eventually Glass came to believe that 'they used lies and plays on words to get us over there, and ordered us to commit crimes, in my opinion, against another country'."
Again, that was Salon that broke the US silence -- not the New York Times and certainly not The Nation magazine. US war resisters within the military are not being silent (even if some in the press -- big and small -- are), as Courage to Resist reports, Agustin Aguayo is supposed to join with war resisters Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Robert Zabala for a speaking tour from May 9th through 17th in the San Francisco Bay Area. The announced dates include:
Wednesday May 9 - Marin 7pm at College of Marin, Student Services Center, 835 College Ave, Kentfield. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Pablo Paredes and David Solnit. Sponsored by Courage to Resist and Students for Social Responsibility.
Thursday May 10 - Sacramento Details TBA
Friday May 11 - Stockton 6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey 7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco 7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville 7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka 7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197Thursday May 17 - Oakland 4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
Aguayo wants to take part in that but may not be released in time. If the military is thinking they'll clamp down on war resistance by holding Aguayo, they obviously aren't factoring the passion this tour will create and the questions of, "Where's Augie?" All are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth which examines the Iraq war and features Jimmy Massey and Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Dougherty among others. (Filling in for Rebecca, Betty wrote about Sir! No Sir! last night.)
In other news of resistance, Noah Shachtman (Wired) reports: "The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops' online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say." Veterans for Peace refuses to play along with censorship and notes:
Resistance is NOT futile. It has been happening with soldiers in Iraq for a while, but the movement is growing! Ronn Cantu is one soldier who has been speaking out, and he's been doing so for quite a while. He is currently stationed in Baghdad and is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and a signer of the Appeal for Redress. He runs the online forum, "Soldiervoices.net" where he encourages people to post their feelings on the war. Many that use this forum are using it as a tool to voice their opposition to the war. Lately, more active duty and deployed military personnel are using their rights as citizens to express their outrage at this war. Despite the fact that the military is trying to silence active duty by telling them they have no rights, many brave men and women are speaking out. Active duty military DO HAVE RIGHTS and are allowed to speak out against this illegal war - and many more are beginning to do just that! Two more blogs from active duty in Iraq have surfaced. Active duty blogs [Burst Assunder Army of Dude]
Turning to the trash -- Democratic leadership caving. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "On Capitol Hill, the Democratic-controlled House has failed to override President Bush's veto of an Iraq war spending bill that sets timetables for the withdrawal of [some] troops from Iraq. After the override failed, President Bush hosted Congressional leaders from both parties at the White House to discuss a compromise bill. The Washington Post is reporting the Democratic leadership is now backing down and had dropped their demand for including a [non-binding] timeline to bring troops home from Iraq. Democrats appear to be deeply divided over how far to give in to the White House." How far to give in? That appears to be the eternal question for Democratic leadership -- they appear to have lost not only their spines but their will to fight. Joanthan Weisman and Shailagh Murray (Washington Post) report that, like a lousy poker player who doesn't even know how to bluff, Dem leaders met with Bully Boy Wednesday and right away Dems were "offering the first major conession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq." The Post quotes US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating, "We made our position clear." For anyone paying attention -- non Party Hack -- they certainly did. (For those confused, Steny Hoyer and Pelosi's position is supine.)
Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) observes "the Democrats are seriously contemplating a compromise on an already compromised bill. Now, rather than insist on a deadline for withdrawal that was fudge-able in the first place, they appear to be ready to settle for no deadline at all, just some unenforceable benchmarks for the Maliki government. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyner expects a new bill to pass in the House in two weeks and to become law by Memorial Day. 'We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need,' he said. But resources for what? For continuing the occupation? Or getting the hell out of there? Nancy Pelosi wasn't exactly crystal clear in her statement on the President's veto. The Speaker said the original bill 'honored and respected the wishes of the American people to have benchmarks, to have guidelines, to have standards for what is happening in Iraq.' Those weren't the wishes of the American people. Their wishes were to bring troops home within a year."
Mike Ferner (CounterPunch) observes that, "MoveOn and the DemBoosters are ringing some kind of dizzy alarm: 'Emergency Iraq Rally . . . show our leaders we mean business tell Congress this is the key moment to stand strong against the President's veto.' Come again? For all the wrong reasons The Pretender has briefly delayed the next payment of war money and created a momentary crisis among the Empire's leadership. OK, so don't pin a medal on the guy, but at least define the current state of affairs as one to take advantage of: get serious about occuyping local Congressional offices, tying up traffic, shutting down universities, resisting as if, well, as if lives depended on it."
Mark Hull-Richter (AfterDowningStreet) (rightly) calls the vetoed bill "wimpy" and offers that "what smacks of the most unbelievable doublethink of our time, Move-On, which is supposedly opposing the 'war' aka OCCUPATION in Iraq, is furious that Bush won't take the money!!!! Can you believe this BS? Here's what to do: Call your Representative and tell them: DROP IT! If Bush doesn't want the money, even with minor, mild, advisory strings, tell him to pay for the damned thing himself. NO MORE MONEY."
Kevin Zeese (Democracy Rising) notes "that rather than having a lame duck president we have a lame Congress. The only thing that will end the war is constant, organized and focused pressure from Americans who oppose the war. Two peace moms have called on anti-war activists to come to Washington, DC after Mother's Day. Cindy Sheehan is organizing a 'Mother of a March' on May 14, 2007. She is inviting 'all mothers and all people who have mothers' to join her. This will be a kick-off to a 'Summer of Action' behing spearheaded by Marine Mom Tina Richards. This summer peace activists will swarm Congress from May 14 to July 31 to urge an end to the war. You can see an interview of Tina Richards about the 'Summer of Action' [. . .]"
Tina Richards is the mother of Cloy Richards. When attempting to speak with with US House Rep David Obey, she found herself on the receiving end of his tirade. Fortunately for Obey, their will always be men to excuse other men's abuse of and towards women (and didn't the Party Hacks line up to do just that?). Pham Binh (CounterPunch) notes Obey's tirade and reveals "that the Democratic chair of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey of Wisconsin, included funding for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq in the war funding bill that Bush just vetoed." Say what? Not the Dream Boy of Party Hacks! Binh continues, "Of course, Obey's bill doesn't refer to the four enormous military installations that are being built in Iraq as 'permanent bases.' Over the course of the last few years, they've morphed from permanent bases, to enduring bases, to contingency operating bases. Contingency has a very termporary sound to it -- the contingency being that if Iraq unexpectedly runs out of oil, they'll close those bases and the tens of thousands of troops stationed in them can come home. Both sides of the aisle in Washington are angling to stay in Iraq permanently in one form or another."
Marc Train (Iraq Veterans Against the War) shares his view of the point of the illegal war and the drum beats on Iran, "This kind of foreign policy, along with the recent naval buildup in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean (featuring destroyer vessels equipped with tactical nuclear cruise missiles) and threatening Iran's existance, has the potential to drop the entir Middle East into instability. An unstable region that large would create plenty of opportunites for the war profiteering companies that currently hold sway over our Commander in Chief. Private military companies (PMC), which already make up the second largest military force in Iraq, would be called upon to support the overstretched American military presence in the region. These PMC's would be able to operate with little to no oversight and would become a primary component in this war profiteering playground."
Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg (San Francisco Chronicle via Truthout) also explore the reasons for the illegal war, note Chalmers Johnson ("One of the reasons we had no exit plan from Iraq is that we didn't intend to leave"), note the US military bases (737 around the world) and zero in on the "new Iraq oil law, largely written by the Coalition Provisional Authority, is planned for ratification by June. This law cedes control of Iraq's oil to western powers for 30 years. There is a major opposition to the proposed law within Iraq, especially among the country's five trade union federations that represent hundreds of thousands of oil workers. The United States is working hard to surmount this opposition by appealing directly to the al-Maliki government in Iraq."
The proposed oil law? Edward Wong and Sheryl Gay Stolberg (New York Times) report on a fissure, "misgivings that could derail one of the benchmark measures of progress in Iraq laid down by President Bush. . . The White House was hoping for quick passage". In the parliament, the Kurds are saying not so fast and the Sunnis have long expressed opposition.
Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) quotes Kurdish parliamentarian Mahmoud Othman stating, "The whole problem is because this law was made in a hurry, and the Americans were rushing everyone to do it. The details haven't been discussed, that's why there's no agreement." Of course, it would have helped if the parliament -- tasked to write laws -- had written it and not Big Oil. Taking a cue from their puppet leader, Nouri al-Maliki, who appears to have learned from Bully Boy that being a leader means taking a lot of vacations, the Iraqi parliament had intended to begin a two-month summer break. Ravi Nessman (AP) reports that "they might consider shortening -- or even canceling -- their planned two-month summer break to continue working. But they insisted that pressure from Washington is not behind the possible holiday-on-hold. And besides, they say, the U.S. Congress is not thinking of calling off its own recess because of wartime debate." Ben Lando (UPI via US Labor Against the War) reports that Petrolog & Associates Tariq Shafiq (who lives in Jordan, not Iraq) has turned against the law he had a hand in drafting and, Lando writes, "The oil unions and Sunni and Shiite parliamentarians and politicians have come out against the law. Shafiq, whose brother was killed recently in the sectarian violence in Iraq, says now is the time to put the law on hold and deal with resolving key issues first. Shafiq and 60 other experts wrote a letter to the government urging officials to do just that."
Meanwhile, CNN wonders about leaving Iraq and turn to their resident PIG Peter Bergen who nixes the idea of a "rapid withdrawal" (which is what -- months, years, decades?). No word on whether or not PIG Peter Bergen was enjoying an Afghanistan whorehouse while he was issuing his opinion but then CNN probably wouldn't allow him to brag about that -- he has to save that crap for The Nation which finds it 'delightful.' British General Michael Rose ("Sir Michael Rose") must not have gleaned his knowledge from bordellos. BBC reports that the former army commander says "that the US and the UK must 'admit defeat' and stop fighting 'a hopeless war' in Iraq. Iraqi insurgents would not give in, he said, 'I don't excuse them for some of the terrible things they do, but I do understand why they are resisting'."
Bergen doesn't. Maybe a sex worker could whisper it to him? Chris Kraul (Los Angeles Times) reports, "A brigade of 3,700 U.S. Army troops arrived in Baghdad this week, part of the Bush administration's troop buildup". The number will reach 160,000. Provided Bully Boy doesn't up the number again. With between 140,000 and 150,000 there currently, the chaos and violence has not vanished. (But Bully Boy says there's a level of violence that 'we' can all live with.)
Bombings?
Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 7 Baghdad mortar attacks that killed 3 and left 25 wounded, a Kirkuk bombing that injured a police officer, a Diyala mortar attack that killed a woman and left two other people injured. CBS and AP report that today the US announced the deaths of "[f]our Filipino contractors working for the US government [who] were killed in a rocket attack on the heavily fortified Green Zone" which is increasingly under attack. Though announced today, Reuters notes the four were killed yesterday.
Shootings?
KUNA reports that Muthanna Mohammed Taleb ("an official of the Iraqi Community Party") was shot dead in Mosul. Reuters report the shooting death of an imam after a Sunni mosque in Baghdad was stormed. Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an exchange in Basra that wounded three gunmen (and the Wednesday shooting deaths of two teachers in Mosul -- Nazal Al-Asdi and Asmaeel Taher). AP reports: "Gunmen stormed the offices of an independent radio station in a predominately Sunni area in Baghdad on Thursday, killing two employees and wounding five before bombing the building and knocking the station off the air, police said."
Corpses?
Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 25 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today.
And KUNA reports the discovery of 64 corpses "of unidentified persons in various sports in the governate of Mosul over the past week, which also witnessed explosion of 29 bombs, firing of 23 mortar shells on security positions and a spate of armed clashes between insurgents and government forces" Will the New York Times report 25 corpses discovered in Baghdad in tomorrow's paper or, mirthmakers that they are, go with 4?
Finally, Joan Baez was told "no thanks" by Walter Reed Army Medical Center when she attempted to perform for the wounded. Kat's "Ban Bush, Not Baez" addresses how wrong-headed the decision to ban Baez was and Cedric's "Banning Baez won't make Stubby feel like a man" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! PEACE BANNED AT WALTER REED!" (joint-post) peer into the soul of the type to ban Baez.
joshua keykyle snyder
gregory levey
iraq
david swanson
kevin zeese
matthew rothschild
iraq veterans against the war
the new york timesalissa j. rubin
the washington postjoshua partlow
joan baez
the daily jotcedrics big mix
kats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
Sherry wondered if I'd spoken to Rebecca and if so how did she sound? Yes, I talked to her yesterday and today on the phone and she sounds very happy. I asked Elaine (who was there during yesterday's call), "Is she really not tired?" They could have poured me in a cup and taken me from the hospital after each delivery. I was completely wiped out. But Elaine says Rebecca is really okay. (She said, "Anyone who's had a difficult birth will be envious.") Please read Elaine's "Kevin Zeese, Willie & Annie Nelson" and, let me add from my own experience, how anyone cannot know that they are having contractions is beyond me. When mine were less than an hour apart, I wanted to slam a fist through the wall. I felt them and they hurt so bad. So, so bad. I had natural delivery all three pregnancies and that was a scream-fest. But Rebecca apparently sailed through the whole thing. She did have some really bad morning sickness at the beginning of her pregnancy.
It was worse than anything I ever had and I had morning sickness in each pregnancy, each morning of the early months. But I didn't have it like Rebecca. She usually spent an hour minimum in the bathroom each morning. So that may have been the trade off? A very rough early few months and then a smooth delivery. (Or, as Elaine's offered, this pregnancy meant so much to Rebecca -- due to her history -- that Rebecca was on some kind of natural high throughout the contractions and labor that she didn't even notice.)
She is wonderful and so is the baby.
Checking my own e-mail account this afternoon (when C.I. called to note Sherry's e-mail was being forwarded), I saw three e-mails from people aghast that I'd said Barack Obama wasn't Black. They had written some time ago and it must be from comments I'd made at The Third Estate Sunday Review. I wrote all three back asking one question: "What race are you?" Two replied, the third still hasn't. The two who replied were White.
I am a Black woman. I am the mother of 3 Black children. My parents are Black. I am a Black woman. Barack Obama is not Black. He is not White. He is bi-racial. There's nothing wrong with that and it's a classification our society better start getting used to (multi-racial as well). But if my kids are asking me (and they have) if Obama is Black my answer is: No, he's not. He's bi-racial which means his father is Black and his mother is White.
Bi-racial isn't a bad thing. Mariah Carey is among the people I've heard in interviews (I believe on Oprah back during "Butterfly" days) speak proudly of being bi-racial. Everyone should be proud of their race and ethnicity. There are many difficulties in being bi or multi-racial. I'm not trying to add to those difficulties. I am trying to raise three children who need to know what society is like before they're adults and out on their own.
Is Obama "Black enough"? That's a question worth asking regarding his positions and politics. (My honest answer is no, he isn't.) But in terms of what he is, he's biracial. I will not lie to my children and I won't lie to myself.
I know that a number of gas bags (right and left) have invested some sort of meaning into Obama (he truly is the perfect ink blot) and how it is speaks of how forward this nation is. Is that true? It's true that when a biracial person runs for office they are praised and treated seriously. And I'm sure that's only to be the case if one of the two races are White. If his bi-racial make up was Asian and Black, I doubt George Will's crowd would be doing cart wheels.
But does the Obama mania demonstrate that America can get behind a Black man?
No, it only demonstrates that they can get behind a bi-racial man. We've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.
Due to the current illegal war, I do think about the next president a great deal. I'm for Dennis Kucinich. But I do grasp that anyone (even Hillary) could win the primary. And I do try to work that through in my head. With Obama, I will continue to insist that he is not Black (he isn't Black) because when he puts some of his nonsense into play, I don't want to hear, "Well he's Black." I don't want to hear that nonsense.
It would be very easy to use bi-racial Obama to try to sell Blacks on even further destructions of our communities. I'm not saying he's a Trojan horse. I am saying we all need to grasp he is bi-racial and not Black.
One who wrote back (answering that he was White) told me I was too hard on Obama? I don't think that is true but if it is, consider it the counterpoint to all the soft coverage he gets from big and small media. He wears a suit well and has a nice smile.
Positions? He's working on those. He'll get back to us.
I'm sorry, if you're bound and determined to be president when you haven't even completed your first term in a national body, then you should have some really strong reasons and some really strong programs. Obama's offered nothing but babble that we can hear during a book discussion on Oprah.
I also feel he lacks what Molly Ivins called the Elvis factor. I think Kat's "'The drooling over Obama needs to stop'" captured that. It also brings up a question in an e-mail asking what I thought of the nonsense broadcast on Democracy Now! today?
You know what, I don't mind actors with opinions. But to listen, I either have to know them as activists or actors (or both). Jane Fonda, Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, I will listen to them. I will weigh what they say. Don Cheadle? I don't think of him as an activist and I don't think of him as an actor. In fact, I'll be nice and not repeat what most of my friends say about D.C.
I will note that he's perfect if he's playing in an ABC after school special. He can play the nerd that gets beat up, he can play the HIV+ student that is shunned, he can play any number of roles where he's the victim and some other student (probably White, probably male) comes to his rescue. But he has no Prince (I prefer Prince to Elvis). He can't play a man. He's a joke everytime he tries. He could play Dustin Hoffman's role in Rainman, he just can't play a functioning male.
So when he came on today, I listened at my desk during lunch with some friends, we were all laughing at everything he said. Even his voice cracks Black women up. We think of sexless, neutered Black men like that as the sort that the power structure props up to prevent Black men from sensing their true power.
What did he say? Who knows? We were too busy laughing. (Kat will be addressing the White guest tonight at her site. C.I. and Kat were on the phone with me earlier today and I hope Kat uses some of the one liners C.I. had about the White guest.) (C.I. made no comment on D.C. I would happily borrow were that not the case.)
D.C. was present to give a Black face to a White Man's war. He was a good little puppet. He's probably sing "Bojangles" and tap dance if his White handlers ask him to. I'd made the point, a long time ago in one of the roundtables at Third, that I tend to be suspicious of any White movement to "save" Blacks. For good reasons historically. After I made that roundtable, Cedric told me, "You know they're going to realize that they need a Black face for their White movement?" Now they have it. D.C., the movie "name" (if not star) that no woman I know would fantasize about. I wonder if his career will take off now?
Those are my thoughts for tonight. Someone will be blogging here tomorrow night. I hope it's not C.I. who already does too much. I'll be posting a chapter at my site. Sherry also said I should explain about the difference between my site and here. My site is fictional. I write in the voice of my lead character "Betinna." That's a pain in the rear and the biggest pain is having to read Thomas Friedman's column. But here, I don't have to look at the outline or figure out where in the plot I am and what I can move forward. I don't have to write a "straight" draft and then try to find the humor in it to start working on other drafts. I just blog like I'm on the phone talking with a friend. So it's never a hassle to fill in for Rebecca. I'm flattered when she asks and I'm very grateful to her loyal readers who are always very positive about whatever I manage to babble on about. (So thank you!)
I hope you read Trina's "Walnuts and Cranberry Rice in the Kitchen." I always read her posts on Saturday and always enjoy them. I always try to find a way to work in a link at my site but usually am just so sick of my latest chapter and wanting to get it posted that I post when I hate it the least.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Thursday, May 3, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Democrat leadership continues to indicate that caving is second only to begging for money in their bag of tricks, the attempts to privatize Iraq's oil continues, and the silence on US actions in Canada are broken.
Starting with real news. Gregory Levey (Salon) becomes the first at a US news outlet to break the silence on a development that has angered Canadians, raised issues of sovereignty, and been an intimidation tactic (at best) meant to clamp down on war resistance. Levey recounts what happened to Kyle Snyder the day before his wedding to Maleah Friesen -- being carted off by Canadian polilce from his home, in his boxers and handcuffs, at the orders of the US military as well as "three men wearing trench coats" visiting the Toronto home of Winnie Ng looking for US war resister Joshua Key who identified themselves as Canadian police. We've gone through this all before, but for late comers, Winnie Ng has always been consistent in her statements on this. It's the Canadian police that have changed their stories repeatedly (short version: None of our officers were there; one was there but he didn't identify the other two -- US military -- as police officers . . . we don't think . . .). Levey notes that "While 3,101 soldiers went AWOL between October 2005 and October 2006, more than 1,700 soldiers deserted in the six months between October 2006 and early April, according to figures released recently by the Army. According to the War Resisters Support Campaign, the number of soldiers coming to Canada over the past six months has risen correspondingly." US war resister Corey Glass (who considered returning to the US following Darrell Anderson's lead but reconsidered when he saw how the military lied to Kyle Snyder) speaks with Levey: "Corey Glass, a former National Guardsman who worked in military intelligence in Iraq before deserting to Canada in 2006, says he once considered it his duty to serve. But he says that in Iraq, he was directed to 'sanitize' intelligence reports. 'I was told to pretty much go with the story you're given, take out the real details, and paint a picture for the commander,' he told Salon. Eventually Glass came to believe that 'they used lies and plays on words to get us over there, and ordered us to commit crimes, in my opinion, against another country'."
Again, that was Salon that broke the US silence -- not the New York Times and certainly not The Nation magazine. US war resisters within the military are not being silent (even if some in the press -- big and small -- are), as Courage to Resist reports, Agustin Aguayo is supposed to join with war resisters Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Robert Zabala for a speaking tour from May 9th through 17th in the San Francisco Bay Area. The announced dates include:
Wednesday May 9 - Marin 7pm at College of Marin, Student Services Center, 835 College Ave, Kentfield. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Pablo Paredes and David Solnit. Sponsored by Courage to Resist and Students for Social Responsibility.
Thursday May 10 - Sacramento Details TBA
Friday May 11 - Stockton 6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey 7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco 7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville 7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka 7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197Thursday May 17 - Oakland 4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
Aguayo wants to take part in that but may not be released in time. If the military is thinking they'll clamp down on war resistance by holding Aguayo, they obviously aren't factoring the passion this tour will create and the questions of, "Where's Augie?" All are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth which examines the Iraq war and features Jimmy Massey and Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Dougherty among others. (Filling in for Rebecca, Betty wrote about Sir! No Sir! last night.)
In other news of resistance, Noah Shachtman (Wired) reports: "The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops' online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say." Veterans for Peace refuses to play along with censorship and notes:
Resistance is NOT futile. It has been happening with soldiers in Iraq for a while, but the movement is growing! Ronn Cantu is one soldier who has been speaking out, and he's been doing so for quite a while. He is currently stationed in Baghdad and is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and a signer of the Appeal for Redress. He runs the online forum, "Soldiervoices.net" where he encourages people to post their feelings on the war. Many that use this forum are using it as a tool to voice their opposition to the war. Lately, more active duty and deployed military personnel are using their rights as citizens to express their outrage at this war. Despite the fact that the military is trying to silence active duty by telling them they have no rights, many brave men and women are speaking out. Active duty military DO HAVE RIGHTS and are allowed to speak out against this illegal war - and many more are beginning to do just that! Two more blogs from active duty in Iraq have surfaced. Active duty blogs [Burst Assunder Army of Dude]
Turning to the trash -- Democratic leadership caving. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "On Capitol Hill, the Democratic-controlled House has failed to override President Bush's veto of an Iraq war spending bill that sets timetables for the withdrawal of [some] troops from Iraq. After the override failed, President Bush hosted Congressional leaders from both parties at the White House to discuss a compromise bill. The Washington Post is reporting the Democratic leadership is now backing down and had dropped their demand for including a [non-binding] timeline to bring troops home from Iraq. Democrats appear to be deeply divided over how far to give in to the White House." How far to give in? That appears to be the eternal question for Democratic leadership -- they appear to have lost not only their spines but their will to fight. Joanthan Weisman and Shailagh Murray (Washington Post) report that, like a lousy poker player who doesn't even know how to bluff, Dem leaders met with Bully Boy Wednesday and right away Dems were "offering the first major conession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq." The Post quotes US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating, "We made our position clear." For anyone paying attention -- non Party Hack -- they certainly did. (For those confused, Steny Hoyer and Pelosi's position is supine.)
Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) observes "the Democrats are seriously contemplating a compromise on an already compromised bill. Now, rather than insist on a deadline for withdrawal that was fudge-able in the first place, they appear to be ready to settle for no deadline at all, just some unenforceable benchmarks for the Maliki government. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyner expects a new bill to pass in the House in two weeks and to become law by Memorial Day. 'We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need,' he said. But resources for what? For continuing the occupation? Or getting the hell out of there? Nancy Pelosi wasn't exactly crystal clear in her statement on the President's veto. The Speaker said the original bill 'honored and respected the wishes of the American people to have benchmarks, to have guidelines, to have standards for what is happening in Iraq.' Those weren't the wishes of the American people. Their wishes were to bring troops home within a year."
Mike Ferner (CounterPunch) observes that, "MoveOn and the DemBoosters are ringing some kind of dizzy alarm: 'Emergency Iraq Rally . . . show our leaders we mean business tell Congress this is the key moment to stand strong against the President's veto.' Come again? For all the wrong reasons The Pretender has briefly delayed the next payment of war money and created a momentary crisis among the Empire's leadership. OK, so don't pin a medal on the guy, but at least define the current state of affairs as one to take advantage of: get serious about occuyping local Congressional offices, tying up traffic, shutting down universities, resisting as if, well, as if lives depended on it."
Mark Hull-Richter (AfterDowningStreet) (rightly) calls the vetoed bill "wimpy" and offers that "what smacks of the most unbelievable doublethink of our time, Move-On, which is supposedly opposing the 'war' aka OCCUPATION in Iraq, is furious that Bush won't take the money!!!! Can you believe this BS? Here's what to do: Call your Representative and tell them: DROP IT! If Bush doesn't want the money, even with minor, mild, advisory strings, tell him to pay for the damned thing himself. NO MORE MONEY."
Kevin Zeese (Democracy Rising) notes "that rather than having a lame duck president we have a lame Congress. The only thing that will end the war is constant, organized and focused pressure from Americans who oppose the war. Two peace moms have called on anti-war activists to come to Washington, DC after Mother's Day. Cindy Sheehan is organizing a 'Mother of a March' on May 14, 2007. She is inviting 'all mothers and all people who have mothers' to join her. This will be a kick-off to a 'Summer of Action' behing spearheaded by Marine Mom Tina Richards. This summer peace activists will swarm Congress from May 14 to July 31 to urge an end to the war. You can see an interview of Tina Richards about the 'Summer of Action' [. . .]"
Tina Richards is the mother of Cloy Richards. When attempting to speak with with US House Rep David Obey, she found herself on the receiving end of his tirade. Fortunately for Obey, their will always be men to excuse other men's abuse of and towards women (and didn't the Party Hacks line up to do just that?). Pham Binh (CounterPunch) notes Obey's tirade and reveals "that the Democratic chair of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey of Wisconsin, included funding for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq in the war funding bill that Bush just vetoed." Say what? Not the Dream Boy of Party Hacks! Binh continues, "Of course, Obey's bill doesn't refer to the four enormous military installations that are being built in Iraq as 'permanent bases.' Over the course of the last few years, they've morphed from permanent bases, to enduring bases, to contingency operating bases. Contingency has a very termporary sound to it -- the contingency being that if Iraq unexpectedly runs out of oil, they'll close those bases and the tens of thousands of troops stationed in them can come home. Both sides of the aisle in Washington are angling to stay in Iraq permanently in one form or another."
Marc Train (Iraq Veterans Against the War) shares his view of the point of the illegal war and the drum beats on Iran, "This kind of foreign policy, along with the recent naval buildup in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean (featuring destroyer vessels equipped with tactical nuclear cruise missiles) and threatening Iran's existance, has the potential to drop the entir Middle East into instability. An unstable region that large would create plenty of opportunites for the war profiteering companies that currently hold sway over our Commander in Chief. Private military companies (PMC), which already make up the second largest military force in Iraq, would be called upon to support the overstretched American military presence in the region. These PMC's would be able to operate with little to no oversight and would become a primary component in this war profiteering playground."
Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg (San Francisco Chronicle via Truthout) also explore the reasons for the illegal war, note Chalmers Johnson ("One of the reasons we had no exit plan from Iraq is that we didn't intend to leave"), note the US military bases (737 around the world) and zero in on the "new Iraq oil law, largely written by the Coalition Provisional Authority, is planned for ratification by June. This law cedes control of Iraq's oil to western powers for 30 years. There is a major opposition to the proposed law within Iraq, especially among the country's five trade union federations that represent hundreds of thousands of oil workers. The United States is working hard to surmount this opposition by appealing directly to the al-Maliki government in Iraq."
The proposed oil law? Edward Wong and Sheryl Gay Stolberg (New York Times) report on a fissure, "misgivings that could derail one of the benchmark measures of progress in Iraq laid down by President Bush. . . The White House was hoping for quick passage". In the parliament, the Kurds are saying not so fast and the Sunnis have long expressed opposition.
Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) quotes Kurdish parliamentarian Mahmoud Othman stating, "The whole problem is because this law was made in a hurry, and the Americans were rushing everyone to do it. The details haven't been discussed, that's why there's no agreement." Of course, it would have helped if the parliament -- tasked to write laws -- had written it and not Big Oil. Taking a cue from their puppet leader, Nouri al-Maliki, who appears to have learned from Bully Boy that being a leader means taking a lot of vacations, the Iraqi parliament had intended to begin a two-month summer break. Ravi Nessman (AP) reports that "they might consider shortening -- or even canceling -- their planned two-month summer break to continue working. But they insisted that pressure from Washington is not behind the possible holiday-on-hold. And besides, they say, the U.S. Congress is not thinking of calling off its own recess because of wartime debate." Ben Lando (UPI via US Labor Against the War) reports that Petrolog & Associates Tariq Shafiq (who lives in Jordan, not Iraq) has turned against the law he had a hand in drafting and, Lando writes, "The oil unions and Sunni and Shiite parliamentarians and politicians have come out against the law. Shafiq, whose brother was killed recently in the sectarian violence in Iraq, says now is the time to put the law on hold and deal with resolving key issues first. Shafiq and 60 other experts wrote a letter to the government urging officials to do just that."
Meanwhile, CNN wonders about leaving Iraq and turn to their resident PIG Peter Bergen who nixes the idea of a "rapid withdrawal" (which is what -- months, years, decades?). No word on whether or not PIG Peter Bergen was enjoying an Afghanistan whorehouse while he was issuing his opinion but then CNN probably wouldn't allow him to brag about that -- he has to save that crap for The Nation which finds it 'delightful.' British General Michael Rose ("Sir Michael Rose") must not have gleaned his knowledge from bordellos. BBC reports that the former army commander says "that the US and the UK must 'admit defeat' and stop fighting 'a hopeless war' in Iraq. Iraqi insurgents would not give in, he said, 'I don't excuse them for some of the terrible things they do, but I do understand why they are resisting'."
Bergen doesn't. Maybe a sex worker could whisper it to him? Chris Kraul (Los Angeles Times) reports, "A brigade of 3,700 U.S. Army troops arrived in Baghdad this week, part of the Bush administration's troop buildup". The number will reach 160,000. Provided Bully Boy doesn't up the number again. With between 140,000 and 150,000 there currently, the chaos and violence has not vanished. (But Bully Boy says there's a level of violence that 'we' can all live with.)
Bombings?
Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 7 Baghdad mortar attacks that killed 3 and left 25 wounded, a Kirkuk bombing that injured a police officer, a Diyala mortar attack that killed a woman and left two other people injured. CBS and AP report that today the US announced the deaths of "[f]our Filipino contractors working for the US government [who] were killed in a rocket attack on the heavily fortified Green Zone" which is increasingly under attack. Though announced today, Reuters notes the four were killed yesterday.
Shootings?
KUNA reports that Muthanna Mohammed Taleb ("an official of the Iraqi Community Party") was shot dead in Mosul. Reuters report the shooting death of an imam after a Sunni mosque in Baghdad was stormed. Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an exchange in Basra that wounded three gunmen (and the Wednesday shooting deaths of two teachers in Mosul -- Nazal Al-Asdi and Asmaeel Taher). AP reports: "Gunmen stormed the offices of an independent radio station in a predominately Sunni area in Baghdad on Thursday, killing two employees and wounding five before bombing the building and knocking the station off the air, police said."
Corpses?
Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 25 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today.
And KUNA reports the discovery of 64 corpses "of unidentified persons in various sports in the governate of Mosul over the past week, which also witnessed explosion of 29 bombs, firing of 23 mortar shells on security positions and a spate of armed clashes between insurgents and government forces" Will the New York Times report 25 corpses discovered in Baghdad in tomorrow's paper or, mirthmakers that they are, go with 4?
Finally, Joan Baez was told "no thanks" by Walter Reed Army Medical Center when she attempted to perform for the wounded. Kat's "Ban Bush, Not Baez" addresses how wrong-headed the decision to ban Baez was and Cedric's "Banning Baez won't make Stubby feel like a man" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! PEACE BANNED AT WALTER REED!" (joint-post) peer into the soul of the type to ban Baez.
joshua keykyle snyder
gregory levey
iraq
david swanson
kevin zeese
matthew rothschild
iraq veterans against the war
the new york timesalissa j. rubin
the washington postjoshua partlow
joan baez
the daily jotcedrics big mix
kats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
5/02/2007
Sir! No Sir! (Betty filling in for Rebecca)
Betty here, filling in for Rebecca. Read Elaine's "Kevin Zeese, Willie & Annie Nelson" for more (I don't trust myself not to let something slip out, a trait I have in common with Rebecca). When I found out, I said I'd fill in for Rebecca tonight (and tomorrow and whenever needed). I did that when she was on her vacation that turned into her honeymooon this summer and will do anything to help out. It's also a lot more fun for me because at my site, I've always got to stay in character. Worst of all, I have to read Thomas Friedman. There are some Fridays that I put that off for as long as possible because I just hate his writing, his opinions and his pompous self.
Thanks to Kat and C.I. who always listen to various drafts, are generous with the laughter and support and much more. If it weren't for their support, I'd probably never get anything posted.
I apologize to Rebecca's regular readers because I'm starting later than she does. Wednesdays is a church night for me. We're back from church, the kids are in bed and I sit down at the computer only to realize I have nothing to write about. Then I thought about something C.I. wrote this morning:
I'm pressed for time this morning (I'm sure the Betty announcement earlier has most already 'in the know'). So I don't have time to hunt down links. But we've all addressed this film at community sites. Sir! No Sir! is amazing documentary. (And the movie poster makes a very nice addition to your home -- whether you frame it or just pin it up. Soundtrack is also amazing.) Helga Aguayo, Agustin Aguayo's wife, has spoken of the impact the documentary had on him. It has an impact on anyone who sees it. It traces the resistance within the military during Vietnam. There are stories that will that will grab you by the heart, stories that will grab you by the throat. It's an amazing film -- you know that if you've seen it. We'll continue to note it in the snapshots through the airing.
"We've all addressed" is only true for me in terms of "DVD Must See: Sir! No! Sir!" (The Third Estate Sunday Review) which we all worked on (and there are other pieces at The Third Estate Sunday Review). At my site, I'm stuck with Thomas Friedman and I'm not sure I've noted Sir! No Sir! other than reposting C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot"s. So I thought I'd take some time tonight to weigh in on the documentary. The following statement's been appearing daily in the snapshots for about two weeks: "In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth which examines the Iraq war and features Jimmy Massey and Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Dougherty among others." That's the EST and Pacific time, Mountain and Central times will vary (I'm Central myself, but I don't have cable or satellite). (I have three kids. We don't need to waste money on cable.)
What I do have is the DVD of Sir! No Sir! I actually gave it to a friend because C.I. passed on the expanded edition. Let me note the DVD features on the expanded version:
* Rebellion at the Ft. Dix Stockade
* Organizaing a Union in the Military
* Black GIs and "The Enemy"
* Vietnam GI -- The First Underground Paper
* Life and Escape in the Presido Stockade
* The Winter Soldier Investigation Indicting the Government
* David Zeiger's Return to Ft. Hood
* Pirate Radio DJ Dave Rabbit Speaks!
* The Court-Martial of Camilo Mejia: Iraq War Resister
* Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda -- From Vietnam to Iraq
* Veterans "Return" their Medals in Only the Beginning
* The Oleo Strut GI Coffeehouse in Summer of '68
* Rita Martinson sings Soldier, We Love You in FTA
* Filmmaker Biography
* Interactive Menus
* Scene Selection
The documentary is directed by David Zeiger. We saw it in California last year, on the big screen. It was incredible. I've watched it on DVD since and it's always moving but I really think it's best if you can watch it with others. I've watched it with my parents, my sisters and others and there's always an added level of enjoyment because afterwards, you really want to talk about this film. You need someone to share it with.
If you get Sundance and can watch it, do. Even if it's by yourself. But, if you watch by yourself, you better get some stationary (or notebook paper) to write a letter because you're going to want to share this with someone. You could e-mail but it's really a letter type film. You want to toss it around and explore it, not dash something quickly (which is what I'm doing tonight and I won't be able to capture any of the greatness of the film).
One of the things that stood out to me the first time I watched and still does is the scope. I should probably explain that this is a film about resistance to the war in the military during Vietnam. And for someone like me, representations do matter. (I'm Black for anyone that doesn't know.) I would've enjoyed the movie regardless but the fact that an effort (a strong effort) was made to include the stories of all (and not just White men) did make me open to the film early on. I think we see a woman resister early on. She attends a rally in her uniform. And that did stand out to me. Later in the film when the story of Black resistance is told, it was clear this was a film made by someone who's interested in all stories and not just a narrow view.
Rita Martinson is mentioned above in the extras. She performed with FTA which was a tour that Jane Fonda, Donald Sutherland, Fred Gardner and others put together to tour military bases but the military wouldn't allow it. So they played off base and soldiers attended. Rita Martinson is a singer-songwriter and she performs her song "Soldier, We Love You." That's a quiet moment in the film and a really powerful one.
You hear people tell their stories of why they decided to resist and what they went through. That's especially important today when we have a growing war resistance within the military again. In yesterday's snapshot, C.I. noted some of the mean things said about Camilo Mejia. (And I loved C.I.'s comment that a "charity baby" shouldn't be calling anyone a "mama's boy.")
This idea that people are cowards when they refuse to participate in an illegal war is just insane.
The easy path would be to engage in an illegal war you knew was illegal. You keep your mouth shut, your head down and just do what's expected. Speaking out, saying "no" takes real courage. Terri Johnson did so and I was so happy about that because she is so young (18) and for her to have that kind of courage at such a young age just really filled me with hope. (And when someone makes a documentary about today's war resisters they better include Terri. She's a young woman, Black and they better not erase her from the picture.)
It takes courage to go public. You'll be trashed and you'll be mocked by some. You'll have people who say idiotic things like, "Once you sign a contract . . ." or "You knew what you were getting into . . ." On the latter, how can anyone know that the occupant of the Oval Office will lie them into an illegal war? On the contract nonsense, contracts are broken all the time. If you're rich, you can do that. You can hire an attorney. But if you're one of the average people, you're always expected to follow that contract. Well contracts can be wrong. It's also true that the piece of paper you sign is only binding on your end. The military can change anything in the contract at any time they want. So I don't see that as a fair contract and I don't think anyone who's been screwed over (regarding war or anything else) needs to feel bound by a contract where one party has the right to change it and alter it at any time but the other party is expected to obey what was written and any changes that get made after the fact.
I also don't believe that we just follow orders. I've got three kids. Every one of them knows that there are things they don't do. I've taught them that over and over. If they're told to do something, by a teacher or whomever, that is against what we believe, they know they say "no." I'm not raising my children to be sheep that can be led around in any direction.
I am a church goer and my children have been raised in the church ("have been," they're still so young -- I don't have a teenager yet -- that's when the 'fun' begins, right?). If, like Agustin Aguayo, they went to Iraq and thought it was the right thing but then got over there and saw that it didn't fit with what they had been raised with spiritually, they better object. I've raised them too. Not to enforce their beliefs on anyone else but to know what is right and what is wrong.
A piece of paper, even a contract, is not a higher authority. And right is right and wrong is wrong.
This is an illegal war and that is wrong. There is a duty to resist illegal wars.
Sir! No Sir! was really powerful to me because I'd heard about Vietnam but this was my first chance to really see it. In the Black community (Cedric and Ty can tell you the same thing, this isn't geographical) we seem to have supplemental information that doesn't make the mainstream. I say that because I knew about the resistance of Black soldiers during Vietnam and I knew about Ali speaking out and refusing to ship to Vietnam. Those aren't things to be ashamed of and are applauded. Because we know that and because we're well aware that government lies, we're less likely to go along with nonsense. That's probably why Black America was against this war from the beginning and didn't buy into all the hype the way other segments did.
During Vietnam, the Black Power movement was going on and that really did influence the way the war was seen. When we were being treated as second-class citizens (that may be too kind a term), the idea that it was our 'duty' to fight another people that was also being oppressed was just ridiculous. (Not to all. Colin Powell was a happy Uncle Tom, even in the sixties.)
And, if I can point it out one more, I really loved being able to see and hear people who were a part of that sharing their stories.
This documentary zips by so quickly. It's more like a "movie" than what most people think of a documentary. A lot of people think, "Documentary? Oh, that's going to be dull and drag out forever." Sir! No Sir! ends before you know it and you're immediate feeling will be, "Does it have to be over already?" When we saw it on the big screen, I actually was asking, "It's over?"
I'll also add that I've let my oldest son watch it. I don't think there's anything in here they shouldn't see. I do think you need to be prepared to explain it. He wanted to see it and I told him one night that if he'd do some cleaning around the house while I got the other two in bed, we'd stay up and watch it. He really enjoyed the film too. I just looked to see what the film was rated? I couldn't remember. It's not rated. I don't remember anything that one wouldn't expect in a documentary on war (that includes strong langugage).
I need to wind down so I'm copying this from C.I.'s entry (and Julie passed it on to C.I. to give credit where it's due):
CHECK IT OUT AND PASS IT ON!!!
IT TAKES ALL OF US TO GET THE WORD OUT!!!
+LET EVERYONE YOU KNOW IN ON THESE EXTRAORDINARY FILMS
+On Monday May 7th 2007...there will be an historic night of GI resistance on national television as the Sundance Channel presents the U.S. broadcast premiere of both
Sir! No Sir! and The Ground Truth:
*************************************************************************
Sir! No Sir!
Monday, May 7
The Sundance Channel
9 pm Pacific and Eastern
Check your local listings for Central and Mountain times.
The Ground Truth
Monday, May 7
The Sundance Channel
10:30 pm Pacific and Eastern
Check your local listings for Central and Mountain times.
*************************************************************************
This is a wonderful chance for millions of people to see these films that, together, link the tremendous movement of American soldiers against the Vietnam war with the growing opposition among soldiers to the Iraq war today.
MAKE MAY 7TH A DAY THAT SPARKS A SURGE IN OPPOSITION AMONG SOLDIERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS TO THIS HIDEOUS WAR .
*After all, one good surge deserves another
*WE URGE YOU TO GRAB THIS OPPORTUNITY.
1. Not Everyone has the Sundance Channel...
2. So if you do, PLEASE organize a house party to watch the films and spread their influence among soldiers and civilians alike.
3. If you don't, find someone who does and offer to bring the chips.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE ALREADY EXTRAORDINARY EFFECTS SIR! NO SIR! HAS HAD ON ACTIVE DUTY SOLDIERS AND VETS!!!
In preparation, to help spread the films, WWW.SIRNOSIR.COM is offering these specials:
The Director's Edition DVD of the film and 1 1/2 hours of additional stories will be on SALE through May 15th $19.95 (from $23.95)
The Limited Edition DVD, with the film and "Punk Ass Crusade" counter-recruitment video, is now available in bulk at a DISCOUNTED RATE:
5 for $50
10 for $80
15 for $105
20 for $120
(All plus shipping and handling)
CLICK HERE TO READ ABOUT HOW VETERANS FOR PEACE HAS USED SIR! NO SIR! FOR RESISTANCE
The Ground Truth is also available in bulk at http://groundtruthstore.seenon.com/
PLEASE DO ALL YOU CAN TO MAKE USE OF THIS NATIONAL BROADCAST.
SEND THIS EMAIL TO YOUR LIST AND MYSPACE FRIENDS, AND MAKE SURE YOUR ORGANIZATIONS POSTAND SEND THIS E-BLAST OUT AS WELL . . .
ENCOURAGE THE RESISTANCE!
I got picked for "Truest statement of the week" (The Third Estate Sunday Review) for which I'm grateful but I had a different pick (this ties into the documentary). Here was my pick and the question was about young people today and why you think they are hopeful?
Jane Fonda: Anger. Resistance. They're pissed off, as well they should be. Natalie Maines [of the Dixie Chicks] embodies that. It's that, "F--k it, man -- this not what I want this country to be." There's a lot of young people who feel that way. The young people I work with and who come to my events, they're beginning to feel their power in a very different way than in the Sixties and Seventies.
That's from Rolling Stone magazine's May 3-17, 2007 double issue (on sale now). I love Jane Fonda for her acting and for her activism. And I love that quote because the easiest lie in the world is that young people are apathetic today. They aren't. Jane Fonda is in Sir! No Sir! and she's interviewed about the period and what it was like to witness that. You are cheating yourself if you don't watch Sir! No Sir! If you don't have the Sundance Channel and don't know anyone who does, consider purchasing it or renting it (I've seen it my Blockbuster). Please see the film and share it.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Wednesday, May 2, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, Big Oil drools over the oil grab, much time is wasted with people pretending to be shocked (and worse), today is World Press Freedom Day, and more.
Starting with the garbage that's stinking up and taking up too much 'coverage' of Iraq. Bully Boy gave the toothless, non-binding, weak ass measure the Democratically controlled Congress passed a veto. To no one's surprise. Andrew Ward (Financial Times of London) reminds, "Mr Bush had threatened for weeks to reject any legislation including withdrawal dates". The non-binding and toothless 'benchmarks' (always with get-out-of-the-benchmark-free cards). When the Democratic leadership caved and sold out the American people there was no call for "TAKE TO THE STREETS!"; however, because Bully Boy didn't sign the bill, WalkOn's calling for the closest thing to activism they can manage.
Bully Boy should have signed the bill. Not to end the illegal war. The bill didn't end the war, didn't guarantee anything (reclassification would have allowed Bully Boy to keep the exact same number of US service members on the ground in Iraq). But it would have been a PR victory for him. And then he could have said, "Well the bill didn't anticipate ___ so I've had to ___." He could have done whatever he wanted. The bill neither constrained nor contained the Bully Boy. He could have grabbed a few headlines, probably surprised enough people to leap all the way to 35% approval rating. His not signing a weak ass bill that gave him everything he asked for and put no binding condidtions on him was a sign (yet again) of the press' tendency to create 'boy geniuses' where there are none.
At the end of April, Gareth Porter (IPS) observed, "The language on a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq voted out of the House-Senate conference committee this week contains large loopholes that would apparently allow U.S. troops to continue carrying out military operations in Iraq's Sunni heartland indefinitely." Now WalkOn and Party Hacks who pretend to care about something other than elections (but don't) have reason to drum up phoney outrage -- they sold the weak ass action by the Democrats as if it were the second coming of FDR's Public Works Administration. Others telling people to drop everything in the middle of the week -- a day after many have participated in actual events for real issues -- and rush out to express your . . . well, not shock. Everyone knew Bully Boy would veto. But whatever it is, express it! Drop everything because the weak ass Democratic leadership just got a wedgie and, we all know, Dem leadership can't defend themselves. As one "key Democratic strategist" bragged to Elizabeth Drew (The New York Review of Books) about the bill, "We don't want to own this war. It's Bush's war, and we want him to keep owning it."
While it appears that you tried to do something? And they can't get away with that lie without an army of enablers which, fortunately, is one thing the Beltway has in surplus. But people are catching on to the con game Democratic leadership tried to play on the voters.
Which is why Charles Babington (AP) can report -- with little shock from readers -- that with Bully Boy having refused to budge and Dems already caved/collapsed, the 'compromise' is expected to come from the Compromised Party (Democratic Party) and chief among the compromised, House Majority Leader Steny Good Times Follow Me Around Hoyer who "told reporters Wednesday that he hopes to have a new bill passed in the House in two weeks, with a final bill sent to the president before the Memorial Day recess. 'We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need,' said Hoyer, D-Md."
That quote is telling in two ways. First of all, Hoyer's now pushing the very thing used to tar and feather Dems with for the last few weeks (the abused often repeat the language of their abusers). Second, note the pause in the statement. "We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need." As though Hoyer grasped that leaving US troops in harm's way is just what the Democrats -- same as the Republicans -- are doing. But, good news, they'll have "the resources they need." Babington also reports that Hoyer "said the bill should fund combat through Sept. 30 as Bush has requested, casting doubt that Democratic leaders would adopt a proposal by Rep. John Murtha [. . .] to fund the war two or three months at a time." [Note Babington wrongly identifies Murtha as a Republilcan -- ". . . by Rep. John Murtha, R-Pa., to fund . . ."] US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying, "The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him." No, they are not. They are not going to put it in his hand. They're going to leave it on top of the bureau as they tip-toe out the bedroom door with a big smile on their faces.
The BBC goes with their DC correspondent James Westhead's call "The Democrats acknolwedge they will eventually have to soften their bill as they cannot risk being accused of undercutting the troops during wartime". For those needing to see the con game from the other end, Noam N. Levey, Maura Reynolds and Joel Havemann (Los Angeles Times) produce the best piece of (unintentional) comedic writing of the year as they enter Bully Boy's head to report what he felt, what he hoped, what he thought, throughout the morning. It's an embarrassment of . . . embarrassments and did no think to wonder if this wasn't heavy on feature writing porn and light on what anyone expected from actual reporting? Let's hope all three wore gloves to protect themselves from bodily fluids.
Turning to Iraqi legislation news, the US allowed Big Oil to draft the Iraqi hydrocarbon law that would -- no surprise -- benefit Big Oil while stealing from the Iraqi people. This morning Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reported that the law had been "sent to parliament" even though "Parliamentary officials . . . said they were unaware the bill had been submitted to the legislature." Why should it be any other way? Iraqis weren't the ones drafting this law -- not even the parliament which is tasked with drafting Iraq's laws. Raed Jarrar earlier revealed that, in February, when the law was agreed upon, the Iraqi parliament had no idea. Jarrar most recently explained (Raed in the Middle) the three primary reasons the law will harm Iraqis: the law breaks up the nation-state into economic regions and threatens national unity; the sovereignty of Iraq is harmed since the Iraqi government has no say in production limits, the Iraqi judiciary cannot resolve disputes and Big Oil gets seats on the council approving their own contracts; and "Iraq will lose hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign oil companies during the next 35 years because the law doesn't give any preferences to local companies and due to the unconventional type of contracting this law legalizes called the Production sharing agreements (PSA) or the exploration and production agreements."
"Under the proposed law, Iraq's immense oil reserves would not simply be opened to foreign oil exploration, as many had expected. Amazingly, executives from those companies would actually be given seats on a new Federal Oil and Gas Council that would control all of Iraq's reserves" is how Juan Gonzalez (New York Daily News via Common Dreams) explained it in February, opening with: "Throughout nearly four years of the daily mayhem and carnage in Iraq, President Bush and his aides in the White House have scoffed at even the slightest suggestion that the U.S. military occupation has anything to do with oil. The President presumably would have us all believe that if Iraq had the world's second-largest supply of bananas, instead of petroleum, American troops would still be there." Ewa Jasiewicz (Democracy Rising) observes, "If passed by parliament, the law will mark a milestone in Iraqi history -- a shift of Iraq's massive reserves from public to private hands. It could see private companies develop and profit from Iraq's oil for 15-30 year periods with virtually no possibility for the Iraqi state to renegotiate contractual terms and conditions."
On February 23, Antonia Juhasz, speaking with Kris Welch on KPFA's Living Room, explained:
This law is being sold as the mechanism for helping the Iraqis determine how they will distribute their oil revenue. That is not what this law is about. That is the bottom end of an enormous hammer that is this oil law. This oil law is about foreign access to Iraq's oil and the terms by which that access will be determined. It is also about the distribution of decision making power between the central government and the region as to who has ultimate decision making power and the types of contracts that will be signed. There are powers that be within Iraq that would very much like to see that power divvied up into the regions, between the Kurds and the Shia in particular, and then there are powers that would like to see Iraq retained as a central authority. The Bush administration would like the central government of Iraq to have ultimate control over contracting decisions because it believes it has more allies in the central government than it would if it was split up into regions. The Bush administration is most concerned with getting an oil law passed now and passed quickly to take advantage of the weakness of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government couldn't be in a weaker negotiating position and the law locks the government in to twenty to thirty-five year committments to granting the most extreme versions of exploration and production contracts to US companies or foreign companies. Meaning that foreign companies would have access to the vast majorities of Iraq's oil fields and they would own the oil under the ground -- they would control the production and they would in contracts yet to be determined get a percentage of that profit but they'd be negotiating essentially when Iraq is at its weakest when Iraq is hardly a country. And that's what this oil law is all about.
When Juhasz spoke in February, the Democratic leadership had yet to devise, let alone unleash, their hideous proposals; however, it bears noting that the passing of this law was a "benchmark" on the offensive law. Dems bought the war this year as a time-share with the Bully Boy.
Turning to the the topic of courage. Eric Ruder (Socialist Worker) reports on war resister Agustin Aguayo who "was released from confinement at a U.S. military base in Mannheim, Germany, on April 18, but he's still far from free. [. . .] Helga and his twin daughters thought he would be headed home, but now the Army says that it plans to keep Agustin on active duty for one to two years more. And he remains under the authority of members of his old unit -- the same 'people that tried to take him by force, i.e., shackle, handcuff and carry him onto the plane' for his second Iraq deployment, explained Helga." Heather Wokush (OpEdNews) interviewed Agustin Aguayo for a piece published last Saturday and he stated, "I was determined that I would not hurt/injure others in any way, no matter what the consequences. I actually belileve that this action of not loading my weapon kept me sane. It brought me great sadness to know some soldiers I knew had shot at people and some soldiers I knew were hurt by the actions of others. It was so absurd." On his first tour of duty in Iraq, Aguayo refused to load his weapon. He went to Iraq as a medic and, while there, the realities he saw were in conflict with his own spiritual beliefs. As a result, he attempted to apply for c.o. status. As Helga Aguayo has noted, everyone who interviewed her husband during the process felt he was a c.o. objector but superiors (who never spoke with Aguayo) overruled that. Aguayo has attempted to address the matter via the civilian courts. Robert Zabala is another example of someone who had to go to the civilian courts to be awarded c.o. status (which he was awarded last month). The inequalities (and the fact that some people "in charge" don't even grasp the military guidelines as written) is why the Center on Conscience & War has declared May 14th the day to lobby Congress to pass a law that would "protect the rights of conscientious objectors".
As Courage to Resist reported, Agustin Aguayo is supposed to join with war resisters Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Robert Zabala for a speaking tour from May 9th through 17th in the San Francisco Bay Area. The announced dates include:
Wednesday May 9 - Marin 7pm at College of Marin, Student Services Center, 835 College Ave, Kentfield. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Pablo Paredes and David Solnit. Sponsored by Courage to Resist and Students for Social Responsibility.
Thursday May 10 - Sacramento Details TBA
Friday May 11 - Stockton 6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey 7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco 7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville 7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka 7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197Thursday May 17 - Oakland 4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
If the military is thinking they'll clamp down on war resistance by holding Aguayo, they obviously aren't factoring the passion this tour will create and the questions of, "Wheere's Augie?" All are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth which examines the Iraq war and features Jimmy Massey and Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Dougherty among others.
From that worthy topic, we again have to dig through the trash. CNN reports no one can confirm that Abu Ayyub was killed in Iraq on Tuesday. Had Kirk Semple (New York Times) focused on something more productive, he might have gotten the violence numbers correct in this morning's paper.
The violence continued today and maybe tomorrow the New York Times will cover it? Or maybe they'll continue their undercount when summarizing reported violence?
Bombs?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 8 dead in Baghdad, 4 wounded from a Baghdad minibus bombing ("IED carried in a plastic bag, left aboard"), 3 Baghdad mortar attack that killed a total of 5 and wounded 29, 4 Baghdad roadside bombs that killed a total of 3 people and wounded 4, a Baghdad car bombing that killed 4 people and left 25 wounded, a Basra bombing that killed one person and a Basra "katiosha missile" attack that wounded a child. Reuters reports 10 dead and 35 wounded in a Baghdad car bombing attack in the Sadr City section of the capital.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two injured people from a Basra "confrontation between gunmen and a British patrol, two gunmen were seriously injured." Reuters reports the Mosul shooting death of Nidhal al-Asadi who had been "a university professor".
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 30 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and, in Kirkuk, the corpse of Nejim Mohammed Hussein was found (he had been a blacksmith).
In addition, today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Corps Soldier was severely wounded after an improvised explosives device exploded under her vehicle at approximately 1:55 pm Wednesday in western Baghdad. The Soldier later died of wounds at 3:25 pm while at the 28th CSH in Baghdad." And they noted: "Two MND-B Soldiers were killed and two others were wounded when their vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device in a southern section of the Iraqi capital May 2."
In other news of how bad things continue to get in Iraq, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom issued their press release stating:
This year the Commission has added Iraq to its Watch List, due to the alarming and deteriorating situation for freedom of religion and belief. Despite ongoing efforts to stabilize the country, successive Iraqi governments have not adequately curbed the growing scope and severity of human rights abuses. Although non-state actors, particularly the Sunni-dominated insurgency, are responsible for a substantial proportion of the sectarian violence and associated human rights violations, the Iraqi government also bears responsibility. That responsibility takes two forms. First, the Iraqi government has engaged in human rights violations through its state security forces, including arbitrary arrest, prolonged detention without due process, extrajudicial executions, and torture. These violations affect suspected Sunni insurgents, but also ordinary Sunnis who are targeted on the basis of their religious identity. Second, the Iraqi government tolerates religiously based attacks and other religious freedom abuses carried out by armed Shi'a factions including the Jaysh al-Mehdi (Mahdi Army) and the Badr Organization. These abuses include abductions, beatings, extrajudicial executions, torture and rape. Relationships between these para-state militias and leading Shi'a factions within Iraq's ministries and governing coalition indicate that these groups operate with impunity and often, governmental complicity. Although many of these militia-related violations reveal the challenges evident in Iraq's fragmented political system, they nonetheless reflect the Iraqi government's tolerance--and in some instances commission--of egregious violations of religious freedom. Finally, the Commission also notes the grave conditions for non-Muslims in Iraq, including ChaldoAssyrian Christians, Yazidis, and Sabean Mandaeans, who continue to suffer pervasive and severe violence and discrimination at the hands of both government and non-government actors. The Commission has added Iraq to its Watch List with the understanding that it may designate Iraq as a CPC next year if improvements are not made by the Iraqi government.
Also under attack are attorneys. IRIN reports that, "Threats to judges and lawyers have escalated over the past 14 months in Iraq, in line with a general escalation in sectarian violence after the bombing of a Shia shrine in February 2006. Hundreds of legal workers have left the country because of threats and persecution. This is delaying judicial processes and denying thousands of people their legal rights." The right to the pursuit of happiness (a US right enshrined in the Constitution) never got established post-invasion. Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) reports: "From the boys selling black-market gasoline from donkey carts, to the abandoned movie theaters, restaurants and liquor stores, from the overflowing sewage to the dwindling food rations, Baghdad has lost its place as a pinnacle of Middle East modernity. Existence has become more rudimentary." Partlow speaks with Um Mohammed (nickname, not real name) who notes that she is now using a "tanoor, a waist-high clay bourd for baking bread over smoldering palm-tree coals" -- a device she's never used before in her life but with her family's cost for monthly bread hitting $70, she's using it now. She tells Partlow, "We are living in Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, of prosperity. Where is the prosperity?" Let's repeat "she tells" because the New York Times apparently has the shyest correspondents in the world -- or the most sexist -- since they seem to consider a real chore to speak with Iraqi women.
Just walking along, shopping for food
Stepping out of the line of fire when people are rude
Cheap stuff made in China, someone calls it a sale
Somebody's mama, somebody's daughter
Somebody's jail
Beat down in the market, stoned to death in the plaza
Raped on the hillside under the gun from LA to Gaza
A house made of cardboard living close to the rail
Somebody's mama, somebody's daughter
Somebody's jail
-- "Somebody's Jail," written by Holly Near, off her new CD Show Up
On World Press Freedom Day, we'll note Edmund Sanders (Los Angeles Times) report from Monday about Amal Mudarris ("One of Iraq's most beloved broadcasters") who made the 'mistake' or committed the 'crime' of being "outside her Baghdad home Sunday morning" and was shot repeatedly. Sanders notes: "Police said her attackers had waited in parked cars near her home in the Sunni Muslim neighborhood of Khadra. Mudarris, a Shiite originally from soutehrn Iraq, is a host of a daily call-in show on a station of the state-owned Iraiq Media Network." Reporters Without Borders states she "is reported in a coma" and notes that she is among 167 journalists who have died in the Iraqi war. But will anyone count the women's deaths? This week, two female college students were killed as they attempted to drive from college to their home. If the genders noted, does it seem like it registers? One group who is following and leading on this issue is MADRE which published the report "Promising Democracy, Imposing Theocracy: Gender-Based Violence and the US War on Iraq" (which can be read in full in PDF format or, by sections, in HTML) in March. In addition, the spring 2007 issue of Ms.features Bay Fang's "The Talibanization of Iraq." We noted the article on April 19th but it is now up at the Ms. website (click here). The attacks on Iraqi women are very real -- regardless of how much the bulk of the mainstream press attempts to ignore what's happening.
And I feel the witch in my veins
I feel the mother in my shoe
I feel the scream in my sould
The blood as I sing the ancient blue
They burned in the millions
I still smell the fire in my grandma's hair
The war against women rages on
Beware of the fairy tale
-- "Somebody's Jail," written by Holly Near, off her CD Show Up.
Finally, today, Wednesday, May 2nd at 6:30 pm in The Great Hall, Cooper Union (NYC), Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove will be presenting readings from their Voices of a People's History of the United States featuring music performed by Allison Moorer and Steve Earle and readings and vocal performances by Ally Sheedy, Brian Jones, Danny Glover, Deepa Fernandes, Erin Cherry, Harris Yulin, Kathleen Chalfant, Kerry Washington, Opal Alladin, Staceyann Chin and Stanley Tucci. Zinn and Arnove will provide both the introduction and the narration.
iraq
agustin aguayo
antonia juhaszraed jarrar
juan gonzalez
kpfakris welch
living room
anthony arnovehoward zinn
ally sheedydanny gloverdeepa fernandes
the new york timeskirk semple
the washington postjoshua partlow
holly nearshow up
bay fang
ms.
ms. magazine
Thanks to Kat and C.I. who always listen to various drafts, are generous with the laughter and support and much more. If it weren't for their support, I'd probably never get anything posted.
I apologize to Rebecca's regular readers because I'm starting later than she does. Wednesdays is a church night for me. We're back from church, the kids are in bed and I sit down at the computer only to realize I have nothing to write about. Then I thought about something C.I. wrote this morning:
I'm pressed for time this morning (I'm sure the Betty announcement earlier has most already 'in the know'). So I don't have time to hunt down links. But we've all addressed this film at community sites. Sir! No Sir! is amazing documentary. (And the movie poster makes a very nice addition to your home -- whether you frame it or just pin it up. Soundtrack is also amazing.) Helga Aguayo, Agustin Aguayo's wife, has spoken of the impact the documentary had on him. It has an impact on anyone who sees it. It traces the resistance within the military during Vietnam. There are stories that will that will grab you by the heart, stories that will grab you by the throat. It's an amazing film -- you know that if you've seen it. We'll continue to note it in the snapshots through the airing.
"We've all addressed" is only true for me in terms of "DVD Must See: Sir! No! Sir!" (The Third Estate Sunday Review) which we all worked on (and there are other pieces at The Third Estate Sunday Review). At my site, I'm stuck with Thomas Friedman and I'm not sure I've noted Sir! No Sir! other than reposting C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot"s. So I thought I'd take some time tonight to weigh in on the documentary. The following statement's been appearing daily in the snapshots for about two weeks: "In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth which examines the Iraq war and features Jimmy Massey and Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Dougherty among others." That's the EST and Pacific time, Mountain and Central times will vary (I'm Central myself, but I don't have cable or satellite). (I have three kids. We don't need to waste money on cable.)
What I do have is the DVD of Sir! No Sir! I actually gave it to a friend because C.I. passed on the expanded edition. Let me note the DVD features on the expanded version:
* Rebellion at the Ft. Dix Stockade
* Organizaing a Union in the Military
* Black GIs and "The Enemy"
* Vietnam GI -- The First Underground Paper
* Life and Escape in the Presido Stockade
* The Winter Soldier Investigation Indicting the Government
* David Zeiger's Return to Ft. Hood
* Pirate Radio DJ Dave Rabbit Speaks!
* The Court-Martial of Camilo Mejia: Iraq War Resister
* Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda -- From Vietnam to Iraq
* Veterans "Return" their Medals in Only the Beginning
* The Oleo Strut GI Coffeehouse in Summer of '68
* Rita Martinson sings Soldier, We Love You in FTA
* Filmmaker Biography
* Interactive Menus
* Scene Selection
The documentary is directed by David Zeiger. We saw it in California last year, on the big screen. It was incredible. I've watched it on DVD since and it's always moving but I really think it's best if you can watch it with others. I've watched it with my parents, my sisters and others and there's always an added level of enjoyment because afterwards, you really want to talk about this film. You need someone to share it with.
If you get Sundance and can watch it, do. Even if it's by yourself. But, if you watch by yourself, you better get some stationary (or notebook paper) to write a letter because you're going to want to share this with someone. You could e-mail but it's really a letter type film. You want to toss it around and explore it, not dash something quickly (which is what I'm doing tonight and I won't be able to capture any of the greatness of the film).
One of the things that stood out to me the first time I watched and still does is the scope. I should probably explain that this is a film about resistance to the war in the military during Vietnam. And for someone like me, representations do matter. (I'm Black for anyone that doesn't know.) I would've enjoyed the movie regardless but the fact that an effort (a strong effort) was made to include the stories of all (and not just White men) did make me open to the film early on. I think we see a woman resister early on. She attends a rally in her uniform. And that did stand out to me. Later in the film when the story of Black resistance is told, it was clear this was a film made by someone who's interested in all stories and not just a narrow view.
Rita Martinson is mentioned above in the extras. She performed with FTA which was a tour that Jane Fonda, Donald Sutherland, Fred Gardner and others put together to tour military bases but the military wouldn't allow it. So they played off base and soldiers attended. Rita Martinson is a singer-songwriter and she performs her song "Soldier, We Love You." That's a quiet moment in the film and a really powerful one.
You hear people tell their stories of why they decided to resist and what they went through. That's especially important today when we have a growing war resistance within the military again. In yesterday's snapshot, C.I. noted some of the mean things said about Camilo Mejia. (And I loved C.I.'s comment that a "charity baby" shouldn't be calling anyone a "mama's boy.")
This idea that people are cowards when they refuse to participate in an illegal war is just insane.
The easy path would be to engage in an illegal war you knew was illegal. You keep your mouth shut, your head down and just do what's expected. Speaking out, saying "no" takes real courage. Terri Johnson did so and I was so happy about that because she is so young (18) and for her to have that kind of courage at such a young age just really filled me with hope. (And when someone makes a documentary about today's war resisters they better include Terri. She's a young woman, Black and they better not erase her from the picture.)
It takes courage to go public. You'll be trashed and you'll be mocked by some. You'll have people who say idiotic things like, "Once you sign a contract . . ." or "You knew what you were getting into . . ." On the latter, how can anyone know that the occupant of the Oval Office will lie them into an illegal war? On the contract nonsense, contracts are broken all the time. If you're rich, you can do that. You can hire an attorney. But if you're one of the average people, you're always expected to follow that contract. Well contracts can be wrong. It's also true that the piece of paper you sign is only binding on your end. The military can change anything in the contract at any time they want. So I don't see that as a fair contract and I don't think anyone who's been screwed over (regarding war or anything else) needs to feel bound by a contract where one party has the right to change it and alter it at any time but the other party is expected to obey what was written and any changes that get made after the fact.
I also don't believe that we just follow orders. I've got three kids. Every one of them knows that there are things they don't do. I've taught them that over and over. If they're told to do something, by a teacher or whomever, that is against what we believe, they know they say "no." I'm not raising my children to be sheep that can be led around in any direction.
I am a church goer and my children have been raised in the church ("have been," they're still so young -- I don't have a teenager yet -- that's when the 'fun' begins, right?). If, like Agustin Aguayo, they went to Iraq and thought it was the right thing but then got over there and saw that it didn't fit with what they had been raised with spiritually, they better object. I've raised them too. Not to enforce their beliefs on anyone else but to know what is right and what is wrong.
A piece of paper, even a contract, is not a higher authority. And right is right and wrong is wrong.
This is an illegal war and that is wrong. There is a duty to resist illegal wars.
Sir! No Sir! was really powerful to me because I'd heard about Vietnam but this was my first chance to really see it. In the Black community (Cedric and Ty can tell you the same thing, this isn't geographical) we seem to have supplemental information that doesn't make the mainstream. I say that because I knew about the resistance of Black soldiers during Vietnam and I knew about Ali speaking out and refusing to ship to Vietnam. Those aren't things to be ashamed of and are applauded. Because we know that and because we're well aware that government lies, we're less likely to go along with nonsense. That's probably why Black America was against this war from the beginning and didn't buy into all the hype the way other segments did.
During Vietnam, the Black Power movement was going on and that really did influence the way the war was seen. When we were being treated as second-class citizens (that may be too kind a term), the idea that it was our 'duty' to fight another people that was also being oppressed was just ridiculous. (Not to all. Colin Powell was a happy Uncle Tom, even in the sixties.)
And, if I can point it out one more, I really loved being able to see and hear people who were a part of that sharing their stories.
This documentary zips by so quickly. It's more like a "movie" than what most people think of a documentary. A lot of people think, "Documentary? Oh, that's going to be dull and drag out forever." Sir! No Sir! ends before you know it and you're immediate feeling will be, "Does it have to be over already?" When we saw it on the big screen, I actually was asking, "It's over?"
I'll also add that I've let my oldest son watch it. I don't think there's anything in here they shouldn't see. I do think you need to be prepared to explain it. He wanted to see it and I told him one night that if he'd do some cleaning around the house while I got the other two in bed, we'd stay up and watch it. He really enjoyed the film too. I just looked to see what the film was rated? I couldn't remember. It's not rated. I don't remember anything that one wouldn't expect in a documentary on war (that includes strong langugage).
I need to wind down so I'm copying this from C.I.'s entry (and Julie passed it on to C.I. to give credit where it's due):
CHECK IT OUT AND PASS IT ON!!!
IT TAKES ALL OF US TO GET THE WORD OUT!!!
+LET EVERYONE YOU KNOW IN ON THESE EXTRAORDINARY FILMS
+On Monday May 7th 2007...there will be an historic night of GI resistance on national television as the Sundance Channel presents the U.S. broadcast premiere of both
Sir! No Sir! and The Ground Truth:
*************************************************************************
Sir! No Sir!
Monday, May 7
The Sundance Channel
9 pm Pacific and Eastern
Check your local listings for Central and Mountain times.
The Ground Truth
Monday, May 7
The Sundance Channel
10:30 pm Pacific and Eastern
Check your local listings for Central and Mountain times.
*************************************************************************
This is a wonderful chance for millions of people to see these films that, together, link the tremendous movement of American soldiers against the Vietnam war with the growing opposition among soldiers to the Iraq war today.
MAKE MAY 7TH A DAY THAT SPARKS A SURGE IN OPPOSITION AMONG SOLDIERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS TO THIS HIDEOUS WAR .
*After all, one good surge deserves another
*WE URGE YOU TO GRAB THIS OPPORTUNITY.
1. Not Everyone has the Sundance Channel...
2. So if you do, PLEASE organize a house party to watch the films and spread their influence among soldiers and civilians alike.
3. If you don't, find someone who does and offer to bring the chips.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE ALREADY EXTRAORDINARY EFFECTS SIR! NO SIR! HAS HAD ON ACTIVE DUTY SOLDIERS AND VETS!!!
In preparation, to help spread the films, WWW.SIRNOSIR.COM is offering these specials:
The Director's Edition DVD of the film and 1 1/2 hours of additional stories will be on SALE through May 15th $19.95 (from $23.95)
The Limited Edition DVD, with the film and "Punk Ass Crusade" counter-recruitment video, is now available in bulk at a DISCOUNTED RATE:
5 for $50
10 for $80
15 for $105
20 for $120
(All plus shipping and handling)
CLICK HERE TO READ ABOUT HOW VETERANS FOR PEACE HAS USED SIR! NO SIR! FOR RESISTANCE
The Ground Truth is also available in bulk at http://groundtruthstore.seenon.com/
PLEASE DO ALL YOU CAN TO MAKE USE OF THIS NATIONAL BROADCAST.
SEND THIS EMAIL TO YOUR LIST AND MYSPACE FRIENDS, AND MAKE SURE YOUR ORGANIZATIONS POSTAND SEND THIS E-BLAST OUT AS WELL . . .
ENCOURAGE THE RESISTANCE!
I got picked for "Truest statement of the week" (The Third Estate Sunday Review) for which I'm grateful but I had a different pick (this ties into the documentary). Here was my pick and the question was about young people today and why you think they are hopeful?
Jane Fonda: Anger. Resistance. They're pissed off, as well they should be. Natalie Maines [of the Dixie Chicks] embodies that. It's that, "F--k it, man -- this not what I want this country to be." There's a lot of young people who feel that way. The young people I work with and who come to my events, they're beginning to feel their power in a very different way than in the Sixties and Seventies.
That's from Rolling Stone magazine's May 3-17, 2007 double issue (on sale now). I love Jane Fonda for her acting and for her activism. And I love that quote because the easiest lie in the world is that young people are apathetic today. They aren't. Jane Fonda is in Sir! No Sir! and she's interviewed about the period and what it was like to witness that. You are cheating yourself if you don't watch Sir! No Sir! If you don't have the Sundance Channel and don't know anyone who does, consider purchasing it or renting it (I've seen it my Blockbuster). Please see the film and share it.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Wednesday, May 2, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, Big Oil drools over the oil grab, much time is wasted with people pretending to be shocked (and worse), today is World Press Freedom Day, and more.
Starting with the garbage that's stinking up and taking up too much 'coverage' of Iraq. Bully Boy gave the toothless, non-binding, weak ass measure the Democratically controlled Congress passed a veto. To no one's surprise. Andrew Ward (Financial Times of London) reminds, "Mr Bush had threatened for weeks to reject any legislation including withdrawal dates". The non-binding and toothless 'benchmarks' (always with get-out-of-the-benchmark-free cards). When the Democratic leadership caved and sold out the American people there was no call for "TAKE TO THE STREETS!"; however, because Bully Boy didn't sign the bill, WalkOn's calling for the closest thing to activism they can manage.
Bully Boy should have signed the bill. Not to end the illegal war. The bill didn't end the war, didn't guarantee anything (reclassification would have allowed Bully Boy to keep the exact same number of US service members on the ground in Iraq). But it would have been a PR victory for him. And then he could have said, "Well the bill didn't anticipate ___ so I've had to ___." He could have done whatever he wanted. The bill neither constrained nor contained the Bully Boy. He could have grabbed a few headlines, probably surprised enough people to leap all the way to 35% approval rating. His not signing a weak ass bill that gave him everything he asked for and put no binding condidtions on him was a sign (yet again) of the press' tendency to create 'boy geniuses' where there are none.
At the end of April, Gareth Porter (IPS) observed, "The language on a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq voted out of the House-Senate conference committee this week contains large loopholes that would apparently allow U.S. troops to continue carrying out military operations in Iraq's Sunni heartland indefinitely." Now WalkOn and Party Hacks who pretend to care about something other than elections (but don't) have reason to drum up phoney outrage -- they sold the weak ass action by the Democrats as if it were the second coming of FDR's Public Works Administration. Others telling people to drop everything in the middle of the week -- a day after many have participated in actual events for real issues -- and rush out to express your . . . well, not shock. Everyone knew Bully Boy would veto. But whatever it is, express it! Drop everything because the weak ass Democratic leadership just got a wedgie and, we all know, Dem leadership can't defend themselves. As one "key Democratic strategist" bragged to Elizabeth Drew (The New York Review of Books) about the bill, "We don't want to own this war. It's Bush's war, and we want him to keep owning it."
While it appears that you tried to do something? And they can't get away with that lie without an army of enablers which, fortunately, is one thing the Beltway has in surplus. But people are catching on to the con game Democratic leadership tried to play on the voters.
Which is why Charles Babington (AP) can report -- with little shock from readers -- that with Bully Boy having refused to budge and Dems already caved/collapsed, the 'compromise' is expected to come from the Compromised Party (Democratic Party) and chief among the compromised, House Majority Leader Steny Good Times Follow Me Around Hoyer who "told reporters Wednesday that he hopes to have a new bill passed in the House in two weeks, with a final bill sent to the president before the Memorial Day recess. 'We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need,' said Hoyer, D-Md."
That quote is telling in two ways. First of all, Hoyer's now pushing the very thing used to tar and feather Dems with for the last few weeks (the abused often repeat the language of their abusers). Second, note the pause in the statement. "We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need." As though Hoyer grasped that leaving US troops in harm's way is just what the Democrats -- same as the Republicans -- are doing. But, good news, they'll have "the resources they need." Babington also reports that Hoyer "said the bill should fund combat through Sept. 30 as Bush has requested, casting doubt that Democratic leaders would adopt a proposal by Rep. John Murtha [. . .] to fund the war two or three months at a time." [Note Babington wrongly identifies Murtha as a Republilcan -- ". . . by Rep. John Murtha, R-Pa., to fund . . ."] US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying, "The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him." No, they are not. They are not going to put it in his hand. They're going to leave it on top of the bureau as they tip-toe out the bedroom door with a big smile on their faces.
The BBC goes with their DC correspondent James Westhead's call "The Democrats acknolwedge they will eventually have to soften their bill as they cannot risk being accused of undercutting the troops during wartime". For those needing to see the con game from the other end, Noam N. Levey, Maura Reynolds and Joel Havemann (Los Angeles Times) produce the best piece of (unintentional) comedic writing of the year as they enter Bully Boy's head to report what he felt, what he hoped, what he thought, throughout the morning. It's an embarrassment of . . . embarrassments and did no think to wonder if this wasn't heavy on feature writing porn and light on what anyone expected from actual reporting? Let's hope all three wore gloves to protect themselves from bodily fluids.
Turning to Iraqi legislation news, the US allowed Big Oil to draft the Iraqi hydrocarbon law that would -- no surprise -- benefit Big Oil while stealing from the Iraqi people. This morning Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reported that the law had been "sent to parliament" even though "Parliamentary officials . . . said they were unaware the bill had been submitted to the legislature." Why should it be any other way? Iraqis weren't the ones drafting this law -- not even the parliament which is tasked with drafting Iraq's laws. Raed Jarrar earlier revealed that, in February, when the law was agreed upon, the Iraqi parliament had no idea. Jarrar most recently explained (Raed in the Middle) the three primary reasons the law will harm Iraqis: the law breaks up the nation-state into economic regions and threatens national unity; the sovereignty of Iraq is harmed since the Iraqi government has no say in production limits, the Iraqi judiciary cannot resolve disputes and Big Oil gets seats on the council approving their own contracts; and "Iraq will lose hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign oil companies during the next 35 years because the law doesn't give any preferences to local companies and due to the unconventional type of contracting this law legalizes called the Production sharing agreements (PSA) or the exploration and production agreements."
"Under the proposed law, Iraq's immense oil reserves would not simply be opened to foreign oil exploration, as many had expected. Amazingly, executives from those companies would actually be given seats on a new Federal Oil and Gas Council that would control all of Iraq's reserves" is how Juan Gonzalez (New York Daily News via Common Dreams) explained it in February, opening with: "Throughout nearly four years of the daily mayhem and carnage in Iraq, President Bush and his aides in the White House have scoffed at even the slightest suggestion that the U.S. military occupation has anything to do with oil. The President presumably would have us all believe that if Iraq had the world's second-largest supply of bananas, instead of petroleum, American troops would still be there." Ewa Jasiewicz (Democracy Rising) observes, "If passed by parliament, the law will mark a milestone in Iraqi history -- a shift of Iraq's massive reserves from public to private hands. It could see private companies develop and profit from Iraq's oil for 15-30 year periods with virtually no possibility for the Iraqi state to renegotiate contractual terms and conditions."
On February 23, Antonia Juhasz, speaking with Kris Welch on KPFA's Living Room, explained:
This law is being sold as the mechanism for helping the Iraqis determine how they will distribute their oil revenue. That is not what this law is about. That is the bottom end of an enormous hammer that is this oil law. This oil law is about foreign access to Iraq's oil and the terms by which that access will be determined. It is also about the distribution of decision making power between the central government and the region as to who has ultimate decision making power and the types of contracts that will be signed. There are powers that be within Iraq that would very much like to see that power divvied up into the regions, between the Kurds and the Shia in particular, and then there are powers that would like to see Iraq retained as a central authority. The Bush administration would like the central government of Iraq to have ultimate control over contracting decisions because it believes it has more allies in the central government than it would if it was split up into regions. The Bush administration is most concerned with getting an oil law passed now and passed quickly to take advantage of the weakness of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government couldn't be in a weaker negotiating position and the law locks the government in to twenty to thirty-five year committments to granting the most extreme versions of exploration and production contracts to US companies or foreign companies. Meaning that foreign companies would have access to the vast majorities of Iraq's oil fields and they would own the oil under the ground -- they would control the production and they would in contracts yet to be determined get a percentage of that profit but they'd be negotiating essentially when Iraq is at its weakest when Iraq is hardly a country. And that's what this oil law is all about.
When Juhasz spoke in February, the Democratic leadership had yet to devise, let alone unleash, their hideous proposals; however, it bears noting that the passing of this law was a "benchmark" on the offensive law. Dems bought the war this year as a time-share with the Bully Boy.
Turning to the the topic of courage. Eric Ruder (Socialist Worker) reports on war resister Agustin Aguayo who "was released from confinement at a U.S. military base in Mannheim, Germany, on April 18, but he's still far from free. [. . .] Helga and his twin daughters thought he would be headed home, but now the Army says that it plans to keep Agustin on active duty for one to two years more. And he remains under the authority of members of his old unit -- the same 'people that tried to take him by force, i.e., shackle, handcuff and carry him onto the plane' for his second Iraq deployment, explained Helga." Heather Wokush (OpEdNews) interviewed Agustin Aguayo for a piece published last Saturday and he stated, "I was determined that I would not hurt/injure others in any way, no matter what the consequences. I actually belileve that this action of not loading my weapon kept me sane. It brought me great sadness to know some soldiers I knew had shot at people and some soldiers I knew were hurt by the actions of others. It was so absurd." On his first tour of duty in Iraq, Aguayo refused to load his weapon. He went to Iraq as a medic and, while there, the realities he saw were in conflict with his own spiritual beliefs. As a result, he attempted to apply for c.o. status. As Helga Aguayo has noted, everyone who interviewed her husband during the process felt he was a c.o. objector but superiors (who never spoke with Aguayo) overruled that. Aguayo has attempted to address the matter via the civilian courts. Robert Zabala is another example of someone who had to go to the civilian courts to be awarded c.o. status (which he was awarded last month). The inequalities (and the fact that some people "in charge" don't even grasp the military guidelines as written) is why the Center on Conscience & War has declared May 14th the day to lobby Congress to pass a law that would "protect the rights of conscientious objectors".
As Courage to Resist reported, Agustin Aguayo is supposed to join with war resisters Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Robert Zabala for a speaking tour from May 9th through 17th in the San Francisco Bay Area. The announced dates include:
Wednesday May 9 - Marin 7pm at College of Marin, Student Services Center, 835 College Ave, Kentfield. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Pablo Paredes and David Solnit. Sponsored by Courage to Resist and Students for Social Responsibility.
Thursday May 10 - Sacramento Details TBA
Friday May 11 - Stockton 6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey 7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco 7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville 7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka 7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197Thursday May 17 - Oakland 4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
If the military is thinking they'll clamp down on war resistance by holding Aguayo, they obviously aren't factoring the passion this tour will create and the questions of, "Wheere's Augie?" All are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth which examines the Iraq war and features Jimmy Massey and Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Dougherty among others.
From that worthy topic, we again have to dig through the trash. CNN reports no one can confirm that Abu Ayyub was killed in Iraq on Tuesday. Had Kirk Semple (New York Times) focused on something more productive, he might have gotten the violence numbers correct in this morning's paper.
The violence continued today and maybe tomorrow the New York Times will cover it? Or maybe they'll continue their undercount when summarizing reported violence?
Bombs?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 8 dead in Baghdad, 4 wounded from a Baghdad minibus bombing ("IED carried in a plastic bag, left aboard"), 3 Baghdad mortar attack that killed a total of 5 and wounded 29, 4 Baghdad roadside bombs that killed a total of 3 people and wounded 4, a Baghdad car bombing that killed 4 people and left 25 wounded, a Basra bombing that killed one person and a Basra "katiosha missile" attack that wounded a child. Reuters reports 10 dead and 35 wounded in a Baghdad car bombing attack in the Sadr City section of the capital.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two injured people from a Basra "confrontation between gunmen and a British patrol, two gunmen were seriously injured." Reuters reports the Mosul shooting death of Nidhal al-Asadi who had been "a university professor".
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 30 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and, in Kirkuk, the corpse of Nejim Mohammed Hussein was found (he had been a blacksmith).
In addition, today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Corps Soldier was severely wounded after an improvised explosives device exploded under her vehicle at approximately 1:55 pm Wednesday in western Baghdad. The Soldier later died of wounds at 3:25 pm while at the 28th CSH in Baghdad." And they noted: "Two MND-B Soldiers were killed and two others were wounded when their vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device in a southern section of the Iraqi capital May 2."
In other news of how bad things continue to get in Iraq, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom issued their press release stating:
This year the Commission has added Iraq to its Watch List, due to the alarming and deteriorating situation for freedom of religion and belief. Despite ongoing efforts to stabilize the country, successive Iraqi governments have not adequately curbed the growing scope and severity of human rights abuses. Although non-state actors, particularly the Sunni-dominated insurgency, are responsible for a substantial proportion of the sectarian violence and associated human rights violations, the Iraqi government also bears responsibility. That responsibility takes two forms. First, the Iraqi government has engaged in human rights violations through its state security forces, including arbitrary arrest, prolonged detention without due process, extrajudicial executions, and torture. These violations affect suspected Sunni insurgents, but also ordinary Sunnis who are targeted on the basis of their religious identity. Second, the Iraqi government tolerates religiously based attacks and other religious freedom abuses carried out by armed Shi'a factions including the Jaysh al-Mehdi (Mahdi Army) and the Badr Organization. These abuses include abductions, beatings, extrajudicial executions, torture and rape. Relationships between these para-state militias and leading Shi'a factions within Iraq's ministries and governing coalition indicate that these groups operate with impunity and often, governmental complicity. Although many of these militia-related violations reveal the challenges evident in Iraq's fragmented political system, they nonetheless reflect the Iraqi government's tolerance--and in some instances commission--of egregious violations of religious freedom. Finally, the Commission also notes the grave conditions for non-Muslims in Iraq, including ChaldoAssyrian Christians, Yazidis, and Sabean Mandaeans, who continue to suffer pervasive and severe violence and discrimination at the hands of both government and non-government actors. The Commission has added Iraq to its Watch List with the understanding that it may designate Iraq as a CPC next year if improvements are not made by the Iraqi government.
Also under attack are attorneys. IRIN reports that, "Threats to judges and lawyers have escalated over the past 14 months in Iraq, in line with a general escalation in sectarian violence after the bombing of a Shia shrine in February 2006. Hundreds of legal workers have left the country because of threats and persecution. This is delaying judicial processes and denying thousands of people their legal rights." The right to the pursuit of happiness (a US right enshrined in the Constitution) never got established post-invasion. Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) reports: "From the boys selling black-market gasoline from donkey carts, to the abandoned movie theaters, restaurants and liquor stores, from the overflowing sewage to the dwindling food rations, Baghdad has lost its place as a pinnacle of Middle East modernity. Existence has become more rudimentary." Partlow speaks with Um Mohammed (nickname, not real name) who notes that she is now using a "tanoor, a waist-high clay bourd for baking bread over smoldering palm-tree coals" -- a device she's never used before in her life but with her family's cost for monthly bread hitting $70, she's using it now. She tells Partlow, "We are living in Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, of prosperity. Where is the prosperity?" Let's repeat "she tells" because the New York Times apparently has the shyest correspondents in the world -- or the most sexist -- since they seem to consider a real chore to speak with Iraqi women.
Just walking along, shopping for food
Stepping out of the line of fire when people are rude
Cheap stuff made in China, someone calls it a sale
Somebody's mama, somebody's daughter
Somebody's jail
Beat down in the market, stoned to death in the plaza
Raped on the hillside under the gun from LA to Gaza
A house made of cardboard living close to the rail
Somebody's mama, somebody's daughter
Somebody's jail
-- "Somebody's Jail," written by Holly Near, off her new CD Show Up
On World Press Freedom Day, we'll note Edmund Sanders (Los Angeles Times) report from Monday about Amal Mudarris ("One of Iraq's most beloved broadcasters") who made the 'mistake' or committed the 'crime' of being "outside her Baghdad home Sunday morning" and was shot repeatedly. Sanders notes: "Police said her attackers had waited in parked cars near her home in the Sunni Muslim neighborhood of Khadra. Mudarris, a Shiite originally from soutehrn Iraq, is a host of a daily call-in show on a station of the state-owned Iraiq Media Network." Reporters Without Borders states she "is reported in a coma" and notes that she is among 167 journalists who have died in the Iraqi war. But will anyone count the women's deaths? This week, two female college students were killed as they attempted to drive from college to their home. If the genders noted, does it seem like it registers? One group who is following and leading on this issue is MADRE which published the report "Promising Democracy, Imposing Theocracy: Gender-Based Violence and the US War on Iraq" (which can be read in full in PDF format or, by sections, in HTML) in March. In addition, the spring 2007 issue of Ms.features Bay Fang's "The Talibanization of Iraq." We noted the article on April 19th but it is now up at the Ms. website (click here). The attacks on Iraqi women are very real -- regardless of how much the bulk of the mainstream press attempts to ignore what's happening.
And I feel the witch in my veins
I feel the mother in my shoe
I feel the scream in my sould
The blood as I sing the ancient blue
They burned in the millions
I still smell the fire in my grandma's hair
The war against women rages on
Beware of the fairy tale
-- "Somebody's Jail," written by Holly Near, off her CD Show Up.
Finally, today, Wednesday, May 2nd at 6:30 pm in The Great Hall, Cooper Union (NYC), Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove will be presenting readings from their Voices of a People's History of the United States featuring music performed by Allison Moorer and Steve Earle and readings and vocal performances by Ally Sheedy, Brian Jones, Danny Glover, Deepa Fernandes, Erin Cherry, Harris Yulin, Kathleen Chalfant, Kerry Washington, Opal Alladin, Staceyann Chin and Stanley Tucci. Zinn and Arnove will provide both the introduction and the narration.
iraq
agustin aguayo
antonia juhaszraed jarrar
juan gonzalez
kpfakris welch
living room
anthony arnovehoward zinn
ally sheedydanny gloverdeepa fernandes
the new york timeskirk semple
the washington postjoshua partlow
holly nearshow up
bay fang
ms.
ms. magazine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)