Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Ed Snowden

"German TV documentary on the hunt for Edward Snowden" (Johann Miller, WSWS):
The revelations of Edward Snowden have exposed to the world a massive breach of democratic rights by the US intelligence agencies and their allies. They have also unleashed protests and expressions of sympathy for Snowden’s efforts among broad social layers.
Last week, the German state broadcaster ARD screened a documentary by John Goetz and Poul Heilbuth titled Hunting Snowden (Jagd auf Snowden). The programme details Snowden’s persecution by the US authorities and his search for a country that would grant him asylum.
The documentary begins with a dramatic statement by US Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, California). The Senate Intelligence Committee chairman declares: “I want him to be captured. The hunt is on!” The programme assumes the guise of a spy thriller. The measures taken by the US authorities to remove Snowden from circulation are extraordinary and menacing. This is not only the view of the documentary, but of the protagonists themselves: Edward Snowden, as well as Julian Assange and Sarah Harrison of WikiLeaks.
Snowden meets several times in Hong Kong with journalists Glenn Greenwald and Ewen McAskill, passing them documents for publication in the Guardian regarding the NSA’s mass surveillance programmes. Even then, the Guardian journalists are convinced that Snowden would be captured very soon. He was already being sought, since he had not reported back to his employer.
A week later, Snowden admits to authorship of the revelations in a video. He also asks WikiLeaks for help and Sarah Harrison then accompanies him for four months into his exile. At first, Snowden does not want to depart from Hong Kong for fear of being caught at the airport, but he is finally persuaded. False trails are set down by the purchase of a dozen different tickets. Snowden evades detection at the airport, despite an arrest warrant issued for him and US threats against Hong Kong, after an incorrect middle name is included in the warrant.

I don't think the importance of whistle-blower Ed Snowden can be overstated.  That was a point C.I. was making in her 2014 year-in-review.

The revelations made, the knowledge shared, it's greater than anything in my lifetime and that includes The Pentagon Papers.

Ed's a hero in my view and someone who has more than earned applause.

Yet for Barack, Ed's someone to prosecute and persecute.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, January 20, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama continues to spin, his Iraq remarks in tonight's speech don't hold water, NPR forgets it is tax payer funded because it's supposed to be objective, and much more.



"I have no more campaigns to run," declared US President Barack Obama tonight in a possible attempt to provide comfort to a put-upon nation as he delivered yet another State of the Union Address.

He first ran for the oval office, for example, promising to close the gulag at Guantanamo.

In his campaign literature entitled "The War We Need To Win" in 2007,"  the promise was made, "As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo."  Eight years later, it remains open.


President Barack Obama: As Americans, we have a profound commitment to justice -- so it makes no sense to spend three million dollars per prisoner to keep open a prison that the world condemns and terrorists use to recruit. Since I've been President, we've worked responsibly to cut the population of GTMO in half. Now it's time to finish the job. And I will not relent in my determination to shut it down. It's not who we are.



Has he "worked to cut the population of GTMO in half"?  Well the promise was to close it.

And not to close it in his second term.

Pointing out realities makes one one of the "cynics" Barack referenced in his speech, a reference that left him sounding truly Nixonian.

The editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune saw the speech as "self-flattery" and observed:

The notion that a broadly resurgent United States can “turn the page” on a recent era of economic pain, wars and terrorism builds off a sunny assessment of the world that we don’t think many people share.
After the turbulent past year, it is hard to conceive of how anyone could argue the world is safer because of U.S. leadership.

Obama’s self-congratulation on the economy is also baffling. When unemployment was high and growth low, Democrats blamed an obstructionist House. Now that the jobless rate is coming down and growth is rebounding in much of the nation, suddenly the gridlock narrative is gone in favor of the idea that the good news is due to the president’s vigorous stewardship of something vaguely described as “middle-class economics.” But wait — wasn’t that stewardship utterly stymied? Isn’t it far more likely that the U.S. rebound is because of the private sector’s vitality — especially in energy and tech — not the actions of government?


AP opens their fact check of the State of the Union Address with, "The U.S. may not have 'risen from recession' quite as rousingly as President Barack Obama suggested in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night. Seven years after that severe downturn began, household income hasn't recovered and healthy job growth is complicated by the poor quality, and pay, of many of those jobs."


Perhaps to avoid charges of being a "cynic," AP avoids fact checking Barack on Iraq (one aside is not a fact check -- especially an aside that combines Iraq with Syria).

Barack insisted, "Six years ago, nearly 180,000 American troops served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, fewer than 15,000 remain."

Fewer than 15,000?

But he promised they would be gone -- from Iraq.

August 1, 2007, Barack promised, "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

The drawdown at the end of 2011 was a drawdown, not a withdrawal.

It was a point made  December 12, 2011, when Ted Koppel filed an important report on Rock Center with Brian Williams (NBC) about what was really taking place in Iraq:


 
MR. KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of who all falls under your control?


 
US AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.

Not only did Barack not get "out of Iraq," in June he began openly sending more US troops in.

More and openly being the key words.


In the fall of 2012,   Tim Arango (New York Times) reported, Barack sent a brigade of US Special-Ops into Iraq. In the US, the brief passage on Iraq buried in a report on Syria garnered very little attention.  To other outlets it was major news and a story they pursued.  One example of that would be  Press TV reported which reported in December 2012::
 

Over 3,000 US troops have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait for missions pertaining to the recent developments in Syria and northern Iraq, Press TV reports.
According to our correspondent, the US troops have secretly entered Iraq in multiple stages and are mostly stationed at Balad military garrison in Salahuddin province and al-Asad air base in al-Anbar province. 


In June of 2014, he began sending US troops in openly and publicly.
In June of 2014, he insisted that the only answer for Iraq was a "political solution."
Tonight, Barack declared:
  

I believe in a smarter kind of American leadership. We lead best when we combine military power with strong diplomacy; when we leverage our power with coalition building; when we don't let our fears blind us to the opportunities that this new century presents. That's exactly what we're doing right now – and around the globe, it is making a difference.


But that isn't what's being done.

Barack may say he believes "in a smarter kind of American leadership" which combines "military power with strong diplomacy."  He may say that.

But as we've noted for months here, he's instead focused on bombing and getting foreign governments to send troops into Iraq while ignoring the diplomatic issues and the diplomatic power.

Sunday brought not one but two major reports noting the lack of political progress in Iraq.  Martin Chulov (Guardian) reported:

Iraq’s vice-president for reconciliation, Iyad Allawi, said a lack of a political process between the Shias who dominate the country’s power base, and disenfranchised Sunnis was a “grave mistake” that could mean the air attacks end up achieving little.
“The whole strategy needs to be revisited and readdressed and the international allies should be part of this,” Allawi told the Guardian. “People are asking me what will come after Isis. What would be the destiny of [local] people? Are they going to be accused of supporting or defeating Isis? Would they be accused of being Ba’athists? It is going to be really difficult for them to engage without reconciliation.”


And Tim Arango and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) reported:



On any given day, Sunni women gather here in search of answers about their men, some of whom have been jailed for years.
“The Iraqi Army took my son in March of 2014,” said Tawfika Abbas. “Until now, I don’t know where he is. Zero information.”
Another woman, Entisar Gannos, cried for her four sons: one jailed since 2006, another since 2010, and the other two since 2011, all without court hearings.
Their grief, and the pain of not knowing what is happening to their loved ones, highlight a vital task for Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi: reforming Iraq’s criminal justice system. Well-documented abuses of the system, including long detentions without trial and confessions obtained by torture, are the primary grievance of the country’s Sunni minority.



But tonight he didn't own up to that reality.




President Barack Obama:  In Iraq and Syria, American leadership – including our military power – is stopping ISIL's advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We're also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism. This effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.



By passing what?  Oh, yeah, that authorization for force, the one he sent US Secretary of State John Kerry to argue, December 9th, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- sent Kerry to argue  that Congress must pass an authorization for Barack's actions in Iraq and Syria and that this legislation must include that Barack can send US combat troops into Iraq.


Secretary of State John Kerry: However, while we certainly believe this is the soundest policy, and while the president has been clear he's open to clarifications on the use of U.S. combat troops to be outlined in an AUMF, that does not mean we should pre-emptively bind the hands of the commander in chief  or our commanders in the field -- in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee. 


Barack wants ground troops in Iraq to be in combat.

Tonight was the perfect time for him to get honest with the American people.

He elected not to do so.



Portions of Barack's remarks were leaked ahead of the speech.  In response to the (brief and tiny) section on Iraq, these Tweets went up:







  • He's not the only one being dishonest about military action in Iraq.

    As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Monday saw the Canadian government acknowledge that Canadian forces in Iraq had been fired on and exchanged fire with the Islamic State.  The incident has left Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper looking like a liar.  Bruce Campion-Smith and Tonda MacCharles (Toronto Star) report:

    NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair on Tuesday point-blank accused Harper of misleading Canadians, saying the revelations that soldiers have been directing airstrikes and even exchanged gunfire with extremists calls into question the government’s promise of a “non-combat” mission.
    “He told Canadians they would not be involved in combat. He did not tell the truth,” Mulcair said.
    Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said the prime minister was not “forthright” about what the mission involved from the get-go.
    “The prime minister made some statements in the fall around this mission that turn out today to not to have been entirely truthful,” Trudeau said.



    This is serious and it's not going to be a surprise if it happens to US troops.

    But we can be serious in America, can we?


    Instead we get garbage like "Political Theater, Crazy-Glued GOP Seats And More Congressional Reaction."  If that appeared as a column in the New York Times, no problem.  A commentary on MSNBC or Fox News, no problem.

    But this was 'filed' by Amita Kelly at NPR.

    It's one-sided, it's garbage but worst of all Americans pay for that.  National Public Radio is not supposed to be Fox News or MSNBC.  It's supposed to be objective.

    And when it pulls this crap, it makes the charges of bias all the more legitimate.  (For the record, Democrat Steve Israel came up with "Crazy Glued GOP" in a Tweet.  You have to read to the end to even figure out why that's in the title.)


    And, for the record, if you wanted to tack on "crazy" to anyone of the members of Congress Kelly features, it would be Democrat Rosa DeLauor:



    Thrilled at President Obama's bold step to bring American workplace into 21st century. Time for Congress to follow suit & too!


    A 21st century workplace recognizes pregnancy as natural and doesn't penalize women for being pregnant.  For those who've forgotten, US House Rep Tammy Duckworth was ordered by her doctor not to get on a plane due to being in the last stages of her pregnancy yet when she requested to be allowed to vote in leadership races by proxy, Rosa DeLauro sided against Tammy.

    So don't pretend to be a friend of the workforce or to want to modernize it when you penalize a woman for being pregnant.  Rosa is full of crap and has no one to blame for that but her own crazy self.

    Though Barack portrayed Iraq as a success, the violence continues.

    Saif Hameed, Stephen Kalin, Ned Parker and Larry King (Reuters) report 26 corpses were discovered in Saadiya District.  Alsumaria reports a Tuz Khurmato grenade attack left two people injured, a Sadr City bombing left 1 person dead and five more injured, a suicide car bombing to the east of Ramadi left 3 people dead and eighteen more injured, a Hamammiyet roadside bombing left 1 person dead and two more injured, in Tarmiya a local council member was shot dead by assailants in Iraqi military uniforms, and a suicide car bombing in Nikhayb left two Iraqi soldiers injured.

    Lastly, Felicity Arbuthnot has an important report at Dissident Voice which we'll excerpt some of tomorrow.












    rock center with brian williams
    nbc news
    ted koppel
    the new york times
    tim arango



    Tuesday, January 20, 2015

    It can't sink lower

     Kat's "Kat's Korner: Put a DNR order on Madonna's Rebel Heart " went up as did Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Conversation."






     What world does Walter C. Uhler live in?

    He's written "The New York Times Sinks to a New Journalistic Low in its Reporting on Ukraine" and my only response is, "Were you born yeserday?"

    Hello, Iraq?

    Their Iraq War coverage?

    Those awful lies?

    The paper might have returned to the gutter but it's impossible for it to ever sink lower.



    "TV: As The Millers sank, The McCarthys rose" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):


    Tyler Ritter's done a great job bringing Ronnie to life.  (Yes, Tyler is the son of the late John Ritter.)  And Tyler deserves a great deal of credit for his timing as well as his acting chops.  But anytime you've got a character who is real and relatable, you're not having to play catch up or create a grand backstory to try to make sense of the character.

    It's an amazing cast which also includes strong work by Kelen Coleman and Jack McGee and, especially, Joey McIntyre.  (Yes, he is the Joey McIntyre of New Kids On The Block.)  Gerard is a real ass.  Sometimes, he's a smart ass.  Sometimes he's just an ass.  McIntyre has brought the character to life in such a way that even as you groan over Gerard's latest remark or stunt (or bringing his frightmare of a girlfriend -- Jessica St. Clair's Katrina -- for a family visit), you don't hate him, you don't dislike him, you don't turn him into Newman.  McIntyre's made Gerard a real person.

    You care about all the members of the family because you know them or you are them.  


      
    The Millers was built around who can say the most outrageously cruel thing to one another while The McCarthys is built around something more than bitchy.  And, most importantly, The McCarthys is laugh out loud funny.



    I haven't seen the show yet.  But one of my readers, Linda, e-mailed last week about Joey McIntyre and the show so, for her, I'm excerpting the part of the review that notes him.



    "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
    Monday, January 19, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Canada hikes down Mission Creep, Haider al-Abadi meets with scholars, Barack's 'plan' continues to underwhelm, and much more.


    The US-led occupation of Iraq continues with Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reporting 175 violent deaths today.  While the Canadian government acknowledges that  combat took place for Canada and the Islamic State.  Al Jazeera reports:


    Canadian special forces have clashed with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group by exchanging gunfire in Iraq in recent days, in the first confirmed ground battle between Western troops and ISIL, a senior officer has said.
    The Canadians came under mortar and machine gun fire while training Iraqi troops near front lines and shot back in what Canadian special forces commander Brigadier General Michael Rouleau described as self-defence, killing the ISIL fighters. 

    Rouleau said the melee had taken place in the previous seven days and was "the first time we've taken fire and returned fire" in Iraq, where the armed group has overrun large areas.


    When did the exchange take place?  Laura Payton (CBC News) offers it was "sometime in the last week when they went to the front lines following a planning session with senior Iraqi leaders, their commanding officer told reporters in Ottawa on Monday."  BBC News quotes Brigadier General Michael Rouleau that the incident was "the first time we've taken fire and returned fire."

    This wasn't supposed to happen.  They were supposed to be advisors and trainers.

    Sound familiar?

    Steven Chase (Globe and Mail) points out:

    The release by the Canadian military on Monday has triggered a debate about whether mission creep is afflicting what was supposed to be a relatively limited assignment for nearly 70 elite soldiers to offer military advice to Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq.
    The military and the Harper government insist these activities are not the kind of direct-combat ground operations that Canadians were assured troops would avoid in their role as instructors and trainers to peshmerga forces battling the Islamic State.


    Mission creep is always a possibility.  A point the American people should remember.

    And as the news of combat for Canadian troops gets traction,  There are calls for more foreign troops to be sent into Iraq.  AFP reports, "US Senator John McCain on Monday urged the deployment of international ground forces to combat jihadists in Syria and Iraq, as he toured the Middle East with a Senate delegation."



    While McCain called for more troops, Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi met with some US scholars.  al-Abadi's office issued the following today:


    PM Al-Abadi Discusses Developments in Iraq and the Region with American Think Tank Specialists


     

     
     
     
    January 19 2015

    Prime Minister Dr. Haider Al-Abadi met today with researchers and specialists in Iraqi affairs and counter-terrorism from US-based think tanks.


    During the meeting with Dr. Kenneth Pollack, Dr. Kimberly Kagan and Dr. Fred Kagan, they discussed security challenges facing Iraq and the region as part of the war against Daesh terrorists.


    Prime Minister Al-Abadi stressed the need for greater awareness in the international community about the global threat of terrorist organizations. He called for greater efforts to dry up their funding streams, challenge extremist ideologies and develop more comprehensive intelligence mechanisms to monitor their movements and ultimately eliminate the threat posed to the entire world.


    The American delegation in turn recognized the positive developments taking place in Iraq under Prime Minister Al-Abadi's leadership and welcomed the recent military successes achieved by the Iraqi Security Forces as part of the war against Daesh.



    Kenneth Pollack is with the centrist Brooking Institute and right-wing Kim Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War and her arm candy Fred Kagan is right-wing as well.


    US President Barack Obama has no real plan for Iraq.  He began bombing Iraq in August but bombing was never a plan.

    It stopped being effective long ago.

    And all these months later, Barack has nothing to show for the billion-dollars-plus he's wasted bombing Iraq.

    The press is starting to notice.

    Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports:

    Iraq’s vice-president for reconciliation, Iyad Allawi, said a lack of a political process between the Shias who dominate the country’s power base, and disenfranchised Sunnis was a “grave mistake” that could mean the air attacks end up achieving little.
    “The whole strategy needs to be revisited and readdressed and the international allies should be part of this,” Allawi told the Guardian. “People are asking me what will come after Isis. What would be the destiny of [local] people? Are they going to be accused of supporting or defeating Isis? Would they be accused of being Ba’athists? It is going to be really difficult for them to engage without reconciliation.”

    If the Islamic State was defeated tomorrow and run out of Iraq it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.


    Tim Arango and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) report:


    On any given day, Sunni women gather here in search of answers about their men, some of whom have been jailed for years.
    “The Iraqi Army took my son in March of 2014,” said Tawfika Abbas. “Until now, I don’t know where he is. Zero information.”
    Another woman, Entisar Gannos, cried for her four sons: one jailed since 2006, another since 2010, and the other two since 2011, all without court hearings.
    Their grief, and the pain of not knowing what is happening to their loved ones, highlight a vital task for Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi: reforming Iraq’s criminal justice system. Well-documented abuses of the system, including long detentions without trial and confessions obtained by torture, are the primary grievance of the country’s Sunni minority.


    The US government has failed to lead on diplomacy.


    There are no accomplishments to point to.


    And, more and more, Iraqis are making that clear, making clear that there has been no change.






  • The world must hear the voice of sunni civilians not supporting Shiite militias to kill civilians this not solves the problems









  • Lastly, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America issued the following last Friday:



    New York, N.Y. (January 16, 2015) – According to a new report released today by the Pentagon, the number of active duty suicides decreased in 2013 compared to 2012. However, the study revealed that a staggering 479 suicides were still recorded among active duty servicemembers, Reservists and National Guard members, compared to 522 in 2012. The annual Department of Defense Suicide Event Report (DoDSER), which includes suicide attempts and deaths, is available here.
    The release of the DoD survey coincides with a study to be released by the Annals of Epidemiology, which confirms that the annual suicide rate for veterans is roughly double that of civilians with similar demographics. Both studies underscore the need for mental health care reform legislation promoted by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). Their bill, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act, would increase veteran access to mental health care services and boost accountability within VA’s suicide prevention programs. The bill, which unanimously passed the House on Monday, will be heard by the Senate Veterans Affairs’ Committee on Wed., Jan. 21, before being sent to the floor.
    “The Pentagon’s report is only the tip of the iceberg of our nation’s warrior mental health care crisis,” said IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff. “Suicides from active-duty servicemembers and veterans are categorized separately in reports from the DoD and VA, clouding the big picture and making the crisis seem smaller than it is. In reality, these men and women represent the same population with the same risk factors, but are just at different points in their careers. And as the Annals of Epidemiology study underscores, the suicide rate among veterans may be higher than we have ever understood. Both of these reports confirm what IAVA and our members have known for years: that our country is failing to adequately meet the mental health care needs of our veterans. Veteran and military suicide is not just a veteran or military issue — it is a complex, national public health issue. We call on the President talk about this national crisis in Tuesday’s State of the Union address, and support IAVA’s Clay Hunt SAV Act and other policy efforts to combat veteran suicide. We also call on Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) – the first female combat veteran elected to serve in the U.S. Senate – to endorse veteran mental health care reforms during the Republican response to the State of the Union address.”
    “Although the news is difficult, we thank Secretary Hagel and his team for their commitment in combating suicides among our troops and vets. As a combat veteran himself, the Secretary is acutely aware of the challenges our soldiers face when they return home from war. In the past year the Secretary and his team have engaged with our staff and members on ways to increase quality mental health care access for active-duty military,” Rieckhoff concluded.
    In IAVA’s 2014 Member Survey, 47 percent of respondents know at least one Iraq or Afghanistan veteran who has attempted suicide, while 40 percent of respondents know someone who has died by suicide, up three points from 2013. A staggering 31 percent of respondents have thought about taking their own life since joining the military.
    To support its legislative efforts, IAVA launched a petition in December after Sen. Coburn blocked the Clay Hunt SAV Act. To date, the grassroots petition currently includes more than 139,500 signatures of IAVA members and supporters. Click here to learn more.
    In 2014, IAVA provided 2,147 veterans with comprehensive and personalized transition support from Masters level social workers through its Rapid Response Referral Program (RRRP). IAVA also connects veterans to mental health services through its partnership with the VA’s Veterans Crisis Line. The services works to ensure that every servicemember, veteran, family member and provider knows that there is free and confidential help available 24 hours a day through phone, text and online. Veterans, or those concerned about veterans, can call 800-273-8255 and press 1 to be directly connected to qualified responders.

    Note to media: Email press@iava.org or call 212-982-9699 to speak with IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff or IAVA leadership.
    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org) is the nation's first and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and has nearly 300,000 Member Veterans and civilian supporters nationwide. Celebrating its 10th year anniversary, IAVA recently received the highest rating - four-stars - from Charity Navigator, America's largest charity evaluator.









    Sunday, January 18, 2015

    Phoebe Snow's live album

    "This week's playlist" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):

    Never Been Gone



    1) Carly Simon's Never Been Gone.

    2) Prince's Controversy.

    3) The Jimi Hendrix Experience's BBC Sessions.


    4) Stevie Nicks' In Your Dreams.

    5) The Mamas and the Papas' Deliver.

    6) Phoebe Snow's Phoebe Snow Live.

    7) The Doors' The Doors.

    8) Bonnie Raitt's Slipstream.

    9) Etta James' All The Way.

    10)  Wilco's A Ghost Is Born.



    Phoebe Snow was a highly gifted singer and guitarist.

    She started her run of classics with the album Poetry Man which included the hit title track (which she wrote).

    Her personal life included a daughter with special needs.  Parenting meant she more often turned to recording jingles.

    I can remember being in Musicland (it was a music store) in 1989 and being so excited to see a new album by her, Something Real.

    I got it (on cassette) and it contained one classic after another -- the title and "If I Can Just Get Through The Night" especially stood out.

    Both tracks showed up on her live album in 2008.  I really think that was her finest album.  I loved what she did with "Natural Wonder" and "You're My Girl."  "The Other Girlfriend was haunting."

    If you're new to Phoebe, Phoebe Snow Live is the album to begin with.  You will marvel over the singing, there was no one else like her.







    "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
    Saturday, January 17, 2014.  Today we look at Iraq in terms of the US zooming in on Cindy Sheehan and how she is us and we are her in all the ways that are beautiful and that are ugly and, mainly, what it likely means for the 2016 elections.


    Anyone can comment about movies -- they're a democratic art form.  That doesn't mean they can comment intelligently.

    I have no interest in seeing Clint Eastwood's latest film.  I'm not a friend of Clint's, I'm not a fan of his films (as an actor or a director) and I don't care for the war combat genre (whose only real classics for me come from Brian De Palma: Redacted and Casualties of War).  Clint's new film is American Sniper.

    I've not insulted it and have no plans to.

    It's not a film I'd make or choose to see but it's not shocking that Clint was interested in the topic and I'm sure he told it cinematic manner.  We noted the film in the December 30th snapshot.  And yesterday's snapshot included IAVA's congratulations to Clint and company for their Academy Award nominations.

    Good luck to Clint and company and, for those who've missed it over the ten long years Ava and I've covered TV at Third, I prefer comedies.  After comedies, I like a good thriller (Alan J. Pakula was one of the masters and no one does suspense like Brian De Palma). I'm also not interested in sitting through films where women do nothing and are discarded on the sidelines. (In fairness to Clint, the source material for his film meant it would focus on a man's journey and the setting didn't lead to much more for women than what Natalie Wood did in Rebel Without A Cause.)

    I say that to explain what has been a 'controversial' position.  (Sadly for the e-mailers, I don't avoid controversy, I court it.)  I have defended the film and Clint's right to make it and that's upset a few e-mailers (who haven't seen the movie but no when their 'leaders' stir up s**t, it's their job to eat it).

    My stance is an artistic stance and if that's too much for you maybe you can bury your head in the sand.

    Here's a reality you might try grasping: If you didn't view the art, you don't have an opinion on what it says.

    Friday, Cindy Sheehan wrote a deeply stupid post not limited to this:


    Along with another glorification of the War State (Zero Dark Thirty) winning best film title at the Oscars last year and Hollywood’s long history of working with the Pentagon (or War Department) to make decades of Warnography, I was reminded about an episode in my own history.


    First, the Academy has no award for Best Film Title.  Possibly, Cindy means Best Picture?

    Best Picture went to Ben Affleck's Argo.

    But again, when faux outrage is stirred, the sheep know to eat s**t and swallow.  Kathyrn Bigelow was made fair game by a cabal that's worked publicly and repeatedly since their attempt to destroy the Academy Award chances for Ron Howard's A Beautiful Mind.  It's cute the way this group operates and how, when they destroy, they get away with it -- or think they do.  But that's a tale for another a day -- and when we had time to trace the group's roots which go back decades.



    Instead, we'll focus on Cindy's explanations and fantasies of why a film wasn't made of her life.

    I don't have the time -- or interest -- in going into copyrights and authorship and the need for people to sign consent agreements to be portrayed in films -- these are legal issues that clearly escape Cindy and I'm not in the mood to spoonfeed today.

    We would get lost in the weeds attempting to explain all that.

    We're going to focus on film.

    Cindy believes there was a possible plot to prevent her story from being told.  That two different groups of producers were attempting to keep her tied up at two different times so that her story would not be told on the big screen.

    She feels this might be possible because no film was made.

    It might be possible.

    Anything is.


    But the basics of film and the industry argue against any conspiracy.

    As a woman of a certain age, Cindy's story was always going to be hard for the big screen.

    She notes Susan Sarandon was attached -- or at least mentioned --  to the film proposal in 2006 and 2007.

    And that's about 10 years after Susan could deliver any real audience at the box office.

    That's why Susan's doing films like Tammy (where she's not the lead) and the Lifetime film playing Marilyn Monroe's mother.

    I don't mean that as an insult to Susan.  We're talking realities here -- the things Cindy avoided in her post.


    Susan was all wrong for the role as well.


    Cindy's not stupid by any means but she doesn't project intelligence the way Susan does.

    Or the way Jane Fonda does which was Mike Nichols wasn't interested in Jane for the part of Karen Silkwood (Jane had tried to get the film rights for the story on Karen Silkwood) and Meryl Streep played the role instead.


    Meryl could have played Cindy.   Again, Cindy's not stupid, she's smart.  But there are types and Susan Sarandon would have been the wrong fit for Cindy.

    Back when studios still thought Susan could carry a film -- she couldn't, some actors can't, some very good actors can't,  she starred in Safe Passage.  That's more or less how she would have played Cindy and it wouldn't have worked nor would it have sold tickets.


    Susan has tremendous talent and cast her as the woman who unravels the secrets in a thriller or as the seductive vamp or any number of roles and she'll deliver.  But when she plays someone newly awakened it doesn't really work because, like Jane Fonda, her characters are a little bit faster than everyone else on the uptake so you don't buy them as 'awakening' to politics -- though you do buy them 'awakening' to love.


    The part could have been played by Meryl (a given) or by Jessica Lange or Sally Field -- and Sally probably would have been the most effective in the role.  The role could have been played by Michelle Pfeiffer, Jodie Foster, Debra Winger, Joan Cusack, Rosanna Arquette, Melanie Griffith, Charlize Theron, etc.  Of the women listed after Field, the only one whose name only would have interested studios enough to consider the film would have been Jodie Foster.

    Jodie could deliver an audience large enough to make back the costs of filming and, if she and the film delivered, she could have brought in a much larger audience.

    But even with Jodie, working against the film was that the role had already been played by Jane Fonda -- Sally Hyde in Coming Home, Jane won her second Best Actress Academy Award for playing a woman who awakens to the realities of war.

    Sally was only one part of the story.  Jon Voight (who won a Best Actor Academy Award for his performance) played Ron Kovic with a fictional name.  Bruce Dern and Jane's marriage ends due to the war, Jon Voight's character finds his voice when he loses so many other things, there's the subplot with Vi and her brother and so much more -- including graphic sex scenes (Jane had a body double).  Don't forget the graphic sex scenes.

    All of that and a beautiful, muted look via Haskell Wexler and innovations via director Hal Ashby -- he used sound like no on else before him.

    It made for a film.

    But The Cindy Sheehan Story, as portrayed in Peace Mom, is a TV movie, if you're trying to pull off the arc of awakening.  Probably starring Meredith Baxter.  It could also be a powerful play if you zoomed in on just the day Casey Sheehan dies and the aftermath on the family -- we're talking the immediate effects.  And that could also make for a powerful premium cable channel movie.

    You have to know what the story is and where the story fits because a Lifetime TV movie is not going to sell tickets in theaters.  You're wasting everyone's time delivering a pitch for a TV movie to a film studio exec.

    Cindy thinks there might have been some conspiracy.

    There was most likely none at all.

    Her film never had studio backing -- nor even serious interest from a studio.

    Even if it had, there are projects studios get behind which get gutted all the time.  Jodie Foster and Robert Redford were supposed to star in Crisis In The Hot Zone but Redford was a dick and a vain one and Jodie walked.  The film had been in competition with Dustin Hoffman, Rene Russo and Morgan Freeman's Outbreak to see which could start shooting first.  That ended when no other name actress wanted to put up with Redford's nonsense.

    Films go under all the time, they go from talk to nothing.

    They can even be announced -- and advertised -- and then not get made.


    faye



    That's Faye Dunaway.  Height of her beauty.  Height of her box office.

    And she's going to make the film Duet For One.  It's about to begin filming.

    Nope.


    When it was made a few years later, it would star Julie Andrews.

    There was no plot to keep Faye busy, to tie her up, so no one else could use her in movies.

    Joan Crawford would leave MGM for, among other reasons, the refusal to allow her to star in The Spiral Staircase despite the fact that she'd optioned the source material.  (A few years later, RKO would make the film and it would be a hit.)  Miriam Hopkins thought she'd play the lead in the film of Jezebel.  She'd played the role on Broadway, she held the rights, Jack Warner led her to believe that handing the rights over to his studio meant she'd star in the film.  Instead, Bette Davis played the role and won her second Best Actress Academy Award.  Bette Davis was led to believe she'd star as Mary Todd Lincoln but when the project moved from development towards filming, Jack Warner refused to greenlight claiming a film that told the truth would be an insult to Abraham Lincoln's memory.

    Yentl is a film classic and one that director Barbra Streisand should forever feel proud of.  But as much as the film on the screen is something to be proud of, Barbra's dedication to the project is also something to be proud of. She started working on the project in 1968 and never lost faith in it, never took a "no" as the final answer and, in 1983, the film was reality.

    Or look at The Dollmaker.  In 1971, Jane Fonda falls in love with Harriette Arnow's book. In 1974, she meets with the author about making the book.  She's in her grey-listed period -- where politics keep US studios from hiring her for many projects (though she still has a few offers coming in -- she turned down Chinatown and The Exorcist, among others, during this period).  When Tricky Dick resigns and realities have to be reconsidered, studios are interested again and her first leading role is in the box office hit Fun With Dick and Jane (1977).  One hit after another followed and Jane still couldn't get studio interest for the film.  So, as she herself tells it, she met with ABC in 1979, the day after she won her second Academy Award, and she (and Bruce Gilbert) proposed The Dollmaker as a movie of the week for the TV network.  ABC was all for it but there was still the issue of the script.  It would be 1983 before the TV movie was filmed and 1984 when it aired.   (Jane won an Emmy for her performance.)

    To get a film made -- for the big screen or for TV or (today) the internet) -- you have to be a long distance runner.

    The film frustrations Cindy Sheehan went through don't even qualify as a 1 K fun run.


    Let's deal with another aspect and then we'll circle around.

    Casey Sheehan died.

    That was a huge loss for his family.

    As someone who felt her loss was great enough to warrant a meeting with a world leader, I'm not really sure where Cindy gets off insulting Chris Kyle.

    Guess what, it's not all about you, Cindy Sheehan.

    I've defended Cindy here repeatedly over the years.  She's said nothing to help another mother, has she? She can't identify with Pat Smith's loss?

    I've wondered about that.

    And now here is she is trashing a dead man because she thinks he's racist -- or says she thinks it.


    If only we were all so pure and wonderful like Cindy Sheehan?


    The fact of the matter is she needs to lose the judgmental.


    There's no reason for her to insult Chris Kyle.

    Her view of her son is in conflict with those who served with him.

    That's not surprising.

    He was put through the same socialization process everyone in the military is.

    So I'm not understanding why Cindy's being so awful to Chris Kyle who has a family that misses him dearly.

    You're not happy that he shot Iraqis?

    I'm not happy that any Iraqis were shot.

    But the blame for that, for Americans, goes to the White House (then and now) and the Congress.


    Casey Sheehan didn't declare war on Iraq.  Neither did Chris Kyle.

    If you're offended by what Chris Kyle did, then you need to take that argument up the chain.

    Stop blaming the people and start blaming those in charge.

    Chris Kyle broke no law.

    He said some mean spirited things about Arabs?

    I don't doubt it.

    And I'm not stupid enough to assume he came up with those remarks himself.  I'm fully aware that this was part of training, part of the socialization, part of the attempt to create the belief in 'the other' which allows the dehumanization necessary to kill.

    Now maybe moon beams shot out of Casey Sheehan's ass like Cindy seems to think.  Maybe they didn't.  But I'm not going to insult Casey Sheehan because I'm opposed to the ongoing war.  And I'm not going to insult Chris Kyle for it either.

    I don't expect Cindy to be a saint.  I do expect her to have common sense.

    Her post is beneath her and goes to the reality that she has a myth about Casey with regards to Iraq and it's a myth she wills herself to believe.


    Chris Kyle.could have been her son but she attacks him and berates him in a post.

    She has no humanity to share and can't relate to the family of Chris Kyle on any level.

    Nursing a myth takes a lot out of you.

     And let's point out the obvious about her supposed offense regarding what Kyle wrote in his book.

    Cindy does a radio show.  If she really cares about the Iraqi people why doesn't she cover Iraq?

    If she really cares why, in the year long bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods, has she never devoted an episode to this topic?

    These are War Crimes, legally defined War Crimes.

    And Cindy's not calling them out, she's not using her forum to draw attention to the thousands of civilians who have been killed and wounded for the 'crime' of being in their neighborhood, for the 'crime' of being in their homes.

    This is not the Islamic State.

    Grasp that.

    This is the Iraqi military bombing Falluja daily.

    It started under Nouri al-Maliki.  September 13th, new Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi noted how wrong it was -- but stopped short of calling it a War Crime -- it is one, it's the legal definition of "collective punishment" -- and promised the bombings had stopped.  The next day they continued.

    So when Cindy's going to talk about that?

    I'm so tired of people who pretend they care about this or that but when they've got the chance to talk about something that matters, they don't.

    Ongoing War Crimes and no one wants to call them out.  It's pretty much Human Rights Watch, Felicity Arbuthonot and this community willing to call out the War Crimes. (If you call it out or know someone who does, send a link to common_ills@yahoo.com and it will gladly be noted here.)

    How damn difficult is for a citizen in, for example, the United States to call out the Iraqi government attacking civilians daily in Falluja?

    I don't think it's difficult at all.

    But the silence from Cindy Sheehan and others never ends.

    Pick any day at random, let's go with June 18th: The bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods claimed the lives of 6 civilians -- two of whom were children -- with sixteen more civilians injured.


    So don't come whimpering to me about some 'naughty words' that were used in a book when you don't have the guts, the spine, the compassion, the humanity to call out the year long suffering of Sunnis in Falluja as the military has repeatedly targeted the residential neighborhoods wounding and killing thousands in 2014 alone.


    The United Nations refuses to release an 'official' count on deaths in Falluja and that's because they don't want to speak up about the ongoing War Crimes.

    The only time they've acknowledged it seriously was when new Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announced these bombings had ended -- then the UN had praise to offer publicly.  But the bombings didn't end, the UN didn't retract their praise or even acknowledge that the bombings continued.


    Iraqi Spring MC notes 3 civilians dead and four injured on Friday from the Iraqi military's non-stop bombing of civilian areas in Falluja.

    And these bombings have other impacts as well.


    النازحون من منازلهم جراء القصف العشوائي المتعمد من قبل القوات الحكومية على منازل المدنيين. .




    As Iraqi Spring MC notes, they add to the ever-growing refugee population in Iraq.


    The silence also means others can get away with it.

    Today, civilian areas in and around Baghdad were bombed by the war planes in the US-led coalition.

    But let's all get upset over what Chris Kyle wrote in a sentence or two in his book.

    That is the real crime -- right, Cindy Sheehan?

    Not the ongoing bombings of civilians, not the never-ending war.

    Yeah, you play strong and proud over your attacks on a dead man who can't defend himself and who might be a little too close to what you fear your son was like in Iraq.

    Can your crazy -- can it, market it, sell it, maybe it'll make you rich.

    It just won't help end any wars.  But the woman who occupied a ditch in Crawford can't be bothered with Iraq today unless it's to trash a dead soldier.


    I don't have time for the crazy.

    There are two ways to make The Cindy Sheehan Story -- I said we'd work back to it -- a big screen film.

    The first is to deal with the tragedy of those quiet moments when Cindy's alone with her memories and has to realize if the construct she's created about Casey is accurate or not?

    That sort of haunting is what got Music Box a greenlight (and when the studio paid Jane Fonda a small fortune not to act in the film and replaced her with Jessica Lange, that was about sexism and age-ism and not a conspiracy).


    The other story, the one I urged to the second group of film makers Cindy whines about -- yeah, I'm going to call it whining.  I've been kind when she's misconstrued Rob Reiner who is a friend of mine.  But I'm not going to be kind here.  She's whining and doing so stupidly.  She had two different groups approach her about making a film and she never took the lead and she never fought for it but instead sat back and expected to happen when the reality is over 99% of proposed films never get made and any that do require people to champion the projects and fight.

    The other story is about a woman who allowed herself to be used.

    This is the reality, not the story Cindy wants to tell.  She likes to, for example, claim she was against Barack from the start.  That's a lie.  It's a known lie.  She was for Barack up until the Democratic Party primaries ended.  Common Dreams is among the websites she left comments on.  She can claim she was trying to destroy Hillary Clinton (his opponent in the 2008 primaries, for those who've forgotten).  Doesn't really matter.  Oh, wait, it does.  Had Hillary been elected president in 2008, the so-called peace movement wouldn't have folded up the tent and gone home.

    But the film that would work as cinema is about a woman who really wasn't sure where she stood on the war while her son was alive.  She waivered.  And that's understandable and even something most can feel empathy towards her for.  Then she became outspoken.  This is months before her Crawford, Texas stand.

    And then she's in the DFW area at a Veterans for Peace meeting and decides, since Bully Boy Bush is at his Crawford, Texas ranchette, to go down there.

    It's decided to start Camp Casey.

    And tons of people show up.

    Most are grass-roots people who want to end the war.

    But there are those who see it as political hay.

    And then some anti-Semitic statements Cindy made emerge.

    And let's not pretend that they were anti-Israeli government.  They weren't.  They were anti-Semitic.  Doesn't make Cindy a bad person (we won't rush to attack her the way she rushed to attack Chris Kyle), just means she needs to be a little more informed.

    And that's really when they have Cindy -- and a detail not often told.

    The behind the scenes players -- only some of which she's named -- rush to spin it as (a) she didn't make those comments and (b) even if she did, she's a dumb little home maker so no one should get too upset about it.

    August is a dead month for the media and they were happy to let the spin settle and continue to cover the woman in the ditch outside a world leader's home, demanding to speak with him to know why her son died in Iraq.

    Partisan bloggers for the Democratic Party took part in the lie that Cindy wasn't opposed to the war, she just wanted an answer.  A blogger named Jude, for example, is someone we broke with over this lie.  Jude was pimping it online -- she was always a Democratic Party house organ and not an individual blogger -- and she wasn't the only one.

    And Cindy allowed it.

    She walked in the narrow confines she was instructed to.

    She wouldn't sell party politics but she would -- and did -- take part in the media creation of "Peace Mom."

    And after the 2006 mid-terms, the Democratic Party and their various outlets and organs had no use for her.

    She had helped them deliver both houses of Congress to the Democrats.

    The political party had used the illegal war to drum up votes.

    So if you though they were ending the Iraq War in 2007, you were a damn fool.

    They weren't going to end it, not when they had a presidential election two years out that they could win by harnessing the outrage over the Iraq War and turning it into votes.

    Cindy betrayed herself in various little ways.

    But none of that prepared her for the betrayal she would face from others.

    You can make that film as a comedy or as a thriller.  You can use Frank Capra's Meet John Doe as your backdrop -- they share many of the same plot points.

    And it's a movie that could put people in the seats because it's not just the story of Cindy, it's the story of American in the last fifteen or so years.

    In one way or another, like Cindy, we all did small steps of self-betrayal.  We kidded ourselves that it was for 'the greater good.'  We kidded ourselves that, when we were silent, it was helping the movement.

    Whether you think Occupy was a movement or not, the lack of criticism -- serious criticism -- allowed whatever it was to peter out quickly and Occupy is no more despite the hopes and dreams of a bunch of elderly radicals in NYC.

    But we did that in the peace movement or the anti-war movement.  We pretended it was okay that those with divided loyalties -- at best (you can't serve the peace movement and a corporatist, War Hawk political party at the same time) -- were in the forefront.

    We created our own free speech pens and sat out so much time in them.


    It set the stage for the next presidential election, "2008: The Year of Living Hormonally (Year in Review)."

    A time when all good Democrats must not call out Barack for putting homophobes on stage at campaign events, a time where all good Democrats must not note that after the Iraq War started in 2003, Barack was a public supporter of it -- yes, 'anti-war' Barack got on board.


    We 'built' that.  And we created the stage for the events Joan Didion so aptly described (link goes to New York Review of Books podcast):


    What troubled had nothing to do with the candidate himself.
    It had to do instead with the reaction he evoked.
    Close to the heart of it was the way in which only the very young were decreed of capable of truly appreciating the candidate. Again and again, perfectly sentient adults cited the clinching of arguments made on the candidate's behalf by their children -- by quite small children. Again and again, we were told that this was a generational thing, we couldn't understand. In a flash we were sent back to high school, and we couldn't sit with the popular kids, we didn't get it. The "Style" section of The New York Times yesterday morning mentioned the Obama t-shirts that "makes irony look old."
    Irony was now out.
    Naivete translated into "hope" was now in.
    Innocence, even when it looked like ignorance, was now prized.


    By then, some had begun speaking out.  Cindy was among those.  But she and I and many, many others helped set the stage for what came after by biting our tongues when we should have been speaking out.  By thinking silence on an issue meant helping the larger issues.

    I've known all my life Naomi Klein was the child of a war resister.  I know Naomi's father and knew him before she was born.

    But as Naomi refused -- refused -- to speak out on war resisters, I stayed silent for years.

    She had no right to.  She owed it to the community to speak out, to pay it forward.

    And yet she'd plug her books and plug her articles and act ditzy on Al Franken's radio show ('Oh, you can't say s**t on the radio in America? Giggle, giggle, I'm practically a bra-less starlet!').

    At one point when I said I was going public, it was conveyed to me that Naomi feared going public would mean she would lose entry to the United States, be put on some sort of list.

    That was nutty but okay, I bit my tongue.

    And I did it far too long.  When there was serious media attention on war resisters in the early days, I should've outed Naomi as a child of a Vietnam war resister, an American who went to Canada.  That would have forced her to address the issues in all the interviews she was giving, it would have raised the profile of war resisters, it would have put a human face on it and it would have argued: 'Canada, you have a figure of global prominence in Naomi Klein and you have her as a citizen because you welcomed war resisters in the past.  Do so again.'

    We all lied and that's how we arrived at the point we're at now.

    And we're still lying because people don't want to tell you how Hillary probably wins if she runs for president.

    She wins because we're so f**king ugly on the left now.

    We're an eye sore.

    Large segments of the country are repulsed by it and this allows the neoliberals to argue that we need to drop the 'purity tests' and we need to be 'rationale' and Hillary's the candidate for us and blah blah blah.

    The pendulum swings back and forth not because the country is bi-polar but because the middle and the apathetic (which does comprise the bulk of the United States population) grow outraged over the excesses of the right when they're in power and over the excesses of the left when they're in power.

    Both segments seem to think they have a right to dictate to the American people how they should live their lives and the voters reject that repeatedly over and over.

    We could have stood for something beyond partisan politics in the last six years but we didn't.

    And now it's likely Hillary Clinton in the White House or a Republican and, honestly, aren't the two really just the same damn thing?