Like Maria Said Paz

Monday, February 14, 2022

Ava and C.I. on media portrayals of women, Hillary's latest scandal and Jonathan Turley

"TV: REACHER, IN FROM THE COLD, PEACEMAKER and AMEND: THE FIGHT FOR AMERICA" (Ava and C.I., THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW):

Women also are treated in condescending ways. Strength? It's been absent from women's portrayals in entertainment.

Oh, sure, if you go to song, you can argue that Nancy Sinatra sang "These Boots Are Made For Walking" but the reality is that she walked right out of strength after that hit, she quickly ended up doing sickening duets with Lee Hazlewood and, sadly, her own father (not for nothing was "Something Stupid" dubbed "the incest song"). Lesley Gore may have had a hit with "You Don't Own Me" but she followed it up with "That's The Way Boys Are" and other garbage. Carly Simon had the strength to compose and perform "You're So Vain" but was following that up with weaker songs -- and, of course, with "Slave" (which she wrote with Jacob Brackman, "I'm just another woman raised to be a slave," she sings). Strength, for women, was a one-off. Or, worse, something to run from. By the 80s, Pat Benatar had built up her operatic range as the perfect vehicle for tough stances -- "Treat Me Right," "Love Is A Battlefield," "Invincible," "Heartbreaker," "Hell Is For Children," etc. But she quickly turned her career over to Neil Giraldo and the hits just stopped coming. Pat the submissive wife wasn't selling. We've commented on how she destroyed her own career many times but we want to draw your attention one more time to "Life is too short, Pat, so why waste precious time?" -- our piece on her ridiculous 2019 tour billed as Pat Benatar and Neil Giraldo 1979 - 2019: 40th Anniversary Tour. No one ever paid a dime for a ticket to see Neil Giraldo and the world doesn't know who he is. Pat's on a suicide mission trying to inflate Neil's ego and it's a mission she forgot to include their daughter Hana on -- which is why, on E's RELATIVELY FAMOUS: RANCH RULES, when Hana introduces herself to the offspring of other famous parents, she says, "I'm Pat Benatar's daughter." Like everyone but her own mother, Hana knows the world doesn't care about Neil Giraldo. In "Tina Turner: A retrospective," we've already written of how this fear of strength in women harmed Tina on the charts. You can also include Alanis Morissette as one who fell from the charts as she surrendered her own strength.

Today in songs that make the charts? Pink's both an exception and a quandary. Her work involves multiple levels and then you get the videos adding even more levels. We see "Try" -- the song and the video -- as an expression of the need to own your actions and responsibilities -- a strong statement. But we do understand others don't feel the same. More often we get the insipid. Taylor Swift's had a lot of success and the obvious question is: Why? Like Aretha Franklin in her famous evaluation of Taylor, we really aren't all that impressed. A bunch of feather weight songs that supposedly include a number of kiss-off songs but they all sound like they're sung by a meek 12-year-old, not like a 32-year-old woman. Then there's highly embarrassing Billie Eilish who, especially since the release of her second album, seems little more than the wooden dummy of her ventriloquist older brother Finneas. (Want to hear real art? Skip Billie's two albums and stream Finneas' OPTIMIST. That's art.)

In film and TV? There have always been a Barbara Stanwyck or two who played strong women. But they've been few and far between. Scream Queen Jamie Lee Curtis and her friend Sigourney Weaver have carried on Stanwyck's mantle. Sadly, there's been little real attempt to further develop strong women. In 1991, we were all supposed to be applauding Jodie Foster's pathetic character in the homophobic and anti-woman SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. A slasher film with a focused script (Ted Talley created the transitions in the script that allowed Jonathan Demme to finally make a coherent film -- each scene ends with a statement or an image leading into the next one), SILENCE OF THE LAMBS introduced 'strong' Clarice -- a Daddy's girl haunted by Daddy's death. Jodie would play the same pathetic type in CONTACT and many other women would show up on TV and in film in action roles due to their Daddy issues. Lamenting and mourning Daddy became the key to allowing women to fight back, to fight period. It infantilized the female characters, but we were never supposed to notice that and, certainly, actresses like Jodie never copped to the reality of what they were actually playing.

REACHER has Roscoe and Neagley thick in the action. Roscoe has lost her father . . . and her mother. But she's not plagued by Daddy issues and there's no real backstory for Neagley -- a true wonder. A woman can come on and do action scenes without the show runners or director feeling the need to explain how and why.

Ava and C.I. wrote a mammoth piece so be sure to check it out.

We should all be checking out the latest allegations regarding Hillary Clinton.

If you have a problem with that coming from FOX NEWS, my argument is: Get some other outlets to cover it -- like CNN, for example.

Now here's Jonathan Turley:

We previously discussed the ABC poll showing that 76 percent of Americans opposed President Joe Biden’s pledge only to consider black women for the seat being vacated by Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. The pledge was unnecessary as it was unprecedented as a categorical exclusion of any candidates on the basis of their race and gender. While many in the media and academia have attacked those raising concerns over such a threshold exclusion, the public continues to oppose the pledge according to a new poll. Only 36 percent stated that they thought that the pledge was “a good idea.”

The poll found that 55 percent believe that nominating a Black woman is either “not very” important (19 percent) or “not at all” (36 percent) important to them. Only 23 percent said it was very important as a criteria.The poll reflected that most citizens are uncomfortable with such threshold exclusions as opposed to diversity as an element to be balanced.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Monday, February 14, 2022. Forget the grapevine, if you heard it through the US media, you probably heard it wrong.

Dropping back to the February 4th snapshot, we'll note this:

The White House issued the following:

Last night at my direction, U.S. military forces in the northwest Syria successfully undertook a counterterrorism operation to protect the American people and our Allies, and make the world a safer place. Thanks to the skill and bravery of our Armed Forces, we have taken off the battlefield Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi—the leader of ISIS. All Americans have returned safely from the operation. I will deliver remarks to the American people later this morning. May God protect our troops.

###

Margaret Kimberley rightly Tweets:

This is BS. Poll numbers dropping, Ukraine hoax stalled, 2,000+ covid deaths per day. What to do? Easy. Find an Arab, claim he was an ISIS leader and kill him and his family. Later the story changed to say he blew himself up. Don't believe that either. #Bogus

9:47 AM · Feb 3, 2022

This is how bad things have gotten for Joe Biden, he's aping Bully Boy Bush and hoping that somehow this helps him look good.

ISIS is not followers with one mighty leader. ISIS exists to be a headless snake. Is the White House not getting that reality or are they hoping the American people are too stupid to grasp it?

Today, Steve Sweeney offers his take at MORNING STAR:

Quraishi was detained at the camp after US forces picked him up in Mosul, Iraq in January 2008, although details of the operation are scant.

In a press release at the time, US forces claimed to have captured “a wanted individual believed to be the deputy leader of al-Qaida in Iraq for the network operating in the city.”

It added that Quraishi — known by the alternative name Amir Muhammad Said Abd al-Rahman al-Mawla — had “previously served as a judge of an illegal court system involved in ordering and approving abductions and executions.”

During interrogations by US intelligence services he gave the names of some 88 individuals, some of whom he said were key figures in Isis. He gave the organisational positions of 64 of them, detailing their responsibilities in the legal, military security, media and administrative branches of the organisation.

In one document he appears to offer an affidavit, testifying against 20 named individuals and identifying illegal activities including kidnappings, assassinations and attacks on coalition forces.

He also gave information about the structure of the jihadist organisation completing “a line and block chart” showing the names and positions of 40 individuals. This information is believed to have led to 39 of them being killed by US forces.

It is clear that Quraishi was useful to the US. The level of detailed information he shared makes him a US asset, or at the very least an informant. The nature of the operation to take him out — which Turkey was not told about in advance — poses more questions than it answers.

Was he killed by US operatives as he had served his purpose or because of fears his role and links to Washington could be exposed?

Is it really conceivable that both he and his predecessor Baghdadi were simply released into the wilds and allowed to find their way to the very top position in Isis without being tracked or monitored by US intelligence services?

It seems highly unlikely.

Just as it stretches credibility to suggest that the attack on the prison in Hasakah province could have been planned and carried out in an area teeming with US soldiers and intelligence without Washington’s knowledge.

It would represent the biggest intelligence failure since the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon if this was also missed.

In other news, "It's not the end of the world." So declared Hoshyar Zebari yesterday as Iraq's Supereme Court issued a ruling on whether or not he could run for president. Feburary 7th, the Parliament was supposed to vote on the presidency per the country's Constituion. Instead, they postponed the vote because they did not have enough members attending the session. Zebari belongs to the KDP party which had teamed with Moqtada al-Sadr to form a coalition. Moqtada's coalition voycotted the session because the 2016 charges against Hoshyar were revived. Back then, he'd been in government forever and a day. He'd served in the Cabinets consequetively since 2016. In fact, in 2011, he held two Cabinet posts. In 2016, charges of corruption brought an end to the career of Hillary Clinton's closet friend and ally in Iraq. Four years later, th KDP foolishly thought he was the one to go with to take the presidency. They didn't factor in that the charges would be brought back up. But theyw ere and they have derailed his campaign. PRESS TV notes:

The court said in a statement that a decision by parliament to accept his presidential bid was incorrect as the 68-year-old Kurdish politician did not fulfill the conditions for nomination stipulated in the country's constitution. It also barred him from running for the post in the future, the official Iraq News Agency reported on Sunday.

“We were surprised by our exclusion from our right to nominate,” Zebari said in a news conference following the ruling.

“We respect the judiciary, but I have the right to say that there has been injustice and arbitrariness in the decision.”

The oint of Hoshyar was to claim the presidency. In the past, it has been held by a Kurd from the PUK party (the prty of the Talabanis). However, the October 10th election saw the continued eroision of the PUK. They are no longer a major political party. So why should they hold the post? The KDP thought Hoshyar would be the easiest way to defeat Barham Salih (PUK member and the current president of Iraq) because Zebari was not just a national figure, he was an international figure. They also assumed that, as a long standing member of Parliament, he would be a safe and popular choice to both Iraq and the international community. They underestimated Nouri al-Maliki.

Former prime miniser and forever thug Nouri is known for his paranoia. It's why Bully Boy Bush installed him as prime minister in 2006 -- the CIA assessment noted his high degree of paranoia and that this could be used to manipulate Nouri for US interests.

We have repeatedly noted the 2010 Erbil Agreement that gave Nouri his second term. The voters didn't want that and made it clear in March of 2010. But Nouri refused to step down. Eight months later, in November of 2010, the voters were tossed aside via the US overseen Erbil Agreement.

Nouri used the contract to get a second term and then he walked away from it claiming it was illegal. The other parties insisted otherwise. Well . . . most of them. The KDP was among those insisting that Nouri honor that contract or face a no-confidence vote in Parliament. Ayad Allawi, Moqtada al-Sadr, Amir al-Hakim and many others insisted the contract be honored. One political group didn't. The same group tha theld the presidency: the PUK. And when the others gathered the needed signatures to hold a no-confidence vote per the Constitituion, Jalal Talabani did what?

Well he didn't follow the Constitution. He created new poers for himself that included the right to toss the petition out. He didn't have that power. He only had the power to introdcue it (read it into the record). Then Jalal high talied it out of Iraq claiming emergency surgery. His life was at risk! It was electibe surgery on his knee. Liar. And karma bit him in his fat ass when six months later, as he had a very loud verbal argument with Nouri, he collapsed from a stroke that he would never recover from.

The PUK has sided with Nouri in the past. And they've sided with him again re: the October 10th elections. While Moatada has claimed victory -- with the press agreeing -- his wins are not enough to put together a government. As he's dithered, Nouri has built his own coaltiion. A war of attrition is how Nouri sees any political battle and he uses old techniques. The issues regarding Zebari? Not all that different from how Nouri tried to derail Saleh al-Mutlaq back in the '00s.

If you don't know (or remember) his playbook, the last months have probably been very confusing. If you do know them, you've seen Nouri launch one counter-measure after another and marveled over how out of it and ignorant Moqtada is.

The shine is off Moqtada, he's no longer a fresh rose. To those watching, he looks like a bumbling fool and that's one of the many points that Nouri's tryied to establish: Moqtada's not up for the power so many are rushing to gift him with. Moqtada, of course, hates Nouri from years back. Nouri was brought to power ty the US governmetn and had the arrest warrant for Moqtada that the US government sought. He repeatedly threatened Moqtada with it. When threatened, Moqtada would usually flee to Iran. In addition, in early 2008, Nouri declared all out war on Moqtada's cult/followers with two battles. (Yes, these battles were supposed to be a joint-US operation but, remember, Nouri jump-started them ahead of the US' planned start date.)

The two are and have been bitter rivals. If that's news to you, you've spent way too much time reading the US press in the last year.

Maybe you caught Jason Beausbien on NPR yesterday with his ridiculous claims:

MARTIN: You know, it's been four months since the elections, but there's still no agreement on a prime minister or a cabinet. Would you explain what's going on?

BEAUBIEN: This is still a young political system. Even today, the supreme court disqualified the leading candidate for the presidency, and that's just for a mainly ceremonial role. Iraq's parliament is divided. That no party got a majority in that last round of elections. The main winner, however, was the populous Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. His party got the largest bloc of votes of anyone. Many people might remember Sadr's militia. It was known for fighting fiercely against U.S. troops. But he's moderated to some degree now, and he's seen as sort of the counterbalance to a lot of the political forces here that are aligned with Iran. And he really looks like the kingmaker at the moment, but he's been driving a hard bargain over sharing power, over how to form a new government.

It's a young political system. Just stop whoring. Moqtada's "moderated"? Stop lying.

Two-bit whores belong on street coerners, not in front of microphones. NEWSWEEK carries a column by Shayan Talabany and Jemima Shelley:

On Feb. 13, 2020, Iraqi streets were awash with pink and purple. In response to influential Islamist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's allegations of "promiscuity" by protesters in popular country-wide protests, women's rights activists donned pink and purple items of clothing to demonstrate their right to be heard in Iraq's male-dominated political arena.

This was two years ago, but today the legacy of the Tishreen (October) movement that precipitated the women's march is as important than ever. It revitalized the history of women-led struggles in Iraq, largely overlooked by the West, and inspired a politically active new generation who are determined to change Iraq for the better.

Despite years of various anti-government protests around the country dating back to 2011, the Tishreen movement that erupted in 2020 was larger than any other protest movement Iraq had seen in recent history. This organic movement represented the sentiments of a large segment of Iraqi society opposed to Iraq's systemic corruption, and sectarian and paternalistic political system that has failed to meet political and economic demands. Iraqi women became integral to its success.

I don't know who the bigger bitch is: Moqtada or Jason?

Moqtada isn't moderate. And his attack on women in 2020 was not a minor thing. Some foolish people e-mail this site about those protesters and tell me that o'of course Sunnis don't like Moqtada.' I'm sorry your media system has failed you and taught you lies about Russia and nothing about Iraq. But The October Revolution had nothing to do with SUnnis. That was Shi'te youngsters. Sunnis weren't a part of it. That was Shi'ites calling out Moqtada. And when he tried to dismiss women, the protesters foguht back and they turned out with signs mocking him. It showed clearly the generational break with Moqtada.

Now the US media couldn't tell you that because they kept turning to Whore of Baghdad Jane Arraf and, as a result, they were ignoring women. In October of 2020, we were pointing out there tha the big story was the number of women at these protests and how the US press was ignoring them.

Moqtada didn't ignore them. He condemened the women for being there and he condemned the men for protesting wit them.

In a previous time, he might have gotten away with it.

But in 2020, he didn't.

And that was a big story . . . unless you were a US outlet.

They never know what's happening because they choose to stay ignorant.

On the presidency, ALJAZEERA adds:

In a separate decision the Federal Court said that President Barham Salih, who is also running for a second term, will continue in his position until a new president is elected.

The court decision is a blow to populist Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who was the biggest winner in the October parliamentary election. He had vowed to quickly push through a government that could exclude Iranian allies.

Sadr, along with the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) of which Zebari is a member, and an alliance of Sunni Muslim lawmakers had supported Zebari's bid for president.

Shelly Kittleson (AL-MONITOR) reports, "The deaths of several soldiers in the western Anbar desert and attacks further south in the same province have drawn attention to the vast expanses that were long a hideout for insurgents." ARAB NEWS notes, "The polls were marred by record-low turnout, post-election threats and violence, and a delay of several months until final results were confirmed." And THE NATIONAL points out, "Some members of the Coordination Framework, including MP Alia Nsayyif, who is allied to former prime minister Nouri Al Maliki, have warned that violence could break out if government formation did not reflect their claimed electoral gains."

A new slate of candidates will have to be proposed. That's not how it had to be. The KDP quickly came up with an alternate to Zebari last week, should the Court (as they did on Sunday) rule him out of running. But a non-Moqtada-friendly Parliament has said, "Nope, scratch it all, we're starting over." But, hey, let's all be the US media and pretend like Moqtada's running something in Iraq.

New content from THIRD:

The following sites updated:

Saturday, February 12, 2022

Corporate news needs to police itself

Jonathan Turley:

I have previously lamented what I call “the age of rage” and how many seem addicted to rage in our society. That was evident this week as many vented against groups ranging from the Canadian truckers to the unvaccinated. CNN analyst Juliette Kayyem seemed to suggest vigilantism as a proper response to the Canadian protesters while James Carville said that he wanted to punch the unvaccinated. I do not view either Kayyem or Carville as seriously advocating or condoning violence. However, the heated rhetoric highlights the danger of past demands from the left for censoring or prosecuting others for violent speech.

On her Twitter account, Kayyem responded to a Wall Street Journal article on the gridlock caused by the truckers: “The convoy protest, applauded by right-wing media as a ‘freedom protest,’ is an economic and security issue now. The Ambassador Bridge link constitutes 28% of annual trade movement between US and Canada. Slash the tires, empty gas tanks, arrest the drivers, and move the trucks.”

For his part, Carville longs for even more personal satisfaction, saying that anyone without a vaccine was a “piece of s–t” and he wanted to punch them in the face.

These snarling, violent comments are all-too-common in today’s environment. However, they also raise the question of how we treat violent speech. Various Democrats are calling for the disqualification of members of Congress, and former President Donald Trump, for their comments made before the January 6th riot. Some members have brought lawsuits over allegations that such speeches constituted incitement for insurrection. However, violent language continues to be common on both sides of our political divide. What constitutes hyperbole and what constitutes incitement is dangerously undefined.

The corporate news media and aging and infirm Neil Young have called out comedian Joe Rogan; however, they themselves appear to be the true danger to democracy. They need to start policing themselves and stop pointing at others.

If James Carville's natural response to people he disagrees with is to punch them out, he doesn't need to be on TV.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Friday, February 11, 2022. NYT decides 19 years of an illegal war is enough. (It's a position many of us reached before the war started and that many more recahced in the first few years of the illegal war, but, hey, NYT is n't noted for its courage or keen intelligence.)

In this morning's NEW YORK TIMES, Trita Parsi and Adam N. Weinstein argue that it's time for US troops to leave Iraq and for US President Joe Biden to set a timetable for that departure:

U.S. troops in Iraq quietly thwarted two separate drone attacks on bases hosting American soldiers in the first week of 2022. The attacks, attributed to Iraqi Shiite militias, are no surprise: America’s presence in Iraq is increasingly unwelcome. More attacks are bound to come as long as the Biden administration decides to keep forces there. With each passing day, the risk of a deadly attack increases.

And for what?

The presence of U.S. troops won’t stop terrorist attacks from happening and they can’t contain Iran, which has cemented its hold on some Iraqi military institutions since 2003. American soldiers are likely to die in vain because, just as in Afghanistan, they have been given the impossible task of acting as an ephemeral thumb on the scale of a foreign country’s politics.

Americans must ask themselves: Is this worth it? The United States withdrew from Afghanistan last year because its presence there no longer served its interests. Neither does staying in Iraq.

The U.S. experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq made painfully clear that there is no magic number of American troops that can eradicate terrorism. The roughly 2,500 in Iraq certainly cannot. While Washington’s foreign policy establishment wrings its hands about the risks of leaving, it appears to be ignoring the clear costs of staying.

An argument for ending the illegal war and occupation -- ongoing war, ongoing occupation --- from the belly of the beast. THE NEW YORK TIMES pimped the Iraq War, they cheerleaded it on. They ran with false links between al Qaeda and Iraq. They did stenography on what turned out to be non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bill Keller, Judith Miller, Thomas Friedman, Michael Gordon, those are only some of the names of people who did war proaganda. Don't forget serial plagiarist Jill Abramson who, after the illegal war started and was obviously not the cake walk so many had promised, suddenly had 'objections' to pieces that had been long ago published. Jill, whose grip on reality has always been tenuous, was in a position where she could hae halted the publication of those type of storeis or demanded more background be included as well as more skepitiscm but she waived them through and then pretended to be powerless when it was obvious that the Iraq War would go down as one of the paper's all time worst moments.

They sold the war. Over and over. And as we noted repeatedly during the early years of the illegal war, is was their Go-Go Boys and their lying 'coverage' that kept the Iraq War going. Burnsie and Dexy. A special place in hell for those two? A table for three with Mad Maddy Albright?

The paper sold the illegal war. They sold it and over a million Iraqis are dead as are Americans, British, Australians, . . . They sold the war and its the American taxpayer that is footing the bill. And not just this generation's taxpayer, but many generations to come.

It was cute, when Doanld Trump was in the White House, to watch outlets like NYT -- outlets who had lied the country into war -- get peevish over when exactly Donald Trump turned against the war -- before it started or in the early days after it started?

They wanted to lecture and to fact check. To lecture and fact check Donald Trump, you understand. Not themselves.

Forced into finally issuing some sort of statement after (a) Howard Kurtz had written a major piece on THE WASHINGTON POST's pre-war coverage and (b) NYT public editor Daniel Okrent had done a review on his own (the paper was opposed to that review -- Daniel did it because of The Tonys, I'm not joking, we can give that sotry at another time, we're already lost in parenthetical and we've told it here before), the paper issued a brief statement and insisted that there would be more to come as they looked at that pre-war coverage.

Bill Keller was always a liar. There was no more coverage examining the paper's lies.

So what we learn today is the time line. And it matters. It matters because they're trying to sell war on Russia right now. So, should they get their desire and that war start, we now know at what point they'll allow calls for US troops to leave -- 19 years later. We're one month shy of the 20th anniversary.

So 19 years is their level of 'endurance.'

A hellish amount of damage and destruction has been done in Iraq in those 19 years.

Even now, 19 years later, the column can't be honest. It's sections on the Iraqi government are laughable at best. (We didn't quote them above.) It's not a functioning government. The corrpution index issued annually by Tranparency International makes that clear. Or should. The inability to defend its own citizens make that clear.

Could democracy have taken root in Iraq -- democracy as the US swdinwa ir? I don't know. Anything can happen. But the steps they took esnured that it wouldn't.

And one of the biggest hallmarks of democracy? Voting. One person, one vote.

Iraq's election turnout? It's faltered and decreased steadily since the March 2010 election.

The western press pretends not to notice -- even after the debacle that was the October 2021 elections.

But it was US actions that ensured that Iraqis would not have faith in the ballot box. They went into 2010 with Nouri al-Maliki seeking a second term as prime minister. He claimed he would win -- and he instituted a series of actions (bribes) to try to ensure that -- not limited to his ice giveaway that was mocked by most Iraqis on social media. "We're despearte for potable water," the response went, "and he has a big block of ice transported to our area that qucikly melts. Water for a day! Yea!"

He worked overtime to eliminate his rivals. He'd sought a secret ruling ahead of the elections from Iraq's Supreme Court that he kept in his back pocket in case he lost (he did lose).

Alone among the US government watchers, Gen Ray Odierno could see (a) that Nouri might lose and (b) that if he did lose, he might refuse to step down.

The late general looks like a psychic in retrospect.

His concerns were ignored because Barack Obama nd Joe Biden were appeasing spoiled brat Chrissy Hill, the US Ambassador to Iraq. Little Chrissy was upset that the Sundy chat and chews had Ray on. Chrissy felt it should be him. And the press didn't note him, they went after Ray. Jealous, he had a snit-fit and Ray's role was scaled back.

But Ray was right.

Iraqis didn't want a second term of Nouri -- his secret prisons and torture chambers were already known. They went with Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.

This was a major moment -- as we noted here repeatedly in real time.

A) It could show the Iraqi people the importance of the ballot box. It could. It could strengthen their belief in voting and in the power of voting. B) Iraqiys was the step forward that both Iraq and the US needed.

Iraq needed it because Iraqiys was about healing. It had Shias and Sunnis and everyone. It wasn't a fundamentalist party. At a time when women were largely invisible, IRaqiya had a female spokesperson. It was about a national identity. It was about coming together, not about divisions.

This really could have helped heal the country and allow it to move forward.

And that would have been good for the US because it would have argued for the departure of US troops.

So much could have been accomplished.

But reality flew out the window. It did so after the election, the day after, in fact. Quil Lawrence showed up on NPR to declare Nouri the winner. He wasn't. There were no tallies ore stimates. But, hey, Quil's a whore and whore's gotta make bank. Deborah Amos was on sabatical from NPR at that time and she used that time to write one of the best studies of the 2010 voting -- including the corruption -- corruption NPR and so many other outlets ignored.

But, hey, Quil called it so it must be true.

Originally, the approach of Joe (tasked with overseeing Iraq by Barack) was that the US stood with the winner. Tht would be Allawi and Iraqiya.

But then Samantha Power and Susan Davis got very vocal and insisted that Allawi would mean US troops had to leave when the current SOFA expired. A second term of Nouri al-Maliki? The insisted Nouri would go for renewing the SOFA. (The SOFA gave US troops the legal right to be on Iraqi soil and carrying out combat missions.)

Nouri refused to step down. Eight months after the election. He refused to step down. The government ground to standstill.

Joe and Brett McGurk were at the top of overseeing The Erbil Agreement. This was the legal contract that gve loser Nouri a second term. Parick Cockburn, the laughable US transplant who needs to go home, loves to play expert on Iraq but he never once, to this day, covered The Erbil Agreement.

This US overseen contract gave Nouri a second term. The heads of the various political blocs signed off on it. Why? They got something in the contract in exchange. So, for the Kurds, Article 140 would finally be put to a vote. Now that was supposed to happen during Nouri's first term. Remember that, we'll be back to it.

Everyone was promised something.

The day after the agreement was signed, Parliament met and finally named Nouri prime minister-designate. It was obvious there were huge problems from that moment, that very moment. Iraqiya walked out. Barac personally called Ayad Allawi and begged him to bring Iraqiya back into the Parliament. He told Allawi that The Erbil Agreement had the full backing of the US government.

He said it.

He lied.

Allawi believed him and Iraqiya returned.

Article 140 would need to be pushed back a bit. That's what the prime minister-designate said. There were announcements of an end of December referendum. Didn't happen. And never would. To this day.

We mocked the Kurdish leaders over this.

Nouri took an oath to uphold the Iraqi Constitution. It specifically called for Article 140 to be implemented before his first term ended. He didn't implement it. Why the hell did they believe his promise that 'this time' he'd implement it?

It was a big mistake.

And not just for the Kurds, for everyone invovled.

Within seven or so weeks, Nouri was announcing -- through his psokesperson (the one who later had to flee the country when Nouri turned on him) -- that the contrtact wasn't legal. Of course, he'd already become prime minister by that point.

He said he wasn't bound by it.

And he never honored it.

And Barack with his promise that the US government was behind it 100%? He refused to take Allawi's calls.

Iraq voted for a national identity, that's why the brand new Iraqiya managed to defeat the incumbent Nouri in the 2010 elections. And the US spat on that choice. And they overturned the votes.

And since that election, you've seen voter turnout in Iraq decrease steadily.

If you're surprised by that, you weren't paying attention.

Cause and effect.

In other news, Amnesty Interantional notes:

Amnesty International and Fat Rat Films have today released a new documentary that highlights the ongoing struggles faced by Yezidi former child soldiers who survived abduction by the Islamic State (IS) armed group.

The 12-minute film, Captives on the Frontlines: Yezidi former child soldiers who survived ISIS, explores the friendship between Vian and Barzan, two young men who were abducted as boys by IS in 2014, indoctrinated into the armed group, and forced to fight. Both escaped and are now living in northern Iraq, where the documentary was filmed last year.

“This film captures the challenges still faced by Yezidi former child soldiers, and also the friendships that have flourished in the most difficult of circumstances,” said Nicolette Waldman, Researcher on Children and Armed Conflict on Amnesty International’s Crisis Response team.

“Former child soldiers are routinely stigmatized, which means their harrowing experiences are frequently kept in the shadows. By bravely sharing their own stories so openly, Vian and Barzan have helped shine a light on the struggles that remain for Yezidi former child soldiers today. Many of these young men, having endured unimaginable trauma, continue to have serious physical and mental health conditions.

“To date, many Yezidi survivors have still not received adequate support for their physical health, mental health or education. Indeed, many have not received support of any kind since they returned to their communities.

“The Iraqi authorities, their international partners, and the United Nations must ensure that Yezidi former child soldiers have full access to the reparations and assistance to which they are entitled under Iraq’s Yazidi Survivors Law (2021).

“They must also work together to establish a National Action Plan mandating that all current and former child soldiers in Iraq, including Yezidi boys and young men, are reintegrated into society and provided with coordinated, specialized and long-term support.”

The documentary was made in collaboration with award-winning documentary production company Fat Rat Films, and will be available here ahead of the International Day against the Use of Child Soldiers on Saturday 12 February.

Captives on the frontlines: Yezidi child soldiers who survived ISIS – the new documentary from Amnesty International and Fat Rat Films.

Between 2014 and 2017, IS committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and what the UN describes as genocide against the Yezidi community in Iraq.

In July 2020, Amnesty International published a report that documented how Yezidi children who had returned to their families after being held captive by IS were facing a physical and mental health crisis. The report, Legacy of Terror: The Plight of Yezidi Child Survivors of ISIS, also addresses the urgent need to end the enforced separation of Yezidi women and their children born of sexual violence by IS members.

In November 2021, Amnesty International welcomed new regulations passed by Iraq’s parliament to implement the Yazidi Survivors Law, but warned that more work was still required in order to fully assist survivors of atrocities committed by IS.

We'll wind down with this from Restore The Fourth:

Friend,

We did it—with your help! This week the IRS announced that it had abandoned its plans to partner with ID.me to force some taxpayers to use facial recognition technology in order to access their tax documents. You helped us put the pressure on the IRS and roll back their plans before tax season really took off—preventing potentially millions of Americans from having their biometric data recorded and stored in ID.me's private database.

Let’s keep that momentum up! The IRS is not the only government agency that has contracted with ID.me—other federal agencies that have contracts with this infamous FRT company include Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration as well as 30 state unemployment offices. This is unacceptable. Let’s demand ALL government agencies drop ID.me. We cannot continue to sit idly by while ID.me builds a huge, private database of our personal biometric information.

It's time to dump ID.me!

Consider supporting the work we do by making a donation here.

The following sites updated:

Friday, February 11, 2022

RIFKIN'S FESTIVAL and Woody's other films

Stan noted earlier this week ("Woody Allen's new movie") that Woody Allen's latest film RIFKIN'S FESTIVAL is available for rental or purchase at AMAZON.

I checked it out and thought it was a funny movie. It's a light comedy with some wonderful touches and I'd encourage you to check it out. I think Gina Gerhson and Wallace Shawn both hit career high marks in the film and that Louis Garrel exhibits a wonderful, sexual quality in the film.

It's too new for me to rank it in terms of favorite comedy films or even favorite Woody Allen comedy films. I've only watched it twice now. But I do like it and do recoomend it.

I'll go ahead and rank the top ten comedy films, Woody Allen comedy films, but the new one won't be on the list because it's too new.

1) LOVE & DEATH

Diane Keaton and Woody Allen take on Napoleon and so much more. I love their disputes and exchanges -- near the end when they're debating while knocking Napoleon out with a gun, at the beginning when addressing what might happen if everyone wanted a blintz at the same time. I really love this movie and it makes me laugh out loud every time -- I've seen it over 100 times.

2) SLEEPER

Diane Keaton and Woody Allen again. This time, he awakens in the future. Diane's a poet who struggles with her muse (if only butterflies turned into caterpillars!) and he's on the run from the government. Miles and Luna are a couple I'd love to see a sequel for.

3) MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY

Diane and Woody again. Here they are a married couple and Diane's worried they've lost their spark and zest for life. Woody just wants to get into bed and watch an old Bob Hope movie. Did a next door neighbor murder his wife? This is a hilarious film and Anjelica Huston, Alan Alda and Joy Behar are great in supporting roles.

4) ANNIE HALL

Diane and Woody. A great film but it's one I've seen over 500 times and probably take for granted. It's also a longer film -- longer than the three above. I probably watch it less these days as a result. Diane's wonderful and you see why Woody would fall for her and suffer when it ended. Shelley Duvall gives the best performance of the supporting cast as she goes on about being a rock journalist who covered a Dylan concert and goes into detail about him performing "Just Like A Woman."

5) BROADWAY DANNY ROSE

A hysterical film. One of Woody's best and also the best film Mia Farrow ever made. She's Tina, basically a gun moll. Her late husband was a juice man for the mob. But they shot him in the eyes. "He's blind?" Woody asks. Dead. Oh, yeah, Woody says, because the bullets, they go right through. It's got a wonderful ending that's moving because it's earned the right to be.

6) SMALL TIME CROOKS

As great as Tracey Ullman is in this film -- and she's great, with Hugh Grant or with Woody, she's great, Elaine May, in a supporting role, nearly walks away with the film. Hilarious from start to finish.

7) ZELIG.

No more pancakes, Woody moans while under hypnosis. No more cooking by Mia's character. She's an awful cook. But she's also the only person who can cure his Zelig, someone so uncomfortable in his own skin that he can easily morph into another person. This is a very short film, 79 minutes, but very funny.

8) HANNAH AND HER SISTERS

One of his comedy and drama mixtures. A great cast and Dianne Weist won a much deserved Oscar -- as did Michael Caine. But Barbara Hershey is so wonderful that she could have won the Oscar instead of Dianne and no one could argue much over it because the two of them hit highs rarely captured on film. Julie Kavner is also very funny in the film.

9) HOLLYWOOD ENDING

This film was really haed when it came out but I thought it was funny then and only find it even funnier now. Debra Messing has a small role. If she'd had more roles like this one, she could have transitioned to film star. She's very good in the film and so is Treat Williams.

10) . . .

I'll leave that one to you. Amazing comedy films include BANANAS, TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN, SCOOP, RADIO DAYS, BULLETS OVER BROADWAY and, from NEW YORK STORIES, his OEDIPUS WRECKS.

"Iraq snapshot"(THE COMMON ILLS):

Thursday, February 10, 2022. with all the problems Iraq is facing, the Iraqi people really can't afford the ongoing political stalemate.

In Iraq, there's still no government. There are, however, ridicuslous stories insisting that the Parliament is managing things just fine.

No.

The Parliament has a clear role, the three presidencies have a role and the prime minister (and the council) have a clear role. We have seen, for example, biased bills work their way through the Parliament and be blocked by the President or one of the vice presidents. One component of government cannot function on its own. Pretending otherwise is lying.

RUDAW notes:

The second largest lake in Iraq has dried up, threatening people's income and agriculture, with locals saying they have been forced to abandon their homes and move to urban areas.

Milh Lake was once a popular destination for tourists to cool down during scorching summer temperatures. It is now experiencing a dangerous drought, threatening the lives of local Iraqis.

The second-largest lake in Iraq, also known as Razzaza Lake, is located west of the city of Karbala.

Water levels here have plummeted and the once-thriving touristic spot currently resembles a desert. The only things to see now are dead animals and large amounts of salt.

How is the Parliament addressing the climate crisis in Iraq? It's not. It can't. It doesn't have the powers needed to address it all by itself. Without a functioning government, there's not even a pretense of forward movement on the battle against climate change.

Back in July, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent noted:

The Iraqi marshlands are a wetland with a unique ecosystem at the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.

In the early 1990s, these marshlands were intentionally dried up as a means of retaliation against a population considered to be rebellious.

By 2001, an estimated 90 per cent of the marshlands had disappeared (UNEP), leading to a loss of biodiversity and large-scale displacement.

If you go back even further to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, iconic date palms were cut down for military purposes in places like Fao, south of Basra.

“There were more than 30 million palms before the Iran-Iraq war, today there’s less than half that number,” said Adel Al-Attar, an ICRC water and habitat advisor, from Basra.

“Conflict, neglect, soil salinity, there are several reasons that have contributed towards their loss. It is deeply upsetting. The whole atmosphere has changed since we lost the palms.

“They aren’t only about fruit. They give shade for certain crops. The leaves are used to make furniture like chairs and beds. No palms mean no business. So people have left the land and moved to the cities to find jobs.”

The loss of palms and the drying of the marshlands are visible reminders of the direct damage that war has inflicted upon the environment in southern Iraq.

Less visible, but arguably more detrimental, are the indirect consequences of war – whether in Iraq or anywhere else.

For example, conflict will often weaken a government’s ability to manage natural resources, the environment and infrastructure.

Remnants of war, such as unexploded weapons or anti-personnel mines, can render land unusable and harm wildlife, while camps for people uprooted by conflict place additional pressure on the surrounding environment.

Enter climate change

Average temperatures in Iraq have risen by at least 0.7C over the last century, while extreme heat is becoming more frequent. Rainfall is on a slight downward trend in the south-east of the country.

The mean annual temperature is projected to rise by 2C by 2050, while the mean annual rainfall is projected to decrease by 9 per cent (World Bank Group).

“I’ve lived in Basra all my life,” said Al-Attar. “As a boy, the summer temperature never went much beyond 40C in summer. Today, it can surpass 50C.”

Sand or dust storms have also increased dramatically in frequency, in large part due to soil degradation.

Between 1951-1990, there were an average of 24 days per year with dust storms in Iraq, compared to 122 in 2013 (UN). Again, projections suggest they are likely to increase.

“When there’s not enough rain or vegetation, the upper layers of earth become less compact, meaning the chance of dust or sandstorms increases,” explained Al-Attar.

“These weather events contribute to desertification. Fertile soil is turning into desert.”

Historically fertile areas in southern Iraq are disappearing, according to local authorities. In Fao, arable land has decreased from 7.5 sq km to 3.75 sq km, while in Thi Qar it has dropped from 100 sq km to just 12.5 sq km.

Desertification in the south has decimated the agricultural sector, which used to employ a sizeable part of the population.

When people are unable to depend on the land for their livelihoods, they migrate to urban areas like Basra or Najaf in the search for jobs.

As an example, the population of the port town of Fao has decreased from 400,000 to 50,000 people in four decades as people move to the larger cities.

“The future is emigration,” said Al-Attar. “It hurts when you see the younger generation leaving rural areas to go work in unskilled labor jobs in urban areas or in the oil fields.

“There aren’t enough jobs for them in these sectors. Unemployment is high, as are tensions, which doesn’t bode well for recovery and stability.”

Last month, THE NEWSHOUR (PBS) reported on climate change in Iraq:

Hari Sreenivasan:

In November, nearly 200 nations gathered in Glasgow, Scotland for the COP26 climate summit. The outcome was disappointing for experts, who wanted stronger commitments to ensure capping global warming. The conference also failed to ease vulnerable countries' concerns about long-promised climate financing from rich nations.

One of the countries lacking international support is Iraq. As NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Simona Foltyn reports, the country is already facing the alarming effects of climate change.

This story is part of our ongoing series, "Peril & Promise: The Challenge of Climate Change."

Simona Foltyn:

Sunrise in Iraq's Mesopotamian marshes. These historic wetlands are nestled in southern Iraq, where human civilization emerged 7,000 years ago.

But water scarcity is threatening this habitat and the humans who rely on it.

Jassem Ali, Fisherman:

There's no water. And if there's no water, there's no more fish. There's only bare land left. The water has dried.

Simona Foltyn:

In this area, average annual rainfall for the last twenty years was 10 percent lower than in the three decades prior.

Declining water levels means the water that is left is increasingly salty , making it largely unfit for humans, animals and vegetation alike. Only small fish survive here now, but they fetch a lower price for the fishermen. Their catch earned them $15 dollars each, the result of two days of hard work.

Hassoun Daoud, Fisherman:

Of course this is not enough. I have a family that depends on me. But this is our life now.

Jassem Ali, Fisherman:

I have four children sitting at home. Two are married and two aren't.

Simona Foltyn:

I ask Jassem Ali if he's thinking about leaving fishing to find work elsewhere.

"And do what?" he asks in return.

Also last month, ALJAZEERA noted, "The World Bank recently warned Iraq would be hit particularly hard by climate change, with a significant effect on the economy and employment. The country could suffer a 20 percent drop in water resources by 2050, with nearly one-third of the irrigated land in Iraq left parched."

This is a pressing issue, not something to shove on the backburner but that's what's happening. In fact, every thing is being shoved on the back burner in Iraq as the country remains without a president or prime minister. No, the Parliament can't rule the country by itself. It's not how it works, it's not how it's set up. There are many issues that need to be addressed daily and they aren't being addressed.

This week, HURRIYET reported:

A report prepared by the European Union draws attention to the possibility of conflict due to water sharing between Turkey, Syria and Iraq in the Euphrates-Tigris basin as a result of global climate change.

Striking findings regarding the future period have been included in the research titled “Climate Change and Water Report for the Tigris and Euphrates Basin” prepared by the European Union Cascades project.

This study examines future impacts of climate change on water resources and the ensuing economic and political challenges in the Euphrates-Tigris basin shared by the countries of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

“More severe water shortages and water quality problems aggravated by climate change will make it harder to sustain farming and livelihoods depending on ecosystems.,” the report said.

“A failure to mitigate climate-related water risks can contribute to poverty, food insecurity, and unemployment in rural farming communities, and eventually lead to displacement and internal migration at a larger scale than is seen today,” it added.

Noting that climate change would complicate and aggravate water-related challenges that are already significant in the region, especially in Iraq and Syria, the report said that the incurred economic losses would reduce the government’s resources for an adequate adaptation response.

A problem of that magnitude needs a comprehensive strategy and, no, Parliament can't devise and implement that.

Karwan Faidhi Dri (RUDAW) reports:

Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court said on Wednesday that it will meet on Sunday to hear the case against the Kurdistan Democratic Party's (KDP) candidate for the Iraqi presidency, as reported by state media.

The court decided on Sunday to temporarily suspend the KDP’s Hoshyar Zebari’s nomination for the Iraqi presidency after a number of parliamentarians filed a case against him. Zebari has said he respects the ruling.

The legislature was scheduled to meet on Monday to elect a new president for the country. However, the meeting was postponed indefinitely because a quorum of two-thirds attendance was not met as the prominent political parties, including the KDP, boycotted the session.

Iraq held snap parliamentary elections on October 10. The speaker of parliament was elected last month following a deal between Kurdistan Region’s ruling KDP, Sadrist bloc and most Sunnis.

The KDP has fielded Zebari, who has previously held several positions in Baghdad, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has nominated the incumbent Iraqi President Barham Salih for the position. Both candidates are the strongest by far.

There's some misunderstanding regarding Zebari's run. It has not been blocked or stopped. It's halted while the court reviews matters.

Former prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki often used bodies like the court to circumvent candidates who were rivals. Many times, they'd be cleared by whatever body. But his point was to cause problems for those candidates. Here? If he's a part of this, he most likely knows Zebari stands a very good chance of being cleared. The oint of this would be to demonstrate to Moqtada's alliance how unprepared Moqtada is and how he is unable to handle basic politics which is why the October 10th elections have still not resulted in a prime minister or president.

The point of the move is to frustrate Moqtada's alliance and to make them question Moqtada's leadership.

Iraqi-Kurdish politician Hoshyar Zebari's bid to run for the presidency faces a major hurdle, dealing a blow to kingmaker Moqtada al-Sadr's ambitions to form a government without Iran's allies.

cnn.com

Iraq faces deadlock after 'West-friendly' candidate suspended

Iraqi-Kurdish politician Hoshyar Zebari's bid to run for the presidency faces a major hurdle, dealing a blow to kingmaker Moqtada al-Sadr's ambitions to form a government without Iran's allies.

7:14 AM · Feb 10, 2022

Ibrahim al-Zoebeidi (ARAB WEEKLY) offers:

Current Iraqi realities demonstrate that the country's political arena is devoid of a leader who can unite Iraqis across party lines and beyond selfish calculations. Realities also show that Moqtada al-Sadr is not the person who can fulfil the dreams of the few who voted for him.

For those who have forgotten them, it is useful to recall the confessions of Qais Khazali, a dissident leader from the Sadrist movement, to US forces when they arrested him in 2007.

According to his interrogation file, of June 18, 2007, Khazali confirmed that his repeated visits to Iran in company with Sadr and later alone as Moqtada's envoy, were aimed at obtaining money, weapons and political support from Tehran.

Khazali said that Sadr wanted him to be the channel of communication with Iran and to receive funding from Tehran while he, Sadr, maintained the appearance of independence from Iran.

Further fleshing out this reality, recent electoral statistics have shown that the total number of those who voted for the Sadrist movement, the Coordination Framework groups, the Muhammad al-Halbousi bloc and Khamis al-Khanjar, and the party of Massoud Barzani, does not exceed ten percent of the overall population of Iraq.

This means that the number of those under the influence of the current political leaders does not exceed two million Iraqis at best, many of whom were driven by need, fear, or racial, sectarian or regional loyalties. The remaining 29 million Iraqis are just fence-sitting. They are simply watching while the battles for the winners and losers rage on.

There is more than meets the eye in the political class and what it means for Iraqi society.

What the bloody uprisings have proven, since 2003, is that the Iraqi Shia popular constituencies, in particular, are unhappy with the pro-Iranian political class in power. They consider it a duty to resist that class, to work to bring it down and to get rid of its corruption.

We'll note this Tweet:

A close associate of the leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, revealed on Wednesday that the decision to exclude the leader of the State of Law coalition, Nuri al-Maliki in the new government, "will not be retracted" regardless of Iranian pressures.

10:04 AM · Feb 9, 2022

Nadeen Ebrahim and Eoin McSweeney (CNN) offer:

He's arguably Iraq's best-known face abroad. Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, was the country's longest-serving foreign minister, often hobnobbing with Western diplomats and journalists, but also cultivating strong ties with neighboring Arab states to make his country's case.

But a bid to crown his political career with a run for the presidency faced a major hurdle last week when Iraq's federal court suspended his candidacy due to past corruption charges, causing an election delay that risks exacerbating existing factional divisions.

The presidential election was indefinitely postponed on Monday, stalling the already delayed formation of a new government. The results of October's parliamentary vote, in which pro-Iran factions were dealt a significant loss, were only confirmed in December due to political bickering over the results. A new president would be tasked with asking the winning bloc to form a government.

The suspension was a blow to the ambitions of Zebari's key backer Moqtada al-Sadr, the populist Shiite Muslim cleric who has emerged as a kingmaker and is bent on pushing through a government that excludes his pro-Iran Shiite rivals.

The following sites updated: