Monday, May 03, 2010

Sideboob's Tiny Tits moment on Martha's Vineyard

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Joan Rivers Presidency"


The Joan Rivers Presidency

I love it. Barack was pretty bitchy in his performance on Saturday night. He was also disturbing. I listened to the pathetic Amy Goodman to hear her call him out but of course that mangy mutt didn't bark.

For the record, if LBJ had 'joked' about dropping the bomb on someone it would not be funny. Nor was it funny when Barack 'joked' about using a predator drone on the Jonas Brothers. It did give him another chance to talk about his daugheters, the ones no one's supposed to talk about it.

Hey, Barack and Sideboob, buy a bra for your oldest before you put her in another white t-shirt this summer. No one needed to see Tiny Tits last summer and shame on you both for that. Sideboob has no class, I know, but you'd think she'd put her daughter in a bra. It was so tacky and everyone was laughing at the Obamas and just how trashy they were on Martha's Vinetyard. In fact, Mike and I were at C.I.'s place two on the Vineyard two weeks ago and they were still laughing at the Obamas.

It's already doubtful that they'll vacation there again. As it does every summer, old money made it to clear that celebrities weren't welcome. But if they do go there, they can listen for all the whispers of Tiny Tits and they should grasp that the joke isn't the daughter who is still a child -- the joke is the two of them as parents.

Sideboob was a non-stop joke period. I was told people wondered if Sideboob was hard of hearing because she yells everything. "Did she grow up in a barn?" Well . . . Chicago.

The Obamas were not a hit. I knew that from C.I. last summer but it was grabbing a weekend at C.I.'s place and hearing from some of the others who were trying to enjoy a nice spring weekend on the island before all the tourists started swarming the island this summer that really drove it home.

It is not the Hamptons. That's where you go to be a celebrity. Martha's Vineyard a lot classier than that. The Obamas were not helped by the fact that he pretty much only spoke to the people he brought with him. They weren't appreciated for all the press and security. Rebecca lives on another island in that area. (I'm not sure if she's been public about which.) Even on another island, she makes it a point to leave each summer when the tourists descend.

It did not help the Obamas that not only did they themselves come off nouveau riche but so did the people that were there entry into the social world. Bit by bit, day by day, all the doors closed to them.

They were a social disaster. They might want to consider Chicago this summer or Hawaii. Or maybe the Hamptons. Fire Island's supposed to be on the way back up.

But one thing Barack needs to consider, jokes about killing aren't funny. He should also consider that if he wants people to give his daughters their privacy, he should (a) show American citizens respect (threatening them predator drones isn't showing them respect) and (b) stop yapping about them all the time. Honestly, he's like Tom Cruise with those girls, attempting to convince the country he's straight. Look for him to jump up and down on Oprah's couch next.


"TV: Moyers even lies when quoting the classics" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
Bill Moyers ended his PBS run and we're supposed to mourn apparently. We don't see anything to mourn. And being fully aware of Bill's vanity, desperation and hatred for Republicans, we're fully aware that he'll try to come back to PBS should Barack lose the 2012 election.


"He'll never let his friends be at ease, and he'll never be at ease himself!"

That's the quote he should have closed with, the one that really applies to him. He got the wrong Bronte sister. He quoted from Charlotte Bronte's Villette when he should have quoted from Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, it's more suited to his personality.

Well . . . not quite.

The quote we apply? Actual quote from Emily Bronte's work. Bill Moyers declared Friday, "We intended to be married in this way almost from the first. We never meant to be spliced in the humdrum way of other people." What page does that appear on, Bill?

Uh, it doesn't. He's fudged the quote. "Alfred and I intended to be married in this way almost from the first; we never meant to be spliced in the humdrum way of other people; Alfred has too much spirit for that, and so have I -- Dieu merci!" Page 457.

As bad as the forged quote is the false set up he provides before (mis)quoting, "To quote, once again, what Charlotte Bronte wrote of her Alfred." He implies that Charlotte's writing either of someone in her own live or of a major character in the novel. Alfred is neither and isn't even present in chapter Moyers is quoting from. Ginevra is at school speaking of him and other men who are courting her.

How telling. How very typical of Bill Moyers. Even something as simple as quoting from a classic work requires that he fudge the truth. He just can't be factual. He can't be rooted to reality. It's not just his vanity and temper tantrums that turn people against him, it's his refusal to play it straight, his urge to always take a little lie and make it just a tad larger. And that's what, in the end, caused PBS to cut Bill loose.

I love that. I love that Bill Moyers buried himself. I love that he demonstrated what a fraud he was on national television. I love that he's a sexist pig. I love it all. Because? It made the take down all the more sweeter.

Two women brought him down. Exposed him as a liar and a poser. He wanted to pretend he was knowledgeable and informed and toss around a Charlotte Bronte quote. It didn't matter that he didn't know the quote and hadn't read the book. He pretended he had.

The quote's not even accurate. It's so hilarious. That took two women to expose. Not your Water Cooler Critics scratching their nuts and drooling over the latest male soap opera on HBO. It took two women, two smart women, two educated and well read women.

That was Moyers' final moment of the Journal and he went out a fraud. How telling. How sweet.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, May 3, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, recounts begin in Baghdad (already Nouri's whining), Iraqi Christians continue to be persecuted, students actions take place across America on Tuesday, and more.


In the United States tomorrow,
students on campuses can participate in actions against the war.

Spontaneous anti-war resistance on campuses nationwide. Spread. Word. In remembrance of the students who came before us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywKe8ezL8vI May 4, 2010 is the 40th anniversary of the Kent State massacre. This effort is being supported by: Alan Canfora, Alliance of the Libertarian Left, Angela Keaton, Antiwar.com, Campus Antiwar Network, Cindy Sheehan, Copblock.org, Cop Watch Los Angeles, Diversity of Thought UCSB, James Cox, Mariana Evica, May4.org, SB Anti-War, Students for Justice in Palestine, Students for Liberty, Students for a Voluntary Society, The Love Police, The Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity Movement, Tom Ⓐ Ender, UC Strike, We Are Change, World Can't Wait Please send a note if your organization is helping to get the word out and we'll add you to the list. FAQ 1. Where is the student resistance happening? Everywhere 2. Who is organizing it? Each of us. 3. Who is the leader? See answer to 2.

Those actions are tomorrow (Tuesday) and
World Can't Wait issues the following press release on the actions:

This Tuesday, May 4, 2010 students on
high school and college campuses nationwide will take a decisive stand against the war machine.

Estimates are that over 100 campuses will be participating. Autonomous campus clubs and individual activists have been mobilizing with no central organizing committee, in what has been described as a leaderless and spontaneous anti-war resistance.

With so many older anti-war liberals still hypnotized by Obama, students feel it is up to them push the movement full speed ahead.

"Things are really starting to spike," says Nicholas Di Masi, a third year World History major, who earlier this year was struck by Karl Rove's get-away car as students chased the former Bush advisor from UC Santa Barbara's campus. "Today I went to a rally about SB 1070, and for the first time in a while I found myself amongst students who were also passionate about resisting Obama's wars and fighting the police state." When asked what she thought about students' May 4th resistance, Emma Kaplan of World Can't Wait remarked, "I think the May 4th resistance should be the beginning of putting the government on notice, to send it the message that With or Without You, We Will Stop These Wars. Students need to be part of a sustained movement of protest that doesn't back down, give up, or go away until the powers that be are forced to respond." As a national student coordinator Kaplan observes that "there are some students who are unsatisfied with the world as it is, recognizing that the things they would like to change could never be changed with Obama as president. At the same time, many students have also started to accept crimes under Obama that they would have opposed under Bush." Some students are beginning to take action into their own hands rather than depending on presidents and politicians. We Are Change, a decentralized peace movement with many student members, has recently come to something of a forefront in this new breed of student activism. "It's up to this generation to carry the anti-establishment spirit of the 60's and 70's to new heights," said one member. "This is the same establishment that dropped atomic bombs and agent orange on unsuspecting women and children, it is the same establishment that now murders innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Voting in a new front man for the establishment is clearly not going to change anything." Another member added, "I've found that many students are on the lookout for fearmongering or manufactured crises that could be used by the state to lure us into a war with Iran. Today's students also have the advantage of open communication online, where one person's activism could reach thousands without being spun by mainstream media outlets."Noor Aljawad, a first year Sociology and Middle East Studies major who plans to join students on the 4th, believes that one of the changes Obama made was to expand Bush's wars. "There is little difference in the foreign policy of democrats and republicans. Like Bush, Obama is a corporatist acting in the interests of oligarchical financiers. May 4th should be a message to Obama that our dissent is going to continue until these imperialistic wars are ended."Whether it's escalating the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, continuing the criminal occupation of Iraq, or working toward an attack on Iran -- many students have had enough with George W. Obama's warmongering. May 4th, 2010 marks the 40th anniversary of the Kent State massacre, when 13 unarmed students were gunned down by the national guard for protesting the Vietnam war. In remembrance of them, we fight on. This effort is being supported by:
Alan Canfora, Alliance of the Libertarian Left, Angela Keaton, Antiwar.com, Campus Antiwar Network, Cindy Sheehan, Copblock.org, Cop Watch Los Angeles, Diversity of Thought UCSB, James Cox, Mariana Evica, May4.org, SB Anti-War, Students for Justice in Palestine, Students for Liberty, Students for a Voluntary Society, The Love Police, The Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity Movement, Tom Ender, UC Strike, We Are Change, World Can't Wait.


On the most recent Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera, began airing Friday), Jasim al-Azawi explored the increase in violence with his guests State of Law MP Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani and Professor Sami Ramadani.



Jasim al-Azawi: Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani, for a long time, almost two years, the prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki kept saying, "I am the man of security, I was able to achieve security for Iraq." And yet, over the past few months, and as recent as the last two months, we have seen spectacular operations, bombings, explosions, people in the hundreds are dying. How do you explain the failure of the Iraqi government despite the huge army and the police to stem the tide of violence?

Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: Thank you. Actually, I believe that Iraq had passed through more difficult time of terrorism and atrocity and it would be easier even to now to overcome this hurdle simply because the security now more equipped, better trained and more ready to deal with the more violence of the terrorists and the al Qaeda and the al Qaeda from the Sunni gangs -- they have all gathered their own power and they are trying their own best to destroy the political process by own means and methods; however, they failed badly though they have succeeded here and there. But the exagerration of some media about the violence --

Jasim al-Azawi: Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani, we saw horrific images, people in the hundreds, buildings are destroyed and operations left and right all over Baghdad and other provinces in Iraq so how can you just diminish, how can you just dismiss this as these are just operations here and there? People in the hundreds, I am telling you, they are dead.

Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: Well we know I am in Iraq, yesterday I was in Baghdad. There was [. . .] only one person unfortunately murdered and ten injured and the media had -- had really exaggerated badly about the number of people dead. Only in Baghdad now. Maybe some small and terrorist attack in Ramadi or Mosul. The rest of Iraq? The south is very peaceful. We know very clear that it is the media and the politicians and agenda -- hidden agenda behind bigger propaganda to really topple the political process --

Jasim al-Azaqi: So you keep saying. You are repeating yourself again. Let me go to Sami Ramadani

Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: -- I am there and anyone --

Jasim al-Azaqi: Fine, I see you are in Basra

Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: -- exactly in Iraq.

Jasim al-Azaqi: Sami Ramadani, listening --

Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: I --

Jasim al-Azaqi: Hold on just a second please. Listening to Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani, there is nothing go on in Iraq. No deaths. No destruction. No spectacular operations. This is just a propaganda by the media. Every thing is calm and cool and collected in Iraq.

Sami Ramadani: Well the answer to that is simple. Ask ordinary Iraqis in the streets -- whether in Baghdad or whever -- and one of the first things they mention apart from the collapse of the services to their homes and to their streets, they mention the question of security. So it's really the Iraqi people who are raising that to the top of their agenda as one of the things they have been lacking, lack of security for their families, for their children. And I think one has to also realize that these problems are probably even bigger than Maliki and the government. And I can cite three very important reasons as to why the question of violence is not going away from Iraq. One is the squabbles within the political groupings of the so-called political process. Second is the fragmentation of the Iraqi state since the occupation of Iraq. And third, and the most important reason perhaps, is the occupation itself which is rather absent now in the dialogue and squabbles and quarrels between the various political forces within the -- within the political process or the official process. And I think these underlying reasons are the ones that the Iraqi government and the political opposition to it from within the political process are forgetting or are trying to avoid talking about because they themselves are involved in this defragmentation process accepting the occupation as a normality and so on and so forth.

Jasim al-Azaqi: Before we discuss one or two or three of these items that you brought to the table, Sami Ramadani, let me go back to Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani and tell him on a personal level, to be honest with you, I am surprised and shocked with your cavalier attitude towards this violence. You are dismissing it as nothing more than a propaganda and nothing more than a media. On a personal level, it's not a good reflection on you, on your party, on your prime minister. Actually, they took you to task when it came to the elections, simply because of the failure to stem the tide of violence.

Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: When a terrorist waging a war against Iraq, we know what they are up to. They use all -- they use all the resources except especially the propaganda of the media. I didn't say there was no violence. I said we overcome many difficult period more worse violence. And we believe, as compared to two years ago, was the sectarian killing in the street, was everybody, every day, there was more than 100 people get killed. Now we have every three, four weeks, there's some terrorist attack. They're not insurgents, by the way, they're terrorists. And we know there are terrorists who are helping them, who are assisting them, who cradle them and we will wishing and hoping now that the media could see the truth as it is not as they want to see it. And that is what I'm saying and here is my petition --

Jasim al-Azaqi: We are --

Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: I drove -- I drove -- I drove yesterday from Baghdad. Really afternoon. And I arrive at midnight to Basra and it was calm and nice and it is really the situation not as the image in the media. And we need to reflect the real truth, the real media reflecting the real truth. And we try to be honest politicians, not politicians who is up to politician or propaganda.

Jasim al-Azaqi: We are a member of the media and we try to shed light on the truth and one of those truths is the discovery of torture chamber in the old Iraqi airport of al Muthana and more than 437 people were found there. Some of them they were tortured severely They range in age to just some kids to very old men. And yet al-Maliki's first reaction, his first perfunctory reaction to say, "I did not know about it." How do you explain such a horrific torture chamber -- which is fooling the hatred and the violence and al-Maliki, prime minister, his very force is responsible for that torture chamber he says "I did not know about."?

Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: No, he didn't say he didn't know about that prison, he said he didn't know there was any secretive prison. Nor did he know that there was any torturing in the prison. Because this is a prison in the Muthana everybody knows about it, even the Minister of Human Rights, the lady, she has herself been there and she has said there are seven judges, investigative judges and how come judges there as secret. It is open and we don't know if there is any torturing and we already arrested the people who tortured the prisoners and also this prison had already been closed and the disclosure and propaganda of Los Angeles newspaper had then --

He has no idea what he's saying so we'll stop there. There was no torturing but the tortures were arrested? The more upset/animated he becomes, the less he seems aware of what he's saying and I don't think he's confessing to anything so much as he's not grasping the language. He's also lying and Jasim al-Azawi calls him on that repeatedly throughout the program. That's the best State Of Law can serve up? And what the hell? Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani was in a dentist chair? Or he really thinks leaning all the way back in the chair like that is good for a televised interview. Viewers don't want to examine his nostrils. Someone tell him to sit up straight next time. And, FYI, Ned Parker's "
Secret prison for Sunnis revealed in Baghdad" (Los Angeles Times) is the article being attacked. While we're mentioning Al Jazeera, please note that Annie Lennox was Riz Khan's guest on the latest Riz Khan's One on One which began airing Friday. She wears the HIV Positive t-shirt in the interview and CBS News explains the story behind that. With one minor detail everyone's missed. Trivia question to be answered in tomorrow's snapshot: What music peer of Annie's (in the eighties when she was with Eurythmics) declared publicly that he was going to do something similar to raise awareness but then let it slide? Answer in tomorrow's snapshot.

Friday, Nouri's cohort was insisting that violence in Iraq was just a press cretated myth. Sunday, the big news was an attack on college students -- predominantly Christian ones, just outside of Mosul.
Sam Dagher (New York Times) reported that at least 1 person died in the bombings and at least seventy were injured and Dagher quotes Jamil Slahuddin Jamil stating, "We were going for our education and they presented us with bombs. I still do not know what they want from Christians." Jamal al-Badrani and Matthew Jones (Reuters) noted 10 wounded (citing police sources) and quote Hamdaniya mayor Nissan Karoumi stating, "All of them were Christian students. They go in buses like that to Mosul's university after the troubled times when Christians were targeted in the past." Carol Glatz (Catholic News Service) quotes Redemptorist Father Bashar Wardu of Erbil stating, "It was a brutal, unprecedented attack. We are shocked since the victims were not soldiers or militants, but just students who were carrying books, pens and their dreams of growing up and serving their own nation. Christians are still being targeted." Patrick Goodenough (CNS News) reports:The students were traveling in convoy to Mosul University, because it was considered a safer way to get them to classes after previous attacks on Christians. The attack occurred near a checkpoint manned by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as troops from the semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdish region. Iraq's Assyrian Christians are adherents of denominations including the Chaldean Catholic and Syriac Orthodox churches. The community, which traces its origins to the early years of Christianity two millennia ago, has been dwindling in numbers over the past two decades, a trend researchers attributed initially to difficulties experienced after the 1991 Gulf War but said accelerated since the fall of the Baathist regime in 2003.

AFP reports that today saw "thousands" protest the attack marching and carrying banners and quotes Basim Sameer stating, "The government is silent and is doing nothing about (the trouble) we face." The office of KRG President Masoud Barzani issued the following statement today:

It is very regrettable that civilians continue to be targeted, especially Christians in the city of Mosul by the terrorists who aim at ridding the city of its Christians to whom Mosul is their home and has been so for a very long time.
The terrorist incident of this morning against Christian students en route to school near Mosul resulted in at least one casualty and a number of injuries. The terrorists aim to disrupt the ages-long diversity of Nineveh which is home to a number of different religious and ethnic groups.
We at the Kurdistan Region Presidency strongly condemn this terrorist attack on the Christian students. We also call upon all the concerned parties to work harder on finding those responsible for this cowardly act.
We wish for the wounded a speedy recovery and hereby state that the medical facilities of the Kurdistan Region are at the service of the wounded. In the wake of the terrorist attack, the Erbil Emergency Hospital received a number of wounded individuals and has prepared its facilities and staff to assist their fellow medical professionals in Mosul.


Thursday's snapshot noted the US Commission on International Religious Freedom issued their [PDF format warning] "Eleventh Annual Report on Religious Freedom in the World" which included no link to the report. Community member Margo caught that (thank you, Margo). From the report, we'll note:

FINDINGS: Systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations continue in Iraq. Members of the country's smallest religious minorities still suffer from targeted violence, threats, and intimidation, against which they receive insufficient government protection. Perpetrators of such attacks are rarely identified, investigated, or punished, creating a climate of impunity. The small communities also experience a pattern of official discrimination, marginalization, and neglect. In addition, there continue to be sectarian attacks, often with impunity, and tense relations between Shi'a and Sunni Iraiqs, and other egregious, religiously-motivated violence also continues.
Based on these concerns, USCIRF again recommends in 2010 that Iraq be designated as a "country of particular concern," or CPC.* The Commission recommended that Iraq be designated as a CPC in 2008 and 2009, and placed Iraq on its Watch List in 2007.
The religious freedom situation in Iraq remains grave, particularly for the country's smallest, most vulnerable religious minorities. The violence, forced displacement, discrimination, marginalization, and neglect suffered by members of these groups threaten these ancient communities' very existence in Iraq. These minorities, which include Chaldo-Assyrians and other Christians, Sabean Mandaeans, and Yazidis, continue to experience targeted violence, receive inadequate official protection or justice, and suffer discrimination. Since 2003, many have fled to neighboring countries, where they represent a disproportionately high percentage of registered Iraqi refugees. The diminished numbers remaining in the country are now concentrated in areas in the highly dangerous Nineveh governorate over which the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) is seeking to extend its control, and they suffer abuses and discrimination as a result. Although the Iraqi government has publicly condemned violence against these groups, it continues to fall short in investigating the continuing attacks and bringing perpetrators to justice, and its efforts to increase security to minority areas are not adequate. In addition, though greatly reduced from 2006-07 levels, violence between Shi'a and Sunni Iraqis continues. Significant tensions between these groups remain, including tensions due to the ongoing government formation process. Finally, other religiously-motivated violence and abuse continues.



In other news over the weekend, US Army Spc Anthony Magee was wounded by an April 23rd missle attack in Iraq and evacuated to Germany.
WDAM reports he died Friday at the age of 28. Ben Piper (Hattiesburg American) reports he received the Purple Heart on Thursday, puts his age at 29, and quotes a family statement: "We have lost a son, a father and a hero today who dedicated his life to the service of our nation. His family would like to thank the entire community and nation for their thoughts and prayers." The death brings the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4395 when ICCC updates. Which they didn't do Saturday as Third noted and they didn't do Sunday and they still haven't done today. Today when DoD issues the following: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sgt. Anthony O. Magee, 29, of Hattiesburg, Miss., died April 27 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, of wounds sustained April 24 when enemy forces attacked his unit with indirect fire at Contingency Operating Base Kalsu, Iskandariyah, Iraq. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning, Ga." That announcement may be followed by a DoD correction. April 27th? Maybe so. That was a Tuesday. Why the long delay in announcing the death if he passed away last Tuesday? Next of kin? Uh, no. Many members of his family were at his bedside (including his wife and his parents).

Violence (or at least those nasty press 'rumors' of it) continued in Iraq today.
Bombings?

Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left six more injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left two more people injured, a Shirquat car bombing claimed 3 lives and left two more injured, a Shirqat roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left six pepole injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing injured three people and Mosul grenade attacks injured three people.

Shootings?

Reuters notes 1 Imam shot dead in a Mosul mosque and another person injured and 1 fortuneteller shot dead in Kirkuk

Today the Baghdad recounts Nouri al-Maliki threw a fit over began.
Xiong Tong (Xinhua) reports Independent High Electoral Commission spokesperson Qassim al-Abboudi declared today that the recounting of approximately 2.5 million ballots had begun "under the supervision of 44 monitors in Baghdad al-Rasheed Hotel in the Green Zone that houses some Iraqi government offices and foreign embassies, including the U.S. one." Suadad al-Salhy and Aseel Kami (Reuters) observed, "It could reverse the lead of a cross-sectarian alliance headed by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi which rode strong support from the Sunni minority to take 91 seats in the 325-member parliament." The two reported that as soon as counting began, members of Nouri's bloc began whining. Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) explains, "The objection added controversy -- and theatrics -- to a political struggle that is already convoluted and protracted. It threatened to further delay the certification of the final results of the crucial vote, held nearly two months ago." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) adds, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition Monday tried to throw another wrench into the slow-moving Iraq election process by calling for an audit in addition to a manual recount of votes from the March 7 parliamentary elections." Atul Aneja (The Hindu) points out, "In the results announced for the 325-member Parliament, Ayad Allawi's Iraqiyah party had secured a slender lead of two seats over Mr. Maliki's State of Law formation. However, the tally could change after manual recount for the 68 seats of Baghdad province is completed." Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) provides this context, "Maliki's latest move follows a secretive commission's decision to challenge pro-Allawi candidates for being alleged members of the outlawed Baath Party. It further raises fears that an election praised by international observers for its credibility and transparency could be undermined, stripping away faith in the political process and reigniting a sectarian civil war that has dramatically cooled." Gabriel Gatehouse (BBC News) reported from inside the counting rooms at the Al Rasheed Hotel offering that there were complaints from the Communist Party at the start because they were not inside but they and other observers were ushered in. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) adds, "The head of the Independent High Electoral Commission, Faraj al-Haidari, said the recount procedures were based on the commission's interpretation of a court decision involving the recount. He said the commission would continue with its current recount plan unless a court ordered it to do otherwise." Rebecca Santana (AP) reports Iraqi state TV cut out of the live broadcast when a row developed between al-Haidari and Hussain al-Shahristani who is both Minister of Oil and a State of Law official and that bodyguards had to prevent the two men from coming to blows as al-Sharistani vowed a crisis if the calls made by Nouri's party were not heeded. Alsumaria TV reports that al-Haidari states there are "660 employees from all provinces [who] are working double shifts to carry out votes recount".


We'll note this from David Bacon's "
EVEN WITHOUT ARIZONA'S LAW, FIRINGS AND WORSE FACE IMMIGRANT WORKERS" (New American Media):SAN FRANCISCO, CA (4/20/10) -- While the potential criminalization of undocumented people in Arizona continues to draw headlines, the actual punishment of workers because of their immigration status has become an increasingly bitter fact of life across the country.In the latest move by the Department of Homeland Security, 475 immigrant janitors will soon be fired from their jobs in San Francisco. Weeks ago, DHS went through the employment records of their employer, ABM, one of the largest building service companies in the country. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of DHS sifted through Social Security records, and the I-9 immigration forms all workers have to fill out when they apply for jobs. They then told ABM that the company had to fire 475 workers who were accused of lacking legal immigration status.ABM has been a union company for decades, and many of the workers have been there for years. "They've been working in this industry for 15, 20, some as many as 27 years in the buildings downtown," says Olga Miranda, president of Service Employees Local 87. "They've built homes. They've provided for their families. They've sent their kids to college. They're not new workers. They didn't just get here a year ago."David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which won the CLR James Award. Bacon can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show (over the airwaves in the Bay Area, streaming online) each Wednesday morning (begins airing at 7:00 am PST). Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Joan Rivers Presidency" went up yesterday.

iraqthe new york timessam daghercnspatrick goodenoughxinhuaxiong tongreuterssuadad al-salhyaseel kamiwdamhattiesburg americanben piper
xinhuaxiong tongreuterssuadad al-salhyaseel kami
steven lee myers
the christian science monitor
jane arraf
bbc newsgabriel gatehouse
jomana karadsheh
borzou daragahi
rebecca santana
the world cant wait

Friday, April 30, 2010

Iraq

"Women's movement in Iraq grows despite lack of international support" (Allyn Gaestel, Media Global):
Iraq is still in the grips of fierce political negotiations to form a government following parliamentary elections in March. But as votes are recounted and parties struggle to form coalitions to choose the prime minister, women are pushing under the radar to assert their rights across all sectors of society.
Basma Fakri, President of the Women’s Alliance for a Democratic Iraq (WAFDI), a women’s empowerment organization uniting women across political, ethnic, and religious lines, told MediaGlobal: “Unfortunately, women’s rights is not one of the main factors on the negotiation table between the main political parties, but that won’t stop Iraqi women from keep on fighting for their rights.”
Women in parliament fought for open electoral lists so voters can choose both parties and individuals. They contributed to the implementation of a quota system; women are constitutionally mandated to fill 25 percent of seats in parliament, and even with the continuing negotiations women have already secured 82 seats (25.23 percent) in the March elections. (The United States, by comparison has only 16.8 percent women in the House of Representatives.) Iraqi women parliamentarians were also instrumental in defeating resolution 137 in 2004, which would have replaced Iraq’s family code with Shari’a law.
Women in government come from diverse backgrounds, with varying levels of experience in politics and civil society. Some are considered seat holders, put in place by their party to fulfill the quota requirement. But once in parliament, even those less active in politics previously have begun to take on their roles and fight for causes they believe in. Janet Benshoof, CEO of the Global Justice Center, an international NGO that works with women to implement international equality laws into national legal structures, told MediaGlobal “Even if some of them were just put in by the religious party to occupy the woman’s slot, those women don’t all change, but a lot of them change when they get in office.”


It really is amazing how much lip service the women in Afghanistan received with some then trying to deliberately confuse Iraq with Afghanistan and give lip service to 'helping Iraqi women' when there was never anything done that really helped Iraqi women's lives.

They were far better off under Saddam Hussein and had actual rights. That is all gone. Maybe they can reclaim their rights at some point in the future, maybe not. But the illegal war not only personally destroyed their lives, it set all women in the country back.

Speaking of women, Sunny kindly added a note to my last post (scroll down, too tired to link). It went up Wednesday night. A number of e-mails came in asking about Sunsara Taylor's webcast?
I attempted to watch. I had the password because I'd donated money and I was goign to write it up. However, I could not get the stream to work.

"War Crimes Then And Now" (Phyllis Bennis, ZNet):
Some of the recent exposés demonstrate that not every operation in Afghanistan or Iraq is shrouded in the "fog of war." The pilots and gunners in the helicopter gunships hovering over the Reuters journalists and the crowd of Iraqi civilians around them in 2007 were eager, laughing, urging each other on to the kill. When a local van pulled up to help transport some of the dead and wounded, the gunners asked for and got permission to fire again; this time they wounded two children, but blamed the Iraqi victims because "it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle." In the February 2010 incident, if the reports of the Afghan investigators are correct, the US Special Forces - among the most highly trained killers of the US military - killed two innocent men in their Gardez courtyard and three women inside their house, then approached the dead women and girl to remove incriminating evidence (presumably identifiably made-in-the-USA bullets) from their bodies.

That will apparently be Phyllis Bennis' entire output on the video WikiLeaks released. How sad. She didn't disgrace herself the way so many did. She didn't whore for Barack in 2008. However, she didn't speak out either. She stayed in her comfort zone and hoped no one would hold it against her.

That's fine. Unless you want to self-present as a leader. If that's the case, you damn well better learn to lead.

Is it a War Crime? I'd love to see a real investigation.

My own opinion? That slaughter probably was. But I don't think we'll see an investigation because the crimes go to the top. Not to the soldiers following procedure and asking permission before moving onto each step. What the video reveals is how criminal the Iraq War actually is. Everything about it.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, April 30, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, GAO did a study (another study), post-election madness continues, Nouri holds a press conference to attack and instill fear, and more.


Today on hour two of
The Diane Rehm Show, Diane and her guests (including caller Ralph) Daniel Dombey (Financial Times of London), Moises Naim (Foreign Policy) and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) addressed Iraq.

Ralph: . . . It's a no-win situation in all of these because it's fighting and enemy that's a civilian and I don't care what their political reasoning or whatever you cannot win any kind of insurgency or insurrection.

Diane Rehm: Interesting, we've got a number of comments on Facebook regarding Iraq which is likely one of the areas Ralph is talking about. Pam says, "Honestly, Iraq will destabilize before we get the last man out regardless of what's put in place. At some point, we just have to leave. It's just sad. We've let their infrastructure in an almost complete shambles." Nancy?

Nancy A. Youssef: Pam, in a lot of ways, sounds a lot like the Obama administration. The United States has said it is leaving even though it looks like it could be weeks or months before government is formed in Iraq, even though the election appears to have been divisive and that there's real question that Nouri al-Maliki and Ayad Allawi -- the-the, right now the winner -- and their coalitions will be able to work together. And I think the question becomes what could the United States do if it stayed? Remember, the United States is there at the invitation of the Iraqi government and-and the movement that -- the train has sort of left the station. The United States is moving towards training Iraqi forces, putting them in the lead and I'm not sure that there's anything more that the United States could do --

Diane Rehm: What about the election discord? Could that effect the US timetable, Moises?

Moises Naim: We're talking about three worlds of difference. These were elections where 325 seats, Parliament, and Maliki's State of Law won 89 and the Iraqiya won 91, so they're the winners. But they're contesting votes and everything else. So you can take two-two views about this. You can say, "Well that's what happens in imperfect democracies. We have seen around the world, contested democracies awhere people are clashing including in Florida." So that would be a flippant way of saying: Elections, that's the nature of democracy. The other more troublesome view, and I think more realistic view, is this is just more of the same -- a manifestation of a deadly, lethal clash, between Sunnis and Shi'ites there and is just a struggle for power and is now taking that manifestation. When that is over, they will continue to battle each other. The good news is that so far, this has not been as violent and deadly as it used to be two or three years ago.

Daniel Dombey: Yes, I would agree with a large part of that. I mean I think the interesting thing is that this exist shows the fall of US influence. The Obama administration has been very concerned about what Mr. Malliki's done to try and get the lead in the and the prospect of the next government back from Allawi. It's been very concerned about these effors to strike candidates that have already been elected from Parliament. But those are pleas that aren't backed up by anything very much. And in a certain sense that's perhaps good because these are decisions that Iraq has to make. It's not clear how keeping US combat troops would help. In fact, one of the big champions of the surge Fred Kagan, of the AEI, wrote a piece in today's Washington Post where he says 'it is really only in the most extraordianary circumstances should the US delay its plans to get its combat troops out' --

Diane Rehm: Nancy?

Daniel Dombey: -- by the end of this summer. I think that shows it is actually Iraq's problem and not a bad problem for a Middle East country to have: How to work out the results of an election?

Diane Rehm: Nancy.

Nancy A. Youssef: You know I thought it was interesting this week that we learned that there was a secret prison in Iraq that largely held Sunnis prisoners, where people were tortured and there are charges that Maliki knew about it. We're starting to see the kind of state that is emerging. It is a quasi-democracy that still sort of employs tactics that are reminescent of Saddam's regime. Who makes a good torturer? But someone who has been tortured. And we're starting to see that. What can the US do to stop that? The only thing I want to say is that there is a real practical reson why the United States can't leave and that's becauseit's committed troops to Afghanistan. That 30,000 that's being sent into Afghanistan -- is conditioned on US troops leaving Iraq And in addition, you have a US military that's really already starting to think poster in terms of how it's going to reset itself, train itself for the next kind of warfare. The military's left Iraq already and I think the Obama administration has to.
Diane Rehm: I met a young woman just last night, having served three terms of duty in Iraq headed off to Afghanistan Sunday.

Okay, the above. First off, Frederick W. Kagan didn't write a column -- he co-wrote one. If you'r colleague already publicly 'joked' on Diane's show about a "cat fight" between Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni, you probably should work a little harder to ensure that you credit women.
The column was written by Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan. (Column ran in this morning's Washington Post.) Second, the Kagans gave three examples of what would slow the drawdown or stop it. Or what should in their opinion. David Dombey needs to learn to read because he has completely misrepresented the Kagans column which was not 'To Drawdown Or Not To Drawdown.' It was a call for US involvement in the post-election proceedings. Third, Nancy A. Youssef left the world of facts for opinions. And that's fine but that doesn't make her right. Example: The choice is not between staying or a drawdown -- and a drawdown is NOT a withdrawal, something Diane's guests need to learn REAL DAMN QUICK. That's nonsense. That's such nonsense that the string of words I would use to describe it could not appear here.

Reality, Nouri exists -- to this day -- only because US forces have propped him up. That's not 'opinion' or at least it's not uninformed 'opinion.' That is the opinion of the bulk of Democratic Senators and they have expressed it repeatedly and publicly -- that includes former senators Joe Biden and Barack Obama who are now vice president and President of the United States.

Reality, despite the oil profits (which are not going to the people), Iraq's 'government' still depends on a lot of US tax payer monies. And they can be denied that money. There's no reason to provide money (or credits for weapons) just to help Little Nouri become the New Hussein. No reason at all. In addition, there are many other diplomatic routes and there is also world opinion which can be courted.

Nancy's spending too much time at the Pentagon and appears to believe that the only answer is kill or don't kill but every problem doesn't require a show of violence to reach a solution. In her last exchange (last quoted above), I know what she meant but I'm not in the mood to interpret her. (She mispoke.) She's also wrong. "WE" did not learn about the secret prisons "this week." If "WE" had, then it wouldn't have been mentioned on Diane's show last week. Ned Parker broke that story online two Sundays ago. Ned Parker broke the secret prison story for the Los Angeles Times ("
Secret prison for Sunnis revealed in Baghdad") and Human Rights Watch issued a report this week on the secret prison ("Iraq: Detainees Describe Torture in Secret Jail "). Nouri's been laughably insisting it's all lies, made up by his enemies, and, so what, look what the Americans did at Abu Ghraib! If someone really thinks the story was breaking news this week, it goes to how little informed they are on the subject. I am aware it can be hard to think on your feet especially when the topic isn't scheduled but comes up because listeners took to the program's Facebook page. But, as with what she meant in her last exchange, I'm not in the mood to interpret her, I'm not in the mood to be generous.

A drawdown is not a withdrawal. Were I Nouri al-Maliki -- or
apparently Barack Obama -- I would declare that all reporters repeating that LIE should be imprisoned. But they need to start getting their facts right. A drawdown is what may take place. A drawdown would take the number of US service members in Iraq down to approximately 50,000. Such a drawdown has not yet taken place. If and when it does, it will be a fact that reporters can toss around. At present, they disgrace themselves when they make like Miss Cleo telling us what's happening months from now. How about you stop the predicting and get your facts right? It's not that difficult and it might let you know when a story broke or who wrote a column or any number of things. But when you're in such a rush to gas bag that you can't do the facts, you're not helping anyone.

Will the drawdown take place. "I'm no prophet, and I don't know nature's ways,"
Carly Simon sang (and wrote) in "The Right Thing To Do" (first appears on her No Secrets album). We do know the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, is due to issue a report. Community member Joan caught a problem with yesterday's snapshot -- the bulk of a sentence is missing and it's my fault because of a link I put in that I didn't close and when it was dictated around later it ended up knocking out half a line. So this is what should have appeared in yesterday's snapshot ("*" indicates it's added today):Speaking Tuesday to John Hockenberry on The Takeaway, BBC News' Gabriel Gatehouse also felt that the counting would take longer than some estimates, "That could take several weeks. Then the votes have to be certified." In addition to noting that lengthy process, Gatehouse is apparently the only reporter aware of wh*at is supposed to be coming, a report by the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno. Gatehouse explained, "*General Odierno is the overall in charge of US forces here, has promised to make an assessment -- another assessment of that withdrawal time table two months after the election so we're looking at about a week from now. So I think we'll wait to see what he says in about a week's time."An evaluation is due from Odierno? And it will determine and assess. Now Barack can (and may) choose not to listen to it or at least not let effect the current stated plan or 'plan'; however, until that's decided, there is no, "In August, ____ happens." And reporters need to stop claiming that there is. You are not predictors. You deal in the known. When you fail to do that, you better not whine when someone objects to your bias. In fact, when you leave the factual world repeatedly, you are begging readers, listeners, viewers to check you for your bias.

Odierno will issue a report. It's probably not going to be the only report issued between now and August. President Barack Obama's stated plan is that the number of US troops in Iraq will drop down to approximately 50,000 as summer draws to a close. That's his plan. It's spring right now. What will or will not happen will not be known until then. That's reality.

Reality is that from November 2008 through January 2009, had George W. Bush attempted to sign million and billion dollars deals, people would be outraged. He was outgoing. He shouldn't be tying the country into any deals, agreements or debt. But Nouri, whose party did not win the most seats in the March 7th elections, is doing just that.
Sylvia Pfeifer (Financial Times of London) reports that Nouri's prepping a potential one billion dollar deal in which Iraq will purchase "Hawk trainer jets from the UK". What does the Iraqi Parliament say about that deal? Nothing. Their terms expired. Until the newly elected members are sworn in, there is no Parliament. Nouri's term should have expired as well. But he's pushing deals that will tie Iraq down for sometime including the five-year plan that he could never get through Parliament so he's now rammed it through his council.
UPI reports that Moqtada al-Sadr "has demanded that 'illegal' contracts signed with foreign oil companies in 2009 be negotiated." Nizar Latif (The National Newspaper) adds, "The Sadrists, fervent nationalists although they have been heavily linked with Iran, where their leader is currently based, say the deals break Iraqi laws. The Iraqi oil ministry says the contracts will result in 'more than US $100 billion' (Dh367bn) worth of investment."
Nouri rejected any notion of an interim government. Ayad Allawi is calling for one. But if Nouri doesn't control the government, then he can't get his recounts and he can't get the judges to go along with him and he can't steal the election. He also can't make any of the deals he wants to. Caesar Ahmed and Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) report Nouri al-Maliki appeared on Iraqi state TV today to declare, "We will not allow any foreign interference in our internal affairs that will breach our sovereignty." Which brings us back to Nancy A. Youssef. First, Nouri, Iraq was breached in March 2003. You weren't concerned about "foreign interference" then. No, you were cheering on an invasion. Nancy A. Youssef wants to claim that the US is present at Iraq's invation. What a load of s**t. First off, an uninvited guest who never leaves is not there on any invitation. Second, who 'invited'? Not the people of Iraq who want the foreign forces off their land. Not the Parliament as evidenced by the huge number of MPs who elected to skip the November 2008 vote. Ahmed and Daragahi report Nouri attacked Allawi in his televised statements and also of Allawi and others, "I don't know why there are parties criticizing the Iraqi judiciary. This demonstrates that there is a regional, international project against Iraq that seeks to overthrow [the government] via the ballot box." Does the idiot understand that using the ballot box to reject someone is more than allowed?

In DC today, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Kuwait's Deputy Prime Minister Muhammad al-Sabah.
The two spoke to reporters in the Treaty Room (link has text and video) and took questions. In one of her replies, Hillary noted the following:

The deputy prime minister and I discussed recent political developments in Iraq and the ongoing process of forming a new government. The security and stability of Iraq is critical to the security and stability of Kuwait, but of indeed the entire region. The United States recognizes that there is still work to be done to address some of the outstanding issues related to the Iraq-Kuwait relationship, and we are committed to working with Kuwait and the new Government of Iraq and the United Nations in the months ahead.
On the post-election madness,
Heather Robinson (Huffington Post) notes:

Iraqi liberal Mithal al-Alusi, who
raised concerns about fraud against himself and fellow liberals after he lost his seat in Parliament in the March 7 elections, is now raising concerns about a potential lack of oversight of the Baghdad recount that he says could lead to a repeat of the fraud that prompted the recount in the first place.
"It will be a disaster if the same people who did the first counting will do the second counting," Alusi told me in a phone interview from Baghdad.
Alusi is no stranger to controversy. Iraqi-born and bred, in the 1970's he protested Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses, and was forced to flee the middle east for his life. He returned to Iraq with his two grown sons following the U.S. invasion and took a position as culture director of the de-Baathification commission in the Iraqi interim government.

We dealt with the Kagans already. (Disclosure, as noted before I know Robert Kagan, that's Fred's bother, Kimberly's brother-in-law.) But, again, their column was completely distorted. From the right (the neocon right), the
Frederick and Kimberly Kagan argue in today's Post:


Washington should strongly support Iraqi leaders such as Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi and Allawi, who have strongly opposed the AJC's illegal effort to manipulate the results. The United States must encourage Iraq's Presidency Council to adhere to the electoral laws and reject the AJC's manipulation. The United States must also ensure that legal processes and court decisions about the elections are not unduly influenced by political or violent intimidation. Above all, the United States must oppose any effort to exclude votes properly cast and counted.
U.S. officials must state clearly that Iraq's government should be formed by Iraqis in Iraq and encourage Iraqis to form a government that ensures real power-sharing and continued political accommodation -- rather than cobbling together a government without any genuine political settlement.
Staying silent is not the same as remaining neutral. This does not mean that Washington should choose a party or prime minister, but the United States must protect the electoral process from politicians (and external actors) seeking to manipulate its outcome.

Again, the Kagans are right-wingers. Let's get some other opinions. For example, the
Toledo Blade's editorial board argues what listeners of Diane Rehm's program were wrongly told the Kagans (or at least Fred) argued:

Hints by U.S. military leaders suggest the withdrawal might be delayed if Iraqis don't assemble a credible government soon. But that plays right into the hands of Iraqi political and business interests that want U.S. funds - about $2 billion a month - to continue to flow there. Mr. Maliki and others also want to maintain the protective American shield around themselves and their government.
America's interest is to withdraw according to schedule. There is no good reason to divert from that plan.

That is consistent with the Toledo Blade's February editorial "
Don't yield to Iraqi stunts." Turning to the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace. When noting that 'NGO,' we will always note that they're not as 'independent' as they'd love to pretend, they are an arm of the US government. So what are they saying? Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi feel the rule of law is being ignored and that the Justice and Accountability Commission is among the worst offenders:

This decision to ban elected officials has truly taken Iraq into uncharted waters, where it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate ad hoc political decisions from those based on the legal criteria. The January 2008 law that established the JAC and defined its mandate did not foresee the possibility of banning candidates after the election and no precedent exists on which to base a decision as these are the first elections under the law. Making the decision even more political -- the post-election bans will affect Iraqiya particularly hard, as did the pre-election exclusions. With twenty-two of the candidates banned after the vote belonging to Iraqiya, it could lose its slim two-seat advantage over State of Law.
There are also questions concerning the current legal status of the JAC, whose members were nominated by the council of ministers, approved by parliament, and ratified by the presidency council -- institutions whose mandate was terminated at the end of the last parliament and are operating in a legal limbo in the transitional period until a government is formed. The situation will worsen as the transitional period stretches from the few weeks foreseen by the constitution to the many months that now
appear possible.


Today
Alsumaria TV reports on seven candidates banned by JAC: "Al Iraqiya List spokesman Haidar Al Mulla revealed to Alsumaria News the names of seven candidates subject to the Justice and Accountability Law. Candidates include Fallah Hassan Zaydan, Iskandar Watout, Itab Jassem Nassif, Jamal Al Batikh, Adnan Al Jinabi, Mohammed Al Karbouli and Qays Shathar Hussein while an eighth winning candidate was not named."

Another view is offered by
Jim Waldo in a letter to the Duluth News Tribune where he observes, "Every day it seems we read about bombs going off in civilian settings and the marketplaces in Iraq. How long will it take before exasperated citizens put a strongman in power through voting or a coup? He might stop the carnage by temporarily suspending democracy, installing a secret police, forming a republican guard and adopting repressive measures. And he might indeed success in stopping the bombings." But, Jim Waldo feels, this is how the New Saddam Hussein is created. Alsumaria TV reports that Nouri insisted today that Iraq was at risk of "a coup" from within the region and internationally and that threats are being made of a rocket attack on the Green Zone. Save us, Nouri, save us!!!! (Yes, he does trade on the fear. It's always been his only currency.)

Turning to some of the violence reported today . .

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Garma roadside bombing injured two people and, dropping back to yesterday, reports a Heet roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left a second one wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded six people, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 8 lives and left twenty people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded CTO Sadoun Seyid Qassim. Xinhua notes a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives and left nine people injured. Reuters notes that 1 US service member was injured by a Baghdad roadside bombing last night.


Yesterday, a subcommittee of the US House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on the "Status of Veterans Small Business." Calling the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee to order, Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin noted, "Today's hearing will provide the US Government Accountability Office an opportunity to update us on the ongoing work on veteran-owned small businesses, and brought the hearing to order and noted " This Subcommittee last held a hearing on veterans and small business on
March 11, 2010. The focus was on the Center for Veterans Enterprise and the Subcommittee were informed about problems to do with verification -- how some businesses that were not VA-owned were making it onto the list while others which were veteran-owned but could not make the list. What's changed? They did a study, the Government Accountability Office did a study. We'll note this exchange between the Chair, GAO's William B. Shear and Ranking Member John Boozman.

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: [. . .] Because we have, as it relates to contracting requirements, a goal of making sure that it's veteran-owned businesses that are getting this opportunity just as it is in terms of the restriction Ms. [Diane] Farrell described, they're jobs created here as the objective so I -- You know, in your written testimony, you stated that the VA had hired a contractor to assess the verification programs process and the contractor's report included recommendations. Again, we're a little concerned with the progress the VA's making on the verifications as it relates to those on the database who have been verified to be veteran-owned businesses to deal with the issue of sort of veteran shopping that we have had concerns about with the Subcommittee previously. Can you elaborate on what recommendations were given to the VA?
William B. Shear: Uhm, I will paraphrase in a way that, uhm, as you know we have a draft report and as I stated we have a draft report. And among those, the needs to really implement information technology in a way that allows for more efficient processing of these applications. You also need -- really it's development of people in terms of their ability of the guidance that they have to have in terms of how they verify businesses. So I'm -- I'm segueing a little bit into what's-what's-what we're reporting on. But-but basically that it's been very slow in this process. And the reason we think it's very important is because the preferences are meant to serve veterans and veteran owned small business and there's not an assurance that that is happening. And it's been delayed for some period of time, so just the fact that the consultant study, that it took so long until they kind of like moved in that direction is of concern to us.

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Mr. Boozeman?

Ranking Member John Boozemmn: Thank you, Madame Chair. Mr. Shear, Public Law 109-461 requires VA to review contracts for compliance with subcontracting proposals. Would you share GIO's view of VA's performance in implementing the provisions

William B. Shear: Subcontracting was the one part that is contained -- will be contained in our final report. And what we observed with subcontracting requirements, there's -- there's certain issues as far as the date when that becomes effective. But what we have observed to date is that the -- with respect to subcontracting VA falls very short of its goals.


If we wanted to go deeper into the hearing, we could note that you do not appear before Congress chewing (smacking) gum. It's not a possible rule, it's a rule. Smacking your gum between and during your testimony not only distracts from your testimony, it makes it appear you really aren't ready to appear before Congress and that they might need to instead seat you at the kiddie table.


Hike for our Heroes is a non-profit started by Iraq War veteran Troy Yocum who is hiking across the country to raise awareness and money for veterans issues. He explains at the website:I am an Iraq-war veteran who is hiking 7000 miles across America to raise money for struggling veterans, and help get a national "Day of the Deployed" by getting signatures from mayors and governors across America on a custom Louisville Slugger batAnd with over 200 of the 7000 miles completed already, he has another milestone scheduled for the week: He's getting married Sunday. More information and videos can be found at Drum Hike.William J. Booher (Indy Star) reports that May is when Troy is set to be walking in Indiana and provides a list of some of the events including "a public barbecue May 7 at American Legion Post 252, 334 U.S. 31 S., between Main Street and Smith Valley Road." That is open to the public and begins at 12:30 in Greenwood, Indiana.
TV notes,
Washington Week begins airing on many PBS stations tonight (and throughout the weekend, check local listings) and joining Gwen around the table this week are Naftali Bendavid (Wall St. Journal), Eamon Javers (Politico), Margaret Kriz Hobson (National Journal) and Karen Tumulty (Washington Post). And Gwen's column this week is "Washington Rhetoric: The Decoder." Remember that the show podcasts in video and audio format -- and a number of people sign up for each (audio is thought to be so popular due to the fact that it downloads so much quicker). If you podcast the show, remember there is the Web Extra where Gwen and the guests weigh in on topics viewers e-mail about. And also remember that usually by Monday afternoon you can go to the show's website and stream it there (including Web Extra) as well as read the transcripts and more. Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Melinda Henneberger, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Genevieve Wood. on the latest broadcast of PBS' To The Contrary to discuss the week's events. And at the website each week, there's an extra just for the web from the previous week's show and this week's it's immigration reform. For the broadcast program, check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes:
The All American CanalThe most dangerous body of water in the U.S. is a deep canal on the Mexican border with California where over 550 people - mostly illegal immigrants - have drowned. Scott Pelley reports.
Watch Video
Chef Jose AndresPioneering Chef Jose Andres takes Anderson Cooper's taste buds on a savory tour of his culinary laboratory, featuring his avant-garde cooking technique, molecular gastronomy. Watch Video
ConanLate-night television comedian Conan O'Brien appears in his first interview since having to give back his spot on the "Tonight Show" to Jay Leno. Steve Kroft reports.
60 Minutes, Sunday, May 2, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.



iraq
nprthe diane rehm show
the financial times of londonsylvia pfeiferthe national newspapernizar latif
the los angeles timesned parker
bbc newsgabriel gatehousethe takeawayjohn hockenberrythe huffington postheather robinson
the toledo blade
mcclatchy newspaperssahar issa
60 minutescbs newsto the contrarybonnie erbe
washington week

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Music notes

[Sunny note added for Elaine April 29th, Sunsara Taylor's webcast didn't allow Elaine to log in and she had the password and all the other requirements.]

Did I download Kate Nash through Amazon? I was asked that in three e-mails Sunny read. Is there a problem downloading from Amazon? I don't know. I went ahead and used iTunes just because I needed to upgrade iTunes anyway. If I hadn't, I would have needed to take it off the computer because I don't think I've used it in forever.

There's a digital booklet that comes with the audio download but I haven't opened it so I have no idea.

I like all the songs but I think "Early Christmas Present" is probably the best. For me, at least.

What's the worst video I've seen lately?

Okay, that was Julia. Sunny wrote some notes on the e-mails and I had to go my purse and pull out her notes.

Julia wanted to know the worst video I'd seen in some time. I think I saw this back in August or September so it may be too old, but "All Day Long I Think About Sex."

JC Chasez? Is that his name. Lead singer in 'NSync?


The good news, he looks good in the bulk of the video.

But the song's not all of that and he looks like an idiot at the start of the video. He's doing this dramatic jerky thing that someone thought was dancing but just makes him look like a moron as does his punching the screen.

If they'd leave that out and take out the mock porn shoot, it would be a strong video.

But it really can't recover. It's ridiculous, like whenever Michael Jackson would whistle at a woman in a video.

Best video?

Vampire Weekend, but I forget the song. But they had a really good video.

Group I can't stand (that's Lance's question)? She & Him. Is that their name? That's just embarrassing. It's not retro. I've heard six of their songs including their version of "You Really Got A Hold On Me." Cher is a singer. Sonny Bono was not. When Sonny & Cher's version of "You Really Got A Hold Of Me" tops She & Him, it's time for She & Him to pack it in.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, April 28, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, post-election madness continues in Iraq, Human Rights Watch calls out Nouri's secret prison, Senator Jim Webb holds a hearing on military compensation and more.

In Iraq, post-election madness continues as Nouri abuses power and the system.
Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) adds, "Weighing in on legally dubious efforts to change the outcome of Iraq's March 7 parliamentary elections, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged Iraqi officials Tuesday to act more speedily and openly in forming a new government." We'll again note her statement in full:
On March 7, I congratulated the people of Iraq on their national elections, which were a clear demonstration of their commitment to democracy and a future without fear and intimidation. Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC), the United Nations, the Arab League, and both international and domestic observers declared those elections to be free of widespread or systematic fraud. The United States respects the legal avenues that Iraq has set up for challenges to candidates and to electoral results. However, for challenges to be credible and legitimate they must also be transparent and must accord with the laws and mechanisms established for the conduct of the elections. Investigations into allegations of fraud should be conducted in accordance with IHEC procedures. Similarly, candidates should have every opportunity to answer charges against them. Transparency and due process are essential to protecting the integrity of the process and preserving the confidence of the Iraqi people in their democratic system. The United States does not support a particular party or candidate. We seek a long-term partnership with an Iraq that is stable, sovereign and self-reliant. As a friend and partner, the United States calls upon Iraq's leaders to set aside their differences, respect the courageous ballots of the Iraqi people, and to form quickly a government that is inclusive and represents the will of all Iraqis and their hope for a brighter future in a strong, independent and democratic Iraq.

Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) reports the White House is troubled/worried over the continued non-progress and he speaks to Wayne White -- 25 years with the State Dept before he left and also a one-time Iraq analyst for the Dept, who states, "They're increasingly afraid of ending up with another Karzai-like mess. There was always concern over time and the impact a drawn-out process of naming [an Iraqi] government could have. But the prospect of a government tainted by illegitimacy is quickly becoming a much larger problem." Andrew Lee Butters (Time magazine) zooms in on US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill's efforts to prod the process along:

The fact that America's man in Baghdad was reduced to asking Iraq's politicians to perform their basic duties should be a warning sign to anyone hoping the U.S. will leave behind a stable democratic Iraq when its last troops are scheduled to depart at the end of next year. U.S. combat troops are scheduled to withdraw by the end of August, and U.S. officials have begun to doubt whether Iraq will have a government in place by then. In the past, U.S. officials have indicated they might slow the timetable of troop withdrawals should Iraq's election process not proceed smoothly. But even if the Pentagon puts the brakes on and keeps combat troops in country, there may not be much they can do to fix Baghdad's political mess.
Turning to the care and feeding of the New York Times. US troops need to leave and need to leave now. That's the position of this community -- has always been the position and always will be. But? Let's weigh in on the nonsense of 'firm' Barack.
Some people are worried that Iraq's descending into chaos and Barack's going to continue pulling troops out. They worry about that because of a New York Times piece, a recent one. That piece is so stupid we've never linked to it nor commented on it. As Politico notes today, the White House loves to feed the New York Times. Here's a little more reality: If that story was true, those two wouldn't be covering it for the Times.

Were the story the paper printed true, Michael R. Gordon would have had part of that byline. And it is to Gordon that Barack explained what would happen if he were president and was planning -- or had started -- withdrawal (he's not talking of doing a withdrawal, he's talking of doing a drawdown, they are not the same thing). He was very clear what would happen. It's a shame no one listened in real time. But the paper's not going to put Michael Gordon on the puff piece about Barack because Gordon's going to note what's being fed contradicts what Barack has publicly stated. He'd note that if only to give himself credit for his earlier interview. (He'd also note it because he believes US troops need to remain in Iraq.)
Ahmed Rasheed, Khalid al-Ansary,Michael Christie and Samia Nakhoul (Reuters) report that Ayad Allawi is calling out Nouri's attempts to steal the election, demanding a "caretaker government" to prevent that and states, "We will not stay silent in the face ofw hat is happening in the Iraqi political areana with attempts to marginalize and exclude the Iraqiya list." Alsumaria TV reports, "Kurdistan Alliance member Mahmoud Othman announced that the decision of the Justice and Accountability Commission to invalidate the votes of some winning candidates in elections is dubious mainly that it has allowed them to stand in elections while it banned others ahead of the electoral process, Othman noted." Saif Nasrawi (Al-Masry Al-Youm) reports that Allawi was in Egypt today and met with the country's President Hosni Mubarak and the two discussed "ongoing efforts to form the new Iraqi government."

Allawi's political slate won 91 seats in the Parliament in the March 7th elections while Nouri's party won 89 seats. In the time since, Nouri has thrown non-stop tantrums.
Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reviews some of Nouri's attempts to invalidate the election:

Maliki's party got a ruling from the Iraqi High Court saying that the number of MPs who are seated in the first session of parliament, not the number actually elected, which decide who gets to form the government. Since then Iraqiya's winning members have faced harassment, arbitrary detentions, and efforts by the
Justice and Accountability Commission (JAC), which disqualified hundreds of Iraqiya candidates before the vote, to disqualify many of the winning MPs after the fact.
Iraqiya has
already lost two MPs to an Iraqi court ruling, and scores of non-winning candidates have also been lost, setting up possible gains for State of Law, the Kurdistan Alliance, and the Iraqi National Alliance (INA) in those districts.
Beyond that, JAC is looking to oust another nine MPs, mostly Iraqiya, at least one of their MPs is being indefinitely detained by the Maliki government, and the Maliki government has also promised to dramatically change the results of the Baghdad vote with a manual recount. When all is said and done Iraqiya would likely be a distant second if not a third place finisher in the parliament, despite having won the actual election.

An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy writes at Inside Iraq about issues facing Iraqis more important than the battles between Allawi and al-Maliki including:

Improving and developing the relation with the owner of the private generator is for sure more important than any political issue because it means having more electricity during our long summer season. Negotiations about one or two extra work hours will be very hard because of the high cost of the fuel and the greed of the owners. From their own sides, the owners of the generators will work for the best agreements with the electricity engineers who supervise providing Baghdad sectors with electricity. They will ask them to supply the areas with electricity during the work hours of the generator which means less generating hours with the same high prices for the supply. We already started the suffering of power shortages and these days we have electricity less than six hours a day.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Reuters notes 2 Baghdad sucide car bombings which claimed 5 lives (plus drivers of cars) and left seventeen people injured, a Baghdad truck bombing which injured four people, a Baghdad mortar attack on the Green Zone and two Baghdad roadside bombings which left six people injured. Today the US military announced: "CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE SPEICHER, Iraq – A United States Division-North Soldier was killed in Diyala province. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4393 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War.

Last week, Ned Parker broke the news about a secret prison in Iraq housing Sunnis which was under the command of Nouri al-Maliki in "
Secret prison for Sunnis revealed in Baghdad" (Los Angeles Times). On the secret Iraq prison, Human Rights Watch issued the following:
(Baghdad) - Detainees in a secret Baghdad detention facility were hung upside-down, deprived of air, kicked, whipped, beaten, given electric shocks, and sodomized, Human Rights Watch said today. Iraq should thoroughly investigate and prosecute all government and security officials responsible, Human Rights Watch said. Human Rights Watch interviewed 42 of the men in the Al Rusafa Detention Center on April 26, 2010. They were among about 300 detainees transferred from the secret facility in the old Muthanna airport in West Baghdad to Al Rusafa into a special block of 19 cage-type cells over the past several weeks, after the existence of the secret prison was revealed. The men's stories were credible and consistent. Most of the 300 displayed fresh scars and injuries they said were a result of routine and systematic torture they had experienced at the hands of interrogators at Muthanna. All were accused of aiding and abetting terrorism, and many said they were forced to sign false confessions. "The horror we found suggests torture was the norm in Muthanna," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The government needs to prosecute all of those responsible for this systematic brutality." The Iraqi authorities should establish an independent and impartial inquiry to investigate what happened at Muthanna, determine who was responsible, and prosecute them, Human Rights Watch said, including anyone in authority who failed to prevent the torture. The government also needs to ensure that courts will not admit any confessions obtained through torture. The men interviewed said the Iraqi army detained them between September and December 2009 after sweeps in and around Mosul, a stronghold of Sunni Arab militants, including Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. They said torture was most intense during their first week at Muthanna. Several well-informed sources told Human Rights Watch that this secret facility was under the jurisdiction of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's military office. All the detainees interviewed described the same methods of torture employed by their Iraqi interrogators. The jailers suspended the detainees handcuffed and blindfolded upside down by means of two bars, one placed behind their calves and the other against their shins. All had terrible scabs and bruising on their legs. The interrogators then kicked, whipped and beat the detainees. Interrogators also placed a dirty plastic bag over the detainee's head to close off his air supply. Typically, when the detainee passed out from this ordeal, his interrogators awakened him with electric shocks to his genitals or other parts of his body.
During the interrogations, security officials mocked the detainees and called them "terrorists" and "Ba'athists." To stop the torture, detainees said, they either offered fake confessions or signed or fingerprinted a prepared confession without having read it. Even after they confessed, many said, torture persisted. The detainees told Human Rights Watch of other torture methods as well. They described how interrogators and security officials sodomized some detainees with broomsticks and pistol barrels and, the detainees said, raped younger detainees, who were then sent to a different detention site. Some young men said they had been forced to perform oral sex on interrogators and guards. Interrogators also forced some detainees to molest one another. Security officials whipped detainees with heavy cables, pulled out fingernails and toenails, burned them with acid and cigarettes, and smashed their teeth. If detainees still refused to confess, interrogators would threaten to rape their wives, mothers, sisters, or daughters. The interrogation sessions usually lasted three or four hours and occurred every three or four days. Muthanna held more than 430 prisoners before their transfer to other detention facilities earlier this month. For months, nobody knew their whereabouts. Detainees had no access to their families or legal counsel. They were not issued any official documents or even a detainee or case number. An investigative judge heard cases in a room down the hall from one of the torture chambers in the facility, they said. After the Los Angeles Times first reported the abuse at the Muthanna detention facility on April 19, the Iraqi government said it would investigate the torture claims and has arrested three army officers in connection with the abuse. "What happened at Muthanna is an example of the horrendous abuse Iraqi leaders say they want to leave behind," Stork said. "Everyone responsible, from the top on down, needs to be held accountable." The following are excerpts from the detainees' testimony:
Detainee A was captured with 33 others in Mosul on the night of September 17, 2009: "The interrogators would tie my arms behind my back and blindfold me before they would hang me upside down and beat me. They would suffocate me with a bag until I passed out and would wake me with an electric shock to my genitals. Even after they forced me to confess that I killed ten people, the torture never stopped. Ten days before I was transferred out on April 8, I endured a horrific beating for speaking to an inspection team from the Human Rights Ministry. After they left, the prison staff beat me so badly that I urinated blood."
Detainee B is a pediatrician who saw one of his cellmates dragged out for a torture session on January 18, 2010. When they brought him back to the cell, the doctor noticed swelling above his liver and suspected internal bleeding and told the guards that the man needed immediate medical attention. The guards took the tortured man out but returned him an hour later saying that he was fine. He died in the cell an hour later.
Detainee C was arrested in September in Mosul: "The torture sessions lasted for hours on end. The guards would come into our cell and grab three or four detainees at a time. They would walk us to the interrogation room to begin the abuse. They would beat us for hours and so badly that we could not stand up so they would have to drag us back to our cells. They would let us recover for three days before the cycle of torture began anew."
Detainee D, a formal general in the Iraqi army and now a British citizen, who is in a wheelchair, was arrested on December 7, after he returned to Mosul from London to find his son, who had been detained. His jailers refused him medicine for his diabetes and high blood pressure. "I was beaten up severely, especially on my head," he told Human Rights Watch. "They broke one of my teeth during the beatings. ... Ten people tortured me; four from the investigation commission and six soldiers. .... They applied electricity to my penis and sodomized me with a stick. I was forced to sign a confession that they wouldn't let me read."
Iraqi soldiers arrested Detainee E, a 21-year-old, on December 19 at his home in Mosul: "During the first eight days they tortured me daily. They would put a bag on my head and start to kick my stomach and beat me all over my body. They threatened that if I didn't confess, they would bring my sisters and mother to be raped. I heard him on the cellphone giving orders to rape my sisters and mother." During one torture session, the man, who was blindfolded and handcuffed, was stripped and ordered to stroke another detainee's penis. After he was forced to the floor, the other detainee was forced on top of him. "It hurt when it started to penetrate me. The guards were all laughing and saying, 'He's very tight, let's bring some soap!' When I experienced the pain, I asked them to stop and that I would confess. Although I confessed to the killings, I mentioned fake names since I never killed anyone. So the torture continued even after I confessed because they suspected my confession was false." One of the guards also forced him to have oral sex.
Detainee F was arrested with his brother in Mosul on December 16. His interrogators strung him upside down and severely beat him with his eyes blindfolded and his hands tied behind his back. He suffered broken ribs from the beatings and urinated blood for days. The interrogators threatened to rape his wife if he did not confess. One time he was stripped naked and told to penetrate another naked inmate lying on the floor or that he would otherwise be raped by two male guards.
Detainees G and H, father (59) and son (29) respectively, were arrested at their house in Mosul on September 30. Both endured sessions in which interrogators hung them upside down and beat them. During one session the father was stripped naked in front of the son, and the son was told they if he did not confess they would rape his father. The father was told that if he did not confess they would kill his son. The son was subsequently sodomized with a broomstick and the guards' fingers.
Detainee I, 24, was arrested on September 30 in Mosul. He still has severe leg injuries and wets his bed after he was sodomized numerous times with a broomstick and pistol. During one session, an interrogator told him that they would rape his mother and sister if he did not confess. During another beating, interrogators hit him so hard that he lost several front teeth.

Human Rights Watch researcher
Samer Muscati spoke to Melissa Block (NPR's All Things Considered) today:

Samer Muscati: What we saw was horrific. We went to the facilities on Monday and interviewed about 42 detainees who had been transferred from Muthanna and each of them told us of specific cases of torture. Many of the practices that were taken against them were the same in the sense that people were flipped upside down, suffocated with a dirty bag, beaten and hit with belts and other implements until they passed out and they were brought to using electrical shocks and other specific forms of torture as well including pulling out fingernails and breaking fingers.

[. . .]

Melissa Block: You also apparently heard numerous accounts of rape and-and sodomy in this prison.

Samer Muscati: Yes, and it was obviously very difficult for detainees to talk about -- especially in this culture, for a man to be raped or molested -- it's extremely humiliating. And it was extremely difficult for people to talk about what happened to them but I felt that they needed to explain what happened to them because they are seeking justice and accountability for what happened. But it seems that the younger men -- and actually there were minors there as well -- were subjected to rape while the older men were sodomized using various implements and lots of other ways.

In other prison abuse and torture news, the inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa continues. Yesterday,
Marcia explained that the inquiry was told that after Baha died in British custody, Maj Michael Peebles attempted to cover his own end by suddenly making calls to find out what the procedures were for holding a prisoner.

A subcommittee of the US Senate's Armed Services Committee held a hearing today. "The Subcommittee meets today to hear testimony on military pay and compensation," declared Senator Jim Webb, Chair of the Military Personnel Subcommittee. Appearing before the Subcommittee were DoD's William J. Carr, GAO's Brenda Farrell, CBO's Carla Tighe Murray and James Hosek of the RAND Corporation. Webb noted that to retain the quality in the services, compensation must be able to compete with private business and the need for a "robust benefits and compensation program." Webb noted (after the witnesses' opening statements) that when service was compulsary (draft) for males in the US, it was decided to spend more money on the career ranks but when it became voluntary, more money was on the lower end in as a recruiting tool.

Subcommittee Chair Jim Webb: The question that came to mind when I was listening to this, when we're talking about comprability with private sector. For instance when the comment was made if you include other benefits there's about an 80th percentile for the typical military person. I would like to hear from all of you. First of all, which benefits are we including when we do that and which benefits are we not? For instance, on the medical side, do we factor in such things as not having to have malpractice insurance or to pay for an office. Do we count that as compensation when we're looking at comparing what the cost would be on the outside. What are we doing on these different areas? What are we putting in and what are we leaving out when we hit these kind of numbers? Ms. Farrell, you might want to start on that.

Brenda Farrell: Sure, senator. As I noted, the studies differ in what they include. The first -- That's the reason you get different results. Although at this time, the reports that we looked at from my colleagues here all came up showing that the military pay was very favorable. When we're talking about the 10th QRMC including select benefits it was health care, retirement and the federal tax advantage. And we're talking about a very broad base. When you refer to malpractice insurance, I'm thinking maybe you're thinking more of a scenario that's comparing one occupation for a physician in the private sector. These studies are very broad based. And that's the reason that we say they have limitations because the populations differ from -- usually your private sector population is older than what you have in the military workforce. And usually your private sector population has already further ahead in education. As you know, many people join our military with the plans to go on and get that education. So you have different populations in terms of demographics that you're, uh, viewing -- that places some limitations. But with that said, there's -- We feel that the studies that we looked at with CNA being the backup for the data with the 10th QRMC that included the three select benefits took a very reasonable approach. There could be -- There were a couple of comments that were made on the CNA study regarding making assumptions about health care and retirement -- and some other organization could come up with different assumptions. But we still think it's reasonable. One of the assumptions made, for example, about retirement involves the discount rate. You know if someone's going to retire in twenty years and receive $100 -- to make it very simple -- the discount rate that would be the present value today and the discount rate that CNA used could be a little bit on the high side compared to if a different rate was used. So there's differences in the assumptions that are used for these non-cash benefits such as the health care -- trying to place the value on it -- as well as the retirement. Does that help?

Subcommittee Chair Jim Webb: That helps.

William J. Carr: Sir, to make a point, I think. Military pay, if it's simple and it's understood, for example, pay stub. We've for years used regular military service compensation which is roughly equivalent with pay stub. It considers my basic pay and allowances -- housing allowances for example. And because allowances are not taxable, the tax advantage. An enormous amount of time explaining that to the soldier, sailor, air, marines, so that they can gain some cross-comparison. Whether it's true -- And I'll stipulate that we're 70% against that pay stub measurement or 80% if we included esoteric things that aren't reflected in the pay stub, it's simply used as a means of communicating a baseline. Either one is producing the same effect. 80% if you're using the esoteric, 70% if you're not. But the importance is consistency in use. So if we are 70% today and we've used that measurement for years, and hope to use it into the future, then we're communicating a point at which core retention patterns look okay to us. So what was the pay level then? And we'd say, "Well the regular military compensation, cause we have to account for the tax break, is at this level and, yes, retention was good, and unemployment was that [gesturing below with his hand]." We can communicate in much simpler cogent terms that I think the troops would subsribe to because, first, because we've talked to them in those terms for so long and secondly because it has to do with the pay stub. And they get that.

Subcommittee Chair Jim Webb: Well the question though is whether we have the right information out to truly compare because there are a number of concerns. We hear it from the Military Officer Association, etc saying that the pay differential for the same type of job in the military is less. And we need an accurate number, if it's less, it's less. But if you're factoring all of the different pieces in together and it's good, we should say it's good. So the question again becomes what-what are we putting into this when we make the formula? And Ms. Farrell, when I was talking about medical insurance, it was just one of the things that popped into my mind when you were giving your presentation in that you can't sue a military doctor. Federal Tort Claims Act. So there are doctors in civilian practice who spend tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of dollars in medical malpractice insurance in order to cover the possibility of a lawsuit. We, argubably, should factor that in when we look at compensation for medical folks. Just one -- just one of many questions I would have in terms of how sophisticated are we in should people should be concerned about these pay levels as they are right now. They should, maybe they shouldn't. But are we using the right for formula?

Brenda Farrell: Again we think by going with the 10th QRMC's recommendation to includes select benefits, that's an advantage to DoD, to show how good their package really is. And that it could be used as a recruiting or retention tool. We have reported in the past, through our surveys with service members, they lacked an understanding of how their pay compared to counterparts in the private sector and there are a lot of misperceptions out there. Granted, DoD has in its hands full because this is such a large workforce. I mean, they bring in about 180,000 every year, they're maintaining 1.2 million service members, it's a vast array of occupations but by doing -- when you're doing a broad based comparison of how the military compares to the private sector, we firmly believe that the total package should be included. The regular military compensation that Mr. Carr mentioned? We're not saying "Don't look at that." And keep that measurement of how the cash does compare with the civilian but also go with the recommendation to look at select benefits to the extent possible because it will give a fuller picture, it will help DoD to monitor so you can keep pace and be competative with the private sector and it's a good recruiting tool as we said.

Subcommittee Chair Jim Webb: Dr. Hosek, what do you think about that?

James Hosek: Well, various things. The first thing to observe, I think, is that the basic elements, what in the past have been referred to as regular military compensation for officers or enlisted personnel, still constitutes the vast majority of their current compensation even when one considers benefits and allowances -- that is it's on the order of 90%. And what that means to me is that it's really important to make sure that whatever we do, we keep track of that and watch it carefully. The second thing is that probably the most salient benefit to military families on active or reserve duty today would be the health benefit. And that comes not only because the military has pledged to care for military service members and their famiilies and follow through with this health benefit -- it's a fairly comprehensive benefit. But also because the cost of similar services in the private sector have risen dramatically -- at times upwards of 40 or 50% a year increase in cost. Today I believe in the private sector, the cost of a relatively good health care benefit for a family of 4 is around $13,000 whereas at the beginning of the decade, it was probably half that. And so the value of the military benefit can be thought of in terms of what it would cost a military family to obtain quality health care outside. A few years ago -- I want to certainly recognize the find work that's been done by CBO and GAO in this area -- also CNA. But with that comment let me note, a few years ago we did a study at RAND trying to place a value on the military health care benefit by which we made use of information on private sector claims data for providers and skill sets and the aging and ethnic distributions similar to that in the military. To make a story short, we too came up with a number such that when you put it in the full context, enlisted personnel had a benefit including basic pays, allowances, tax -- you know, the non-taxibility of the allowance and the health care benefit, placing their compensation at or around the 80th percentile. For officers, I believe it was at or around the 90th percentile. I'll end there with only additional final comment that as you said at the beginning, as important as it is to look at the elements of pay and be clear about what we're including and how we're doing it. We always want to be able to relate those elements of pay to our recruiting and retenetion outcomes. Thank you.

Senator Jim Webb: And also, if I may, on an issue like health care, that's a moral contract. It's a moral contract that goes beyond benefits and it goes to the life of an individual who spends their career in the military. I can't tell you how many people, in my lifetime, who are career military who point that out while they are on active duty and after they retire.

No, the witnesses are not in agreement. Shortly after, Webb would note that there's really no business model here in terms of the budgeting but that's also true in terms of how they're estimating comparble pay. The easiest way to set a standard, and Webb may end up proposing this, is for Congress to come and declare what is measured and what isn't when calculating a pay scale that you can then compare to the civilian world's pay scale for similar jobs and/or duties. That would actually make the most sense because Congress is going to determine whether or not a bump in pay takes place. They control the purse. So since they'll be the ones determining that, it makes sense to have them set the standards by which to measure whether or not the pay is comparable to the civilian pay.


Mike's been noting KPFT's Queer Voices radio program at his site. One of the features of the program is This Way Out's newswrap which is archived in text form here. Taren James and Michael LeBeau covered a large number of topics this week and we'll note the following:


The U.S. queer community's new grassroots activist pit bulls,
GetEQUAL, upped the pressure on PResident Barack Obama this week over his failure to keep major campaign promises to LGBT Americans. Although Obama has taken several smaller steps seen as favorable or helpful, he's yet to secure passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, or repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Equality advocates are increasingly worried that chances for those actions will diminish after mid-term elections in November. While Democrats have significent majorities in both the House and Senate, and of course there's a Democrat in the White House, the majority party typically loses seats two years after a presidential inauguration.
Many in the mostly-younger generation of queer activists became activists after the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Some accuse the country's leading LGBT rights groups of being insider-wannabes who curry favor with administration officials rather than being the "fierce advocates" for equality that Obama himself promised to be. The Human Rights Campaign, which bills itself as the nation's largest, and its president Joe Solmonese, are the most frequent targets of that "business as usual" criticism.
GetEqual's latest broadside started April 19th at a political fundraiser for California's Democratic U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer in Los Angeles. She's facing a strong re-election challenge in November, and Obama was there to help her raise campaign cash.
Five GetEQUAL activists paid their way into the event, and then repeatedly shouted at Obama about repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell as he tried to address the gathering.
"Hey! Hold on a second! Hold on a second! We are going to do that!" Obama responded. "Barbara and I are supportive of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, so I don't know why you're hollerin'."
The following day, April 20th, GetEQUAL protesters returned to the White House for a second round of handcuffing themselves to the fence and getting arrested, a months after the group's initial action there.
Six servicemembers locked themselves up this time. Lt. Dan Choi and Capt. Jim Pietrangelo II -- making return visits -- were joined by Petty Officer Larry Whitt, Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen, Cadet Mara Boyd and Cpl. Evelyn Thomas. "We are handcuffing ourselves to the White House gates once again," Choi said, "to demand that President Obama show leadership on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Thomas said that the protest by Choi and Pietrangelo last month "made me realize that I needed to do something to stand up for all the black female soldiers who have been discharged. . . Many people don't know that we Black women are discharged disproportionately more than others under Don't Ask Don't Tell."
The six protesters were taken into custody and released the following afternoon. Their court dates are pending. In an unsettling footnote, U.S. Park Police forced media people covering the event away from the action. "The park's closed. Back up," the Park Police officer yelled repeatedly as he herdered journalists away from the protest. Park Police spokesman Sgt. David Scholosser apologized the following day, telling Politico.com that his department "screwed up."
GetEqual continued its onslaught in the U.S. capital on April 21st, disrupting a hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee to demand that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- or ENDA -- be marked up and sent to the House floor for an immediate vote. GetEqual cofounder Robin McGehee tried to give committee Chairman George Miller a magic marker so he could "mark up" EDNA. "I don't know if because of the recession that you guys can't afford markers or whatever the issue is," McGehee said, "but in our community there are people being fired [every day] because they are lesbian, gay, bi or transgender." "We're working on that as expeditiously as we can," Miller responded. "Thank you very much."
ENDA has been stuck in Miller's committee since last year even though openly gay U.S. Representative Barny Frank of Massachusetts had said it would be voted on by the end of 2009. More recently, Frank, openly gay Representative Jared Polis of Colarado, openly lesbian Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have called the bill a priority and said that they have the vote to pass it. The protesters were not arrested. Polis escorted them from the hearing room. Frank called the disruption "immature" and "tacky," and "a stupid thing to do . . . I understand people are frustrated and angry," he added, but the action was "no help whatsoever."
"We've waited too long already," McGehee said in response. "We have been promised since last year and, since the 90s, that we were going to have employment protection put in place. And yet, we still don't have it on the House floor." As if to jump on the GetEQUAL bandwagon, more than 230 U.S. LGBT and supportive groups signed on to a one-sentence statement to Congress on the same day: "Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act NOW!" The United States has not seen this kind of burgeoning grassroots activism since the heyday of ACT UP in the late 1980s.



iraqthe los angeles timesned parkerhuman rights watchthe washington posternesto londonoreutersahmed rasheedkhalid al-ansarymichael christiesamia nakhoulalsumaria tv
time magazineandrew lee butters
nprall things consideredmelissa block