Fringe

Saturday. I read an e-mail a second ago from someone complaining that I didn't write Friday. If I have a Fringe or Nikita episode going up online Saturday (I use Hulu) then I'll skip Friday and grab today instead to blog about it.

I'm grabbing Fringe. I'll do Nikita on Monday unless I'm really tired.

It's such a cheat, the latest episode of Fringe online ("Nothing As It Seems"). The previous episode ["A Short Story About Love" which I recapped in "I was right and Watchers are idiots (Fringe),"] ended with the Watcher telling Peter that Olivia was his Olivia.

So this episode starts with a first season flashback. Remember the Porcupine Man who, on the airplane, warns people he's changing and seeks shelter in the bathroom only to change into a porcupine and destroy the people which then leads to the plane crashing? He's back . . . on the show . . . but new to everyone but Peter who never lost his memory and Olivia who's gotten back her memory.

Olivia's taken off Fringe division and sent on 'vacation' because they don't believe her memories that she's remembering are her own. Lincoln calls Peter for help on Porcupine Man who didn't change on the airplane but instead changed after the plane landed.

Lincoln believes Olivia and Peter (about who she is, what she remembers) and she starts working on the case. They go to Porcupine Man's home (no lights, no power) and, as they search, he attacks Lincoln.

Lincoln is infected but this turns out to be good because Lincoln's infection allows Walter to figure out that they need massive amounts of fat to transform from human into these new Porcupine creatures (over 300 pounds of fat) which leads Peter, Astrid and Olivia to realize that they may be stealing fat from clinics.

Lincoln's cured by Walter and they catch the bad guy but Broyles learns that Olivia was working on the case. And you think she's in trouble when Broyles shows up but he tells here, "A Fringe Division with an Olivia Dunham is better than a Fringe Division without one."

Then we learn that a ship (looks like an oil tanker) has all these other genetically mutated people in cells on board.

It was a strange ending.

But if you're not getting why the whole thing was a cheat, they kept Peter and Olivia apart all damn season.

When the Watcher told Peter the truth, the next scene needed to be Peter and Olivia. We never got that scene, the one where they both know together that they're meant for each other. And after keeping them apart ALL DAMN SEASON the writers owed us that scene.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, April 6, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Home Depot gets sued by the US Justice Dept over the firing of a National Guard member, KRG President Massoud Barzani visits the US and discusses Article 140 (and more), now Nouri doesn't want Tareq al-Hashemi to return to Iraq, Ammar al-Hakim calls out Nouri's raid on the Communist Party last week, and more. Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is currently on a diplomatic tour of the surrounding region having already visited Qatar and currently Saudia Arabia. Raman Brosk (AKnews) reports that State of Law is arguing that al-Hashemi should not be allowed to re-enter Iraq and Iraqiya's spokesperson Maisoun al-Damlouji is responding, "This is not acceptable at all. Hashemi is the vice president of the Republic and he will return to the region." In December, after most US troops left, Nouri al-Maliki upped the political crisis by insisting that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post and that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested on charges of 'terrorism.' Both al-Mutlaq and al-Hashemi are members of Iraqiya (both are also Sunni) which is the political slate that won the most votes in the March 7, 2010 elections. Nouri's State of Law slate came in second to Iraqiya. The two slates are political rivals. As an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers observed at Inside Iraq this week: In a press conference Maliki said that he had a criminal file on Hashimi that he had been sitting on for three years, and was now ready to prosecute him. For the objective observer, the timing of this announcement was telling. [. . .] Confessions of Hashimi's security personnel were aired on state television and an arrest warrent for Hashim himself was issued and also made public on state TV -- All this publicity on Maliki's side in order to burn the bridges and make any political deal impossible in this country where government is glued together with political deals. A day after al-Hashemi went to the KRG, Nouri issued the arrest warrant. Tareq al-Hashemi has remained in the KRG as a guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani. Sunday he left for a diplomatic tour of some of the neighboring Iraq countries. He has visited Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Providing background on Nouri's relationships with Qatar and Saudi Arabia would require many, many snapshots. So we'll just drop back to last week's Arab League Summit held in Baghdad. Abeer Mohammed and Khalid Walid (Journal of Turkish Weekly) report: While Iraq hoped the high-profile Arab League summit in Baghdad last week would mark a step forward in relations with its neighbours, observers say many regional states used the event to snub the government. Although officials declared the event a success, only ten leaders from the 22 Arab League member states turned up. Apart from Kuwait, no Gulf state was represented at a high level. Saudi Arabia and Oman merely sent their Cairo-based Arab League ambassadors. As demonstrated by actions this week (see Liz Sly's Washington Post report from yesterday) the Arab League Summit changed nothing of importance for Iraq. This despite all the money spent on it. And several countries were able to use the summit to send a message. That message was received loud and clear by Nouri who responded by attacking Qatar and Saudi Arabia over the weekend -- before al-Hashemi arrived there. And the attacks continue. Today Alsumaria reports that Nouri's State of Law again elevated the rhetoric against Saudi Arabia and Qatar today as Abbas al-Bayati declared that the press for both countries was carrying out their governments' attack on Iraq's government. AFP reports that a spokesperson for Tareq al-Hashemi declared today -- as al-Hashemi has all week -- that he will return to Iraq after he's concluded his diplomatic mission and "that for Hasemi to remain abroad was 'the wish of his enemies,' in a clear reference to Maliki." There is something very comical about Nouri's attitude as the week ends. It started with him and his spokespeople blustering and bellowing about how Qatar would hand al-Hashemi over to Baghdad (they didn't) and how INTERPOL would show up if needed to remove al-Hashemi from Qatar and bring him to Baghdad. That was never going to happen as we explained on Sunday and Monday -- it is written into INTERPOL's charter that it does not take part in political arrests and that is so that INTERPOL will be seen as impartial. So he demanded Qatar hand the vice president over and then demanded the same of Saudi Arabia, insisted INTERPOL would return him and now Nouri's position is that Tareq al-Hashemi should not be allowed to re-enter the country? In addition to the laughs prompted by Nouri's flip-flops, grasp that Nouri's court is supposed to try al-Hashemi May 3rd. And Nouri's position is that al-Hashemi can't come back into Iraq? In Iraq, the political crisis continues and intensifies. The March 7, 2010 elections were followed by over 8 months of gridlock known as Political Stalemate I. Nouri al-Maliki did not want to abide by the Constitution or the will of the Iraqi people expressed at the ballot box. He did not want to stop being prime minister. In 2014 (or 2015 the way Nouri drags his feet), this may be an issue again because although when Iraqis took to the streets in large number protesting against corruption in his government and more (February 25, 2011), he swore he would not run for a third term, his spokespeople and attorney have repeatedly told the press that Nouri is not bound by that and may decide to run again. With the White House backing him for a second term, Nouri knew he didn't have to compromise and could just stomp his feet in the hopes of getting his way. In an attempt to soothe the stubborn child, the political blocs agreed to end the stalemate by signing off on the US-brokered Erbil Agreement. That was November 2010. By the end of December 2010, it was obvious that the only thing Nouri really intended to honor from that agreement was that he would get a second term as prime minister. For months, the other political blocs waited and waited for the agreement to be implemented. It never way. Over the summer last year, the Kurds made it clear that the country needed to return to the Erbil Agreement. Iraqiya quickly joined that call, then Moqtada al-Sadr and then others. Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) observes: Many Iraqis -- Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds alike -- fear that the U.S. withdrawal has given Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, a conservative Shiite Islamist, free rein to consolidate power and turn himself into an intractable strongman. Those worries were only compounded when the White House last month named Brett McGurk the new U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. As adviser to the past three envoys, McGurk had garnered a reputation among Iraqi political elites as a die-hard Maliki booster who turns a blind eye to the prime minister's emerging dictatorial streak. "They basically sent someone from Maliki's office," one Sunni politician grumbled privately about the Obama administration's choice. In December of last year, when Nouri went publicly nuts (deploying tanks to circle the homes of political rivals, for example), Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani began calling (December 21st) for a national conference to address the crisis. That was supposed to have taken place yesterday; however, it was called off at the last minute. Al Mada notes that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is calling for a new date to be set for a national conference to resolve the ongoing crisis in Iraq and that State of Law, as evidenced by the statemetns of Hussein Shahristani, is pleased that the conference was cancelled. In what Nouri hopes is an isolated move, Al Mada reports State of Law MP Jawad Albzona has withdrawn from Nouri's coalition and stated that he would prefer to be independent which, he believes, will allow him to better represent Iraqis by distancing himself from political squabbles and moving towards the needs of the citizens of Iraq. He is the second State of Law MP to announce a departure since 2010. Since December, he has repeatedly made public statements decrying the current political crisis and asking for the politicians to work on issues directly effecting the lives of Iraqis. An issue effecting Iraq's internally displaced refugees is living among piles of garbage Al Rafidayn reports. Currently the United Nations estimates there are 1.3 million displaced Iraqis within Iraq. On Albzona's departure from State of Law, Al Rafidayn notes the MP declared he will remain a member of the National Alliance (a larger coalition of Shi'ite political blocs). Meanwhile the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (also a member of the National Alliance), Ammar al-Haskim, has weighed in on two key issues. Al Mada reports he declared the poverty program of the last two years a failure, noting that it has not reduced the rate of poverty in Iraq. He is calling not only for a new program and strategy but for the budget to reflect a strong goal to reduce poverty. In regard to the raid Nouri ordered last week on the Communist Party's newspaper headquarters, al-Hakim stated that when security forces violate the rights of the people negative images are reinforced and that the role of the security forces is to protect freedoms (not attack them). He decried the arrest of 12 people in the raid on the Communist Party. Last week, Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi condemned the raid. From the March 28th snapshot: We'll close by noting the disturbing news of the day and news that wasn't picked up and front paged but should have been. Nouri al-Maliki is now going after Iraq's Communist Party. Al Mada reports that Nouri's security forces stormed the political party's headquarters and arrested 12 people who were arrested and questioned about protests. Ali Hussein (Al Mada) notes the Communist Party has a long history of fighting for Iraq, not against it. Hussein reports that Nouri's tanks have been sent to surround the homes of Communist Party members in Baghdad. Those who paid attention in December will remember that Nouri ordered tanks to circle the homes of Iraqiya members right before he demanded that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his posts and ordered the arrest of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi on charges of terrorism. Both al-Mutlaq and al-Hashemi are members of Iraqiya as well as Sunnis. Ali Hussein notes that Nouri also ordered tanks to circle the homes of Communist Party members last year. The Iraq Communist Party Tweeted last week, "Iraqi Communist Party condemns raid of its newspaper headquarters by security forces." They state that the raid took place late in the evening Monday and that their headquarters were ransacked by federal police who entered claiming that they were doing a sweep of the area for the Arab League Summit. An old weapon ("piece of junk") was on the roof and they used this as a pretext to arrest 12 of the people who were held overnight and only released after they signed documents -- documents they were forced to sign while blindfolded. While they were held, the federal police returned to the now empty headquarters and ransacked the place. Add a third political leader to the list. In DC yesterday, Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani was asked if Nouri's authoritarian ways were reason to be concerned as he consolidated complete control of the security forces and Barzani responded, "The new Iraqi army needs to be built on the basis of being the army of the country, not an army of an individual. So to be an army that belongs to the people of Iraq and the state of Iraq in accordance with the Constitution and the laws. And also the Iraqi army should not interfere in the internal political differences of the country. " ABC News notes, "Barzani, who was in Washington to meet with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, said that unless Baghdad resolves simmering disputes involving its ethnic and political factions, the situation would be ripe for an autocratic government." Hurriyet Daily News adds, "The Obama administration has pressed Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) leader Masoud Barzani to re-engage with Baghdad amid high tension over the status of fugitive Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi. Al-Hashemi arrived in Saudi Arabia on April 4 and accused his country's prime minister of waging a systematic campaign against Sunni Arabs in Iraq." Today's Zaman reports: "Barzani visited the US to complain about Maliki," said one diplomat on Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity. Barzani met with President Barack Obama and with Vice President Joe Biden separately on Wednesday, and told them that Maliki is consolidating power in a dictatorial way. He said Obama and Biden reassured him that the United States would remain committed to cooperation with Kurdistan and committed to helping Iraq solve its serious internal political problems. [. . .] Bilgay Duman, an expert on Iraq from the Ankara-based Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Research (ORSAM), stated that Barzani's reception by high-ranking US officials should be perceived as a warning to Maliki to abandon his sectarian-based policies in the country. Iraq is suffering from severe instabilities due to daily clashes between Shiite and Sunni groups, which escalated after US troops withdrew from the country in December. The KRG is striving to maintain balanced ties with Iraq's rival Sunni and Shiite groups as they vie for influence in the country following the US withdrawal. Turkey is very critical of Maliki, saying the Shiite prime minister is using the arrest warrant against Hashemi to sideline Sunni political groups in the administration and hoard power for dominance of the Shiite bloc. "The stance of Arbil and Ankara against Baghdad are very much in line, due to the fact that both are disturbed by Maliki's dictatorial government," affirmed Ali Semin, a Middle East expert from the Turkish think-tank -- the Wise Men Center for Strategic Studies (BİLGESAM). He added that the US is now trying to forge ties between KRG and Turkey in order to secure the unity of Iraq. So that we're all on the same page, the 2005 Iraqi Constitution includes Article 140: First: The executive authority shall undertake the necessary steps to complete the implementation of the requirements of all subparagraphs of Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law. Second: The responsibility placed upon the executive branch of Iraqi Transitional Government stipulated in Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law shall extend and continue to the executive authority elected in accordance with this Constitution, provided that it accomplishes completely (normalization and census and concludes with a referendum in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the will of their citizens), by a date not to exceed the 31st of December 2007. The census and referendum are to take place no later than December 31, 2007. Nouri al-Maliki becomes prime minister in 2006. He took an oath to the Iraqi Constitution. He never ordered the census or the referendum before the end of 2007. His first term ended with him unable/unwilling to abide by the Constitution he took an oath to uphold. There has been no census or referendum. He is and remains in violation of the Constitution. With that understanding, we'll now note what KRG President Massoud Barzani declared yesterday in DC at the forum put on by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on the issue of Kirkuk and Article 140. President Massoud Barzani: Article 140 is a Constitutional Article and it needed a lot of discussions and talks until we have reached this. This is the best way to solve this problem. It's regarding solving the problems of the territories that have been detached from Kurdistan Region. In fact, I do not want to call it "disputed areas" because we do not have any disputes on that. For us it is very clear for that. But we have shown upmost flexibility in order to find the legal and the Constitutional solution for this problem. And in order to pave the way for the return of these areas, according to the Constitution and the basis of law and legally to the Kurdistan Region. And we have found out that there is an effort to evade and run away from this responsibility for the last six years in implementing this Constitutional Article. And I want to assure you that implementing this Constitutional Article is in the interest of Iraq and in the interest of stability. There are people who think that time would make us forget about this. They are wrong. Time would not help forget or solve the problem. These are Kurdish countries, part of Kurdistan and it has to return to Kurdistan based on the mechanism that has been stipulated in the Constitution. And at the end of the day, as the Constitution stipulates, it's going back to what the people want to determine. So there is a referendum for the people of these areas and they will decide. If the people decide to joing Kurdistan Region, they're welcome and if the people decide not to, at that time, we will look at any responsibility on our shoulders so people would be held responsible for their own decisions. Barzani is not calling for any additional steps to resolving the issue of Kirkuk, he is only asking that what was already agreed to and written into the Constitution be followed. In addition to taking questions, Barzani delivered a speech at the forum and you can see yesterday's snapshot for that. President Massoud Barzani: As far as the second part of your question, the Erbil Agreement. In fact, the agreement was not only for the sake of forming the government and forming the three presidencies -- the presidency, the Speakership of Parliament and premier. In fact, it was a package -- a package that included a number of essential items. First, to put in place a general partnership in the country. Second, commitment to the Constitution and its implementation, the issue of fedarlism, the return of balance of power and especially in all the state institutions,the establishment in [. . .] mainly in the armed forces and the security forces, the hydrocarbons law, the Article 140 of the Constitution, the status of the pesh merga. These were all part of the package that had been there. Had this Erbil Agreement been implemented, we would not have faced the situation that we are in today. Therefore, if we do not implement the Erbil Agreement then there would certainly be problems in Iraq. Again, the political crisis did not start over the accusations Nouri hurled at Saleq al-Mutlaq and Tareq al-Hashemi. The failure to follow the Erbil Agreement -- the document ending Political Stalemate I -- is what caused the current crisis -- a crisis that has now lasted over a year and four months. Turning to the United States, yesterday Caitlin Duffy (Forbes) reported of Home Depot, "The home improvement retailer's shares are once again hitting fresh multi-year highs, with the stock up 1.4% on the day at $50.56 as of 12:35 p.m. in New York trade. Call activity on Home Depot suggests at least one strategist is gearing up for the bullish momentum to continue in the near term." But how long will the outlook remain bullish as word leaks out about a new lawsuit? The US Justice Dept issued the following yesterday: WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department announced today the filing of a complaint in U.S. District Court in Arizona against Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. for violating the employment rights of California Army National Guard soldier Brian Bailey under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The department's complaint alleges that Home Depot willfully violated USERRA by terminating Bailey's employment because of his military service obligations. Bailey, an Iraq War veteran, worked at a Home Depot store in Flagstaff, Ariz., as a department supervisor while at the same time serving in the California Army National Guard. Throughout his employment with Home Depot, Bailey took periodic leave from work to fulfill his military obligations with the National Guard. According to the Justice Department's complaint, Bailey was removed from his position as a department supervisor after Home Depot management officials at the Flagstaff store openly expressed their displeasure with his periodic absences from work due to his military obligations and further indicated their desire to remove him from his position because of those absences. Bailey initially filed a complaint with the Labor Department's Veterans' Employment and Training Service, which investigated the matter, determined that the complaint had merit and referred the matter to the Justice Department. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division subsequently decided to represent Bailey in this matter and filed this lawsuit on his behalf. USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating against National Guard soldiers, such as Bailey, with respect to employment opportunities based on their past, current or future uniformed service obligations. Under USERRA, it is unlawful for an employer to terminate an employee because he has to miss work due to military obligations. Among other things, the suit seeks compensation for Bailey's lost wages and benefits, liquidated damages and reinstatement of Bailey's employment with Home Depot. "The men and women who wear our nation's uniform need to know that they do not have to sacrifice their job at home in order to serve our country," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "The Civil Rights Division is committed to aggressive enforcement of USERRA to protect the rights of those who, through their bravery and sacrifice, secure the rights of all Americans." "The National Guard is composed primarily of civilian men and women who serve their country, state and community on a part-time basis," said Acting U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel. "National Guard members, and their employers, should know that we will employ all of USERRA's tools to protect the employment rights of those in uniform while they sacrifice time away from their families and jobs for training and active duty." This case is being handled by the Employment Litigation Section of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona. Additional information about USERRA can be found on the Justice Department websites www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp and www.servicemembers.gov, as well as the Labor Department website www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/main.htm. 12-434 Civil Rights Division Staying with the issue of the US military, on Saturday, David Brown (Washington Post) reported on studies -- apparent Pentagon studies -- that researched the signature wounds of the modern wars and demonstrated a weak link between TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) and PTSD (Post-Trumatic Stress Disorder) and "outright violent behavior." As we have noted for years here, those suffering from PTSD are far more likely to self-harm than to harm others. That was true not only in the early research on PTSD during these wars but true as well when you go back to studies on similar conditions such as what was once known as "shell shocked." In all of that, self-harm could and sometimes did include self-medicating with alcohol or other drugs. What's distrubing about the Post report is "outright violent behavior." Some might agree (some might not) with the conclusion that a drunken brawl with a friend isn't "outright violent behavior." I would hope at this late date, in the US, no one would conclude -- as the Pentagon apparently has -- that domestic abuse is not "outright violent behavior." Domestic abuse is a crime. it is a serious crime. The military can do whatever they want with drunken brawls among friends, I don't really care (some people may), but when you classify domestic abuse as something other than "outright violent behavior," we do have a problem -- a very serious problem. Domestic violence is a crime, it is violence and I think a strong argument can be made that it's a form of terrorism. As Maureen Orth detailed in Vanity Fair nearly nine years ago, there are life and death consequences. The US military has a long history of looking the other way when a woman is assaulted or raped. Supposedly that's changed. We heard it over and over, for example, from then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates when he would appear before the Congress. But if the climate actually had changed, beating a woman would not be classified as something less than "outright violent behavior." In related news on this still-existing culture of denial within the higher ranks of the US military, Sandra S. Park (ACLU Blog of Rights) noted the following disturbing event on Monday: While it is estimated that over 19,000 sexual assaults occurred in the military in 2010, a rate far higher than among civilians, the government has failed systematically to investigate complaints, appropriately punish perpetrators, and treat trauma and other health conditions suffered by survivors. The profound personal and social consequences that arise from the government's systemic failures are powerfully profiled in the new film, The Invisible War. Turning a blind eye to these crimes has allowed them to continue, imperiling the lives of victims and degrading their service. On Friday, a federal district court judge cited yet another example of the military's unwillingness to acknowledge sexual violence within its ranks. In response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Service Women's Action Network (SWAN) and the ACLU seeking records from the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs regarding their response to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence in the military, the Army Crime Records Center claimed it couldn't provide records about "sexual assault" because its records are organized by specific criminal offenses such as "rape," not under the general heading of "sexual assault." "'Sexual assault' is easily read as encompassing rape and other non-consensual sexual crimes defined in the Army's offense codes," the judge found. "The fact that the agency was unwilling to read the Plaintiffs' request liberally to include such terms seems to be almost willful blindness." The judge further ruled that several other sections of the Departments failed to adequately respond to our requests and ordered the government to fulfill its obligations under FOIA. We will continue to press the government for the information we need to truly understand, address, and end the epidemic of sexual violence in the military. iraq al mada mcclatchy newspapers hannah allem the sacremento bee the turkish weekly abeer mohammed khalid walid the washington post liz sly abc news hurriyet daily news alsumaria al rafidayn the washington post david brown vanity fair maureen orth

Nikita or Fringe

Thursday. Almost the weekend.

Interesting e-mail from Jane asking me if I had to choose which show to cancel, would I pick Fringe or Nikita?

Both shows air on Fridays, by the way, one on Fox, the other on the CW.

If I had to pick, like if a gun was to my head, I would say cancel Fringe.

How come?

They wasted the entire season making us think Peter was on another planet and keeping Peter and Olivia apart [if you don't know what I'm talking about, read my "I was right and Watchers are idiots (Fringe)" from last Saturday]. They have jerked us around like that before but never this far into a season. So what are they going to do next season? Spend 20 episodes keeping Peter and Olivia apart via some new reason?

It just gets old.

I like the show and plan to watch next year if it's back on but if I had to choose between it and Nikita on which one got renewed, I'd pick Nikita.

Nikita's in the midst of a major storyline trying to take down Division and Amanda and Percy. And on this show, when Nikita and Michael are apart, it's because one of them has to go to another country. Not because the writers are scheming up ways to break them up for most of the season.

Also Nikita's always moving forward.

Fringe? There were two episodes this season that just flat out sucked. They were basically stand alone episodes. That's why they sucked. They've had them before on the show and they've been interesting. But this season we've been made to root for Peter to travel to another world and we really didn't have the time to stop and waste on two bad Night Stalker-type episodes.

My opinion. You can disagree.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, April 5, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the national conference does not take place, KRG President Massoud Barzani makes clear that the Kurds will not be put off any more, al-Hashemi continues his diplomatic tour, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls for Iraq to halt executions, and more.

Oil, if Iraq didn't have it, the illegal war might never have started in 2003. Oil continues to be a source of violence and conflict within Iraq. For example, an apparent bombing has stopped a pipeline. Ali Berat Meric and Emre Peker (Bloomberg News) report that the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik pipeline is not transporting oil to Turkey currently after a bombing took place within Turkey damaging the pipeline. Orhan Coskun (Reuters) reports, "There were three almost simultaneous explosions at separate points along the pipeline in the Idil area, a Turkish security official said."

There's violence and the conflict? At this point, that's primarily between the central-government in Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government. Nouri took the ongoing disagreement to a new level this week when his government accused the Kurds of selling blackmarket oil to the government of Iran. Alsumaria TV reported the Kurdistan Alliance denied the charges and accused Deputy Prime Minister of Energy Hussein al-Shahristani of declaring war on them and they are calling for him to apologize to the Kurdish people for his accusations. As RT noted, the Kurds were already unhappy with Baghdad over a $1.5 billion debt that they say the centeral-government owes them and that the refusal to pay led the KRG to halt their Baghdad oil deliveries at the start of the week after ten consecutive months of no payment from Baghdad. Alsumaria quotes KRG Natrual Resources Minister Ashti Hawrami telling the press, "Kurdistan Government will not resume oil export before it reaches a comprehensive agreement with Baghdad about payment methods and dues to oil companies in the Region. Kurdistan Government will only resume oil export when it reaches a general agreement with Baghdad." The editorial board of The National offered:

This is, above all else, a political disagreement. And it's a disagreement that is harming both sides. Kurdish leaders are asserting their autonomy that, in terms of state institutions and security forces, is already a fact on the ground. A charitable view is that Mr Al Maliki is trying to unify a national energy sector; an alternative explanation is that Baghdad is trying to monopolise national resources for the exclusive benefit of his constituency.

The casualty in this case is the national economic project. After more than three years of haggling, Iraq's oil law seems no closer to being passed, which in turn harms foreign investment in the sector. Baghdad objects to the deals the KRG has struck independently with oil majors; on Monday, Exxon Mobil confirmed that it had frozen an exploration contract in the Kurdish region because of pressure from Baghdad.

ExxonMobil may or may not have confirmed that. Reuters notes today, "The central government now says that Exxon has written to it twice since early March to say that its deals with the Kurds have been suspended. The Kurds say Exxon has not halted work in Kurdistan and have challenged Baghdad to publish Exxon's letters." And the battle over ExxonMobil is being watched as the Reuters points out:

Oil majors are now waiting on the sidelines, watching the outcome of Exxon's balancing act between Baghdad and Arbil, the northern capital. France's Total is the latest company to provoke Baghdad's ire by acknowledging interest in Kurdistan. "What companies are trying to do is get to the point where they are investing in the north and the south," said one industry source working in Iraq. "But at the moment they cannot do that. And that is what you have to build in when you decide whether to move in or not. You balance the risks."

So the status of the ExxonMobil deal with the KRG is not known at this point. What is known?

Alice Fordham and Dan Morse (Washington Post) report:

Relations between Erbil and Baghdad were strained even before the controversy over the Exxon Mobil deal flared anew. Kurdish President Massoud Barzani delivered a stinging speech on Thursday in Washington that ripped into Maliki as an autocrat.

"Iraq is facing a serious crisis," he said. He insisted that oil deals struck in the autonomous Kurdish region were legal.

KRG President Massoud Barzani spoke in DC this afternoon at a Washington Institute for Near East Policy event. His speech was delivered in Kurdish and translated.

KRG President Massoud Barzani: My visit to Washington came at the invitation of the US government in order to talk about the situation in Iraq, in the wider region, and also the situation between Kurdistan region and Iraq in detail. Yesterday, during our meetings with the President, the Vice President and other officials of the US administration, we have talked about all of these issues in detail. I'm sure many of you know that the people of Kurdistan have sacrificed a great deal and have shed a lot of blood for the sake of building a federal, democratic and pluralistic Iraq. But you always are mindful of the fact that, had it not been for the US support and assistance, without the sacrifices of men and women in uniform, the sacrifices that have been made, this objective would not have been achieved and the regime would not have been toppled. So we got a golden opportunity to build a new Iraq, an Iraq that's federa, democratic, l pluralistic, an Iraq that's new and better. And also to be clear that what's the composition of this new Iraq? It's three main pillars that constitute Iraq. It's the Kurds, the Shias and the Sunnis. Having said that, we have to be mindful of the fact that we have other national minorities living with us, that they have to be respected, they have to be equally treated. We've got the Turkomen, the Chaldean Assyrian, the Syriac and also an Albanian minority. But we also have to realize that in terms of nationalities, Iraq is made up of two main nationalities: Arabs and Kurds. I can say that in Kurdistan we have an experience that to a great extent has been a successful one. I cannot claim that this is an ideal experience without any flaws or shortcomings. But I can say for sure that the security stability situation is very good. The economy and social activies are good. Socially we have made a lot of progress. We in the region have adopted a tolerant policy. We have not resorted to revenge and retaliation. We have opened a new page and therefore we have been able to provide a safe and secure environment and to protect our people. And for that, we are grateful to the support and assistance that we have received from own own people but also thanks to the dedication of the security and law enforcement people. And the safe and secure environment has been the reason for inviting and attracting foreign companies and here lately American oil companies have also started to come to the region and start their investment and other activities. I will give you some brief examples to show you the difference that we have made and theprogress that we have made. After the fall of the regime in 2003, the GDP [Gross Domestic Product] per capita for individuals in the Kurdistan region was $275 per annum and now it exceeds $5,000. And also the electricity rate was 57%. It has reduced or dropped to 16%. Regarding other services and mainly electricity, we've been able to improve that sector. I can say that we're almost able to provide electritiy to all the main cities and townships and rural areas. In certain areas, we have got four hours of electricity. What has come to the Iraqi Treasury from 2003 until now, it has exceeded half-of-a-trillion [dollars]. You can check that information to see what kind of electricity has been provided in other parts of Iraq which does not exceed three to four hours. There are one million people under arms [security forces] but still terrorism and the threat of terrorism continues. Iraq is facing a serious crisis today. Yesterday, we have discussed that very frankly with the President, the Vice President and it's going to one-man rule. It's going towards control of all the establishments of state. So we have got a situation or we ended up having a situation in Baghdad where one individual is the Prime Minister and at the same time he's the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he's the Minister of Defense, he's the Minister of the Interior and the Chief of the Intelligence and lately he has sent a correspondence to the president of the Central Bank in Iraq that that establishment would also come under the Prime Minister. Where in the world would you find such an example? We as the people of Kurdistan, we believe that this government has come to be as a result of the blood that we have shed and as a result of the sacrifices that we have contributed. We are eager to see the situation reformed. Therefore, we will not leave Baghdad for others. So, therefore, we see the situation in Iraq that it requires to be ruled in partnership -- for that power-sharing and partnership to consist of the Kurds and the Arabs -- both the Shia Arabs and the Sunni Arabs. Of course, we have to be mindful of the fact that the Iraqis themselves have to find solutions for the problems. When they try to find solutions for themselves, then their friends in the international community can help. But if they wait for others, for the outsiders to help solve their problems, they will wait forever and they will not see solutions. They have to do it themselves. It's very natural to have relations with the neighboring countries and also with the international community. But also specifically with the neighboring countries in order to exchange views and to exchange ideas about this but not to give them an opportunity to interfere int he internal affairs of Iraq or for them to come to solve the problems or for them to act on behalf of the Iraqi people. The Iraqis have to do it themselves. But my visit has nothing to do with the other visit it was separate.

The speech was a declaration of the need for the Kurdish leaders to do what is best for the Kurdish people. This was a message to Baghdad and Nouri, of course, but it was also a message to the White House and making clear that pretty words and empty promises will not be accepted by the Kurdish politicians any longer because the Kurdish people deserve more than that.

This was clear in the question and answers that followed. For example, in reply to questions from Barbara Slavin about the oil issue and whether the KRG might move from semi-autonomous to autonomous (breaking completely with Baghdad), Barzani replied through his translator:

We have been waiting for the last six years for promises that were not delivered, for agreements that were not honored. We have waited and everytime they give us an excuse. Once they say that there are elections in Baghdad, another time, elections in the region. Once there is election in the United States. Then there is the Arab Summit, etc., etc. We have found out that we have passed six years waiting for these promises to be delivered. We cannot anymore wait for unfulfilled promises and undelivered promises. There has to be a specific and determined timeline for this to be delivered. We got tired of this and we are fed up with that. Therefore, what we will do is that we will work on the preferred option to work with the other Iraqi groups to find a solution. If not, then we go back to our people and to put all of these realities inf ront of our people for the people to be free to make their own decision. As far as the issue of the oil is concerned, in 2007, when we were working and we reached an agreement on a draft oil hydrocarbons law, we both agreed that if that law did not pass in the Parliament until May that same year that both sides -- the KRG and the federal government -- are free to continuing signing contracts with international oil companies. Therefore, whatever we have done in the region, we have not violated the Constitution. We have acted legally and Constitutionally within the framework of the Constitution.

Did you pay attention to all the excuses that have been given to the Kurds to wait? Including a US election? This speech was a declaration of independence on the part of the Kurds. The basic premise Massoud Barzani has outlined is: We will not be bound by empty words no matter who speaks them.

Many of the remarks were also directed at Nouri al-Maliki. Today was the day Nouri was supposed to demonstrate what a leader he was. The political crisis would finally be addressed via a national conference with the various political blocs participating. News of the conference's death emerged yesterday.

The political crisis (Political Stalemate II) has been ongoing since at least December 2010. Political Stalemate I (eight months of inaction following the March 7, 2010 elections) ended only when all parties agreed to the US-brokered Erbil Agreement. This agreement found all blocs making concessions. Nouri wanted to remain prime minister, so he agreed to practically any demand/request on any other issue. Having been made prime minister-designate, he immediately began saying that the Erbil Agreement would have to wait on certain things -- for example, he said, it would take time to create the independent national security commission to be headed by Iraqiya's Ayad Allawi (Iraqiya won the most votes in the election). These things would be a matter of days. But as the weeks progressed, he made clear the promise to resolve the issue of Kirkuk wasn't going to be dealt with by calling off the planned census at the start of the December. As December was winding down, he was moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister and it was clear to many that the Erbil Agreement was being tossed.

Nouri went a few months claiming it would be implemented, give it time. Stalling is Nouri's tactic, after all. Then his lackeys -- in Iraq and the US -- began putting forward the argument that Nouri didn't have to abide by the Erbil Agreement it was illegal (many US lackeys were too ignorant of the law and used the term "unconstitutional" -- there is nothing in Iraq's Constitution that outlaws the Erbil Agreement or anything similar to it, the ignorant most likely would have used the term "extra-Constitutional" if they had any education in the law). The problem with the ignorant making legal arguments is that although they are highly amusing they fail to grasp that law is carried through. Meaning if I argue the Erbil Agreement is illegal, I'm not just giving Nouri permission to ignore it, I'm arguing that Nouri's second term as prime minister is illegal because that resulted from the Erbil Agreement. Logic is not a skill that the lackeys possess.

By last summer, the Kurds were tired of waiting for Nouri to implement the Erbil Agreement and began demanding that he do so. Iraqiya, Moqtada al-Sadr and others joined that call.

The national conference was supposed to address the Erbil Agreement. Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and President Jalal Talabani both began calling for a national conference on December 21st. Nouri was the stumbling block.

He said one wasn't needed. He also argued that it shouldn't be a called a national conference. Then he argued that all political blocs shouldn't be invited, just some. He tried to argue in February that any such conference should be confined solely to the three presidencies (Talabani, Nujaifi and Nouri). He argued about what should be on the agenda and what shouldn't. He argued so much that the conference that many once thought would take place in January kept getting kicked back and kicked back. As March loomed, Nouri began insisting that the Arab League Summit (March 29th) would have to be the focus and that any national conference would have to wait until after that.

All that stalling. Stalling was brought in Barzani's speech today. Tomorrow, we'll try to cover more of the questions and answers that followed his speech (Article 140 if nothing else). But we'll move over to another political problem. Salah Nasrawi (Al Ahram) reports that Iraqiya continues to be opposed to US President Barack Obama's nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq. They see him as too close to Nouri making him "biased" and they also see him as "unfit" and hostile to Iraqiya as well:

Iraqi media outlets reported that in his letter to Congress Allawi accused McGurk of "meddling in Iraq's internal affairs," including in efforts to weaken the bloc's negotiating position with Al-Maliki.

The letter detailed how McGurk had managed to convince about a dozen mostly Shia members to quit the Iraqiya bloc, a move that led to criticisms that it was a purely Sunni group and denied it the character of a secular alliance.

Nouri was mentioned today by more than Barzani. Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is currently on a diplomatic tour of countries in the region. Since late December, Nouri has been attempting to arrest him for 'terrorism.' al-Hashemi has stayed in the KRG as a guest of Talabani and Barzani. He has visited Qatar and Saudi Arabia thus far and has repeatedly stated that he intends to return to the KRG as soon as his diplomatic tour is over. Middle East Online reports today:

In an interview with the pan-Arab Al-Jazeera network aired late on Wednesday, Hashemi said the accusations against him of running a death squad "have a sectarian dimension," noting that he is the "fifth Sunni figure to be targeted" by Iraq's Shiite-led government.

"More than 90 percent of the detainees in Iraq are Sunnis," said Hashemi, who pledged to return to Iraq to carry out his vice presidential duties despite Maliki's demands for him to face trial.

Hashemi sharply criticised Maliki, saying that "corruption in the country is widespread" and warning that the prime minister's policies were threatening "the unity of Iraq."

Alsumaria notes that Jalal Talabani is calling for a new date to be set for the national conference.

Turning to the issue of violence, Alsumaria reports that 1 police officer was shot dead in Mosul today and the Mosul home of a manager over passports was damaged by a nearby bombing which may have targeted the home. In addition, Alsumaria notes 2 Iraqi soldiers were shot dead in Baghdad, a Kirkuk roadside bombing left two people injured, a Kirkuk attack (shooting) left one person injured, a Diyala bombing left eight people injured and a home bombing outside Falljua left the wife and daughter of a police officer injured.

Fresh off it's being ranked number three for most executions in one year [see Amnesty International report entitled [PDF format warning] "Death Sentences And Executions 2011."], the government of Iraq gears up to kill more people. Al Rafidayn reports a Babylon court has sentenced two former military officers to death for murder and theft. Louis Charbonneua (Reuters) reported yesterday evening that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon was expressing concern over the death penalty worldwide and specifically in Iraq which, according to the report, executed 80 people from December 2011 to February 2012 versus 68 from January 2011 through November 2011. (In eleven months, they put 68 to death; in December, January and February, they managed to put 80 to death.) He called for Iraqi to put in place "a moratorium on the use of the death penalty." In Amnesty International's "Death Sentences And Executions 2011," they explained:

The government of Iraq rarely discloses information about executions, especially names of those executed and exact numbers. According to Amnesty International information, at least 68 people were executed in Iraq, including two foreigners and three women. Hundreds of people were sentenced to death; 735 death sentences were referred to the Iraqi Presidency for final ratification between January 2009 and September 2011, of which 81 have been ratified. Most death sentences were imposed, and executions carried out, on people convicted of belonging to or involvement in attacks by armed groups, including murder, kidnapping, rape or other violent crimes.

On 16 November, 11 people, including one woman, convicted of terrorism-related offences, were reported to have been executed in al-Kadhimiya Prison in Baghdad. Among the executed men were an Egyptian and a Tunisian national, Yosri Trigui, who was arrested in 2006 by US forces for his alleged involvement in terrorism-related acts. He was sentenced to death by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq (CCCI) for his alleged involvement in a bomb attack in Samarra the same year, in a trial that did not appear to meet international standards. The intervention of Tunisian Ennahda leader Rached Ghannouchi had initially led to a short postponement of the execution.

Trial proceedings before the CCCI were very brief, often lasting only a few minutes before verdicts are handed down. Defendants in criminal cases often complained that "confessions" are extracted under torture and other ill-treatment during pre-trial interrogation. They were often held incommunicado in police stations or in detention without access to their legal representatives or relatives, not brought before an investigative judge within a reasonable time and not told of the reason for their arrest. The "confessions" extracted from them are often accepted by the courts without taking any or adequate steps to investigate defendants' allegations of torture. The "confessions" are also frequently broadcast on the Iraqi government-controlled satellite TV Al Iraqiya, which undermines the presumption of innocence.

Well look at the Peter Gallaghers emerging from their comas. Yes, while you were sleeping, Reid Smith and Glovindria Burgess, we were noting the assault on Iraqi youths. And we'd be thrilled that you showed up, even all this time later, if you didn't show up and show off your ignorance. Glovindria Burgess (Policy Mic) wants to offer a catty, "Emo is understood in the West . . ." You not only don't understand Emo music (in the US), you don't understand rock music so find something else to write about. It should be a crime for you to explicitly flaunt your ignorance. Reid Smith (American Spectator) wants to focus on what's going on in Iraq with the Emo culture there. So he repeats a bunch of tired lies and can't even get the lies correct. What's going on in Iraq is not limited to Iraq. It took place in Mexico (which kind of refutes all the points Smith and Burgess believe they're making) and it took place in Egypt, it's part of a culture of fear and it goes beyond sexuality concerns to sexual identity concerns for those who are afraid (think US reaction to the hippies -- especially to males with 'long hair' back then). The fear-based violence will continue as long as idiots like Smith and Burgess are allowed to prattle on about things they know nothing about. Scott Lang did an amazing job in 2009 covering the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community and, no surprise, he wrote (back in March, for the Guardian) one of the most comprehensive and informative pieces on this latest round of targeting Iraqi youth

A new killing campaign is convulsing Iraq. The express targets are "emos", short for "emotional": a western-derived identity, teenagers adopting a pose of vulnerability, along with tight clothes and skewed hairdos and body piercing. Starting last year, mosques and the media both began raising the alarm about youthful immorality, calling the emos deviants and devil worshippers. In early February, somebody began killing people. The net was wide, definitions inexact. Men who seemed effeminate, girls with tattoos or peculiar jewellery, boys with long hair, could all be swept up. The killers like to smash their victims' heads with concrete blocks.
There is no way to tell how many have died: estimates range from a few dozen to more than 100. Nor is it clear who is responsible. Many of the killings happened in east Baghdad, stronghold of Shia militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army and Asaib Ahl al-Haq (the League of the Righteous). Neither, though, has claimed responsibility. Iraq's brutal interior ministry issued two statements in February. The first announced official approval to "eliminate" the "satanists". The second, on 29 February, proclaimed a "campaign" to start with a crackdown on stores selling emo fashion. The loaded language suggests, at a minimum, that the ministry incited violence. It's highly possible that some police, in a force riddled with militia members, participated in the murders.
It's logical to compare this to the militia campaign against homosexual conduct in 2009, which I documented for Human Rights Watch. Hundreds of men lost their lives then. Gay-identified men have been caught up in these killings as well, and Baghdad's LGBT community is rife with fear. Yet there are differences. The current killings target women as well as men, and children are the preferred victims. It's not quite true to say, as some press reports have suggested, that "emo" is just a synonym for "gay" in Iraq. Rather, immorality, western influence, decadence and blasphemy have come together in a loosely defined, poorly aligned complex of associations: and emo fashion and "sexual perversion" are part of the mix.

Again, if you're trying to find a correlation for what's taking place with regards to Emo in other countries, especially in Arab countries, your template is the hippies. There were some who saw them as gay and lesbian (and there were some who were gay and lesbian, just as there are some Emo who are) but at the root of the sexual panic that created in so many reactionaries was the issue of sexual identity (and identity period) as the hippies exercised and explored freedoms that frightened others who were conditioned not to question or explore. That those conditioned to rigid thinking would recoil explorers and adventurers isn't surprising. And that's not, "Oh, look at the Arab world!" Not only did a signficant number react that way to the hippies in the sixties (and a smaller number continue to despise and attack them today) but there was an organized response to that attempt at freedom. As Noam Chomsky (Information Clearing House) points out this week while documenting the attack on public education in the US:

Forty years ago there was deep concern that the population was breaking free of apathy and obedience.
At the liberal internationalist extreme, the Trilateral Commission -- the nongovernmental policy group from which the Carter Administration was largely drawn -- issued stern warnings in 1975 that there is too much democracy, in part due to the failures of the institutions responsible for "the indoctrination of the young." On the right, an important 1971 memorandum by Lewis Powell, directed to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the main business lobby, wailed that radicals were taking over everything -- universities, media, government, etc. -- and called on the business community to use its economic power to reverse the attack on our prized way of life -- which he knew well. As a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, he was quite familiar with the workings of the nanny state for the rich that he called "the free market."
Since then, many measures have been taken to restore discipline. One is the crusade for privatization -- placing control in reliable hands.

Back to Iraq, the fear is why "satanism" isn't the big charge (sorry, Reid Smith) but "vampirism" is. "Vampires" are even scarier. And the fear is why the most popular report on Alsumaria's website remains, all this time later, the February 3rd report annoucning the presence of "vampires in the holy city of Baghdad" -- vampires who, the report informs you, absorb blood from one another (from each other's wrists -- and, they argue, that is why the Emo kids cover their wrists!). It's panic, pure and simple. And -- again refer to Noam above -- it's not because Iraq is 'backward' (or anymore backward than the US is) but because a lot of changes have taken place in Iraq and a lot of people are frightened. That doesn't justify the attacks on Iraqi youths who are or are suspected of being Emo or LGBT or both -- nothing justifies those attacks -- but it does go to why they take place. It has very little to do with those being attacked, it's a fear inside of the person doing the attacking. All the Emo and/or LGBT kids are doing is trying to find themselves and their place in the world -- something universal about young people everywhere around the world.

And on the topic of Iraqi youth, Karl Kahler (San Jose Mercury News) reports that Iraqi drama students from the American University of Iraq -- Sulaimaniyah have raised "$30,000 to fly to the U.S. this summer to perform at the famed Oregon Shakespeare Festival." Ahmed al-Nuaimi states, "I really feel like a child on Christmas morning who is running down the stairs to find his gift, but it is the gift of a lifetime from the most generous, lovely and kind people I will ever know." John Darling (Oregon's Mail Tribune) notes that the deadline was looming and quotes their professor Peter Friedrich explaining that since the good news emerged they "haven't slept for two days and are up all night, talking and talking about what's going to happen in America." They'll appear at the festival from July 3rd through 8th (off on the Fourth) and Claudia Alick is quoted stating, "We're going to get them to as many Shakespeare plays as possible. We're so excited about this project and the festival is being incredibly generous and providing free arts through the Green Show." She is the associate producer of the Green Show and that part of the festival (June 5th through October 14th) is not only open to the public, it's free of charge. The festival in Ashland, Oregon began in July of 1935 with the support of the city of Ashland and FDR's Works Progress Administration and it has been held yearly with the exception of the WWII years.

iraq

the washington post
alice fordham
the guardian
scott long

noam chomsky

reuters
louis charbonneau
amnesty international

Barack deports more people

Hump day, hump day. I don't get how Barack keeps arresting immigrants and getting away with it. He's already deported more than Bush did in both of his terms.

And I'm sure someone reading thinks, "Good! Damn immigrants!"

Immigrants aren't the problem. Whatever you think they're doing, if you look at it, they're not the problem. "They're taking our jobs!" Well they're usually doing jobs no one wants and if you're bothered by the jobs they're hired for, try to remember that they aren't hiring themselves. So if that's your problem it goes to who's employing them.

"They're changing my country!"

Yes, they are. And that's a good thing. I'm Irish. Irish people who came to the US changed it. All immigrants do. It's a way for us to grow and be something bigger and better. I understand that when immigrants speak another language it can be frightening. That's not sarcasm. It really can be. While, in Europe, people speak many different languages, in this country we generally don't. And the idea that you're, say, 52 and you're afraid you're going to have to learn a new language, I bet that is scary.

But the reality is you don't have to. English is the language we use. You might want to learn another language or some words from it if you're fortunate enough to be friends with someone who speaks another language.

And I think a lot of the fear of immigrants results (a) from misunderstandings and (b) from people who could explain instead making a point to ridicule people who are frightened.

I don't make fun of people who are frightened. I assume most of us want to be happy and want that for others. And when someone frightens us, it's usually because we feel threatened in some way. And usually we don't need to feel that way and we can get that if we talk it through and think it through.

Anyway, Kate Randall (WSWS) reports:

A six-day sweep by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has resulted in the arrest of more than 3,100 immigrants. The nationwide “Cross Check” operation, the largest such sweep to date, involved more than 1,900 ICE officers and agents in all 50 states, as well as Washington DC, Puerto Rico, and several US territories.

Since the Obama administration initiated “Cross Check,” seven regional and three nationwide sweeps have resulted in more than 7,400 arrests. Those arrested have included both documented and undocumented immigrants, those with criminal records, and individuals who have illegally re-entered the US after being removed by authorities.

The government claims to be targeting immigrants wanted for serious criminal offenses. But immigrant advocates argue that the sweeps are being used as a general deportation tool to round up large numbers of immigrants who have come to the US in search of work, but who have been unable to navigate the bureaucratic and costly immigration system. Also included among those swept up are individuals charged with traffic offenses or accused of petty crimes, such as shoplifting.

I don't know Latinos who think well of him. The ones I know from growing up (our Church is big on immigration and we've always had a large percent as a result) can't believe that when you do the numbers Bush was better for immigrants. They'll ask why people don't get that? And I'll just shrug and say, "They seem really determined to self-delude." And a lot of people do want that because Barack is not a friend of immigrants (unless they're his own family, in which case, convicted of this or that doesn't matter, they get to stay in the country).


Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, April 4, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the Thursday national conference gets the axe, Tareq al-Hashemi continues his diplomatic tour of the region, PTSD issues, and more.

This week's. Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey (first airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network), features coverage of the United National Anti-War Coalition conference in Stamford, Connecticut where both hosts were among the speakers. Another speaker was International Action Center's Sara Flounders.

Sara Flounders: In fighting today's wars, it's more important step is building a movement that acknowledges the relationship between the war at home and the war abroad. It's a big challenge. How dare any US official lecture any, any other country on prisoners, human rights or on democracy. What hypocrisy. This -- this country has the largest prison population in the world and that's not counting the secret prisons, the secret renditions, the secret kidnappings, the drones, it's not counting immigration detention. We need to consciously step back from ever being an echo of the State Dept and their arrogant charges and target other countries. US wars, they rely on an arrogance of empire. Can they once again get a population to believe that humanitarian war is possible? That they're bringing democracy, advancement for women, an end to sectarian violence. We need an anti-war movement that is really, consciously against all US wars. That's simple. And against all the forms that US wars take today. Bombs and occupations, yes. But sanctions, sabotage, drones, media onslaughts, demonetization of leaders, racist stereotypings of whole peoples. We represent here many different political currents and traditions here in this room. And we can't and won't agree on many issues. So how do we proceed how do we stay united and keep our focus? If we focus on US imperialism, on its crimes, whatever our views on many social issues, we will be together because we need an antiwar movement that opposes US war. Consider the US-NATO war against Libya. Eleven countries simultaneously dropping bombs on a country with no means of defense all claiming they were on a humanitarian mission while they target the electric grid, the water supply, civilian communications. Now let's talk about WikiLeaks' latest Stratfor revelation -- and, by the way, Free Bradley Manning -- the latest WikiLeaks' document in the Stratfor files, they describe in some detail the White House meeting that reviews British and French and US Special Forces, units on the ground in Syria, planting bombs, running guns, training and seeking total destabilization. Now that's the truth. UNAC today stands for self-determination and demands that all US troops, drones and sabotage teams out. Unconditional US withdrawal. That's a big contribution, a big step. We can't be making demands on any country at the very time it's under attack, at the time that the bombs are falling, at the time the sanctions are strangling, Today, in the last weeks, we see the most cynical and arrogant approach. Kony. Kony 2012. Right? Invisible children? And what is it? Young people cheering AFRICOM, US troops in Africa? That's the way they sell US wars today. There's a rapidly expanding US military presence in Africa. It includes troops in Uganda, a military mission in Mali, drone bombings in Somalia, political intervention in Sudan, all under the umbrella of AFRICOM. It's blame the victim. It saturates the media and it saturates the mass movement. We need to stand up to it. And a just on a personal level and to give a comparison, there was a time when if a woman was attacked, sexually assaulted, what was the defense of the attacker, of the courts and of the police? It was to ask, what was she wearing? Doing? Where was she walking? That she invited or deserved this attack. And one gain of the women's movement was to say: It's irrelevant. That is irrelevant. That's the way we have to see US wars. That is the way. Let's talk about Syria and Libya and Iraq and Iran and Venezuela and Bolivia and Sudan. US imperialism wants to destroy each of these countries. Not because they've made any compromises to survive -- and they have. But because they've nationalized the source of wealth, because it's US domination, corporate domination, that they want. This empire has problems they can no longer solve. Capitalism can no longer bail itself out with war. The capitalist crisis is global. It's unsolvable So our unity is more important. The United National Anti-War Coalition, UNAC, was founded on the principle of self-determination for all the oppressed nations and people. What do we want to demand that they abolish NATO, we want to talk about march on the RNC and the DNC. Abolish NATO and end the wars abroad.

Yesterday, we noted Margaret Kimberley's speech to the conference. Of the conference, Glen Ford explains:

I was privileged to present the coordinating committee's draft of the Action Plan to UNAC's national conference in Stamford, Connecticut, this past weekend. "This action plan does not just target some U.S. wars," said the committee's statement. "It does not target the currently unpopular wars. It does not shy away from condemning wars that remain acceptable to half the population because the real reasons for them are obscured in the rhetoric of humanitarian intervention. It does not advocate that we avoid putting U.S. boots on the ground by mounting embargoes that bring economic devastation on the peoples of Iran. It does not condone war by other, more sanitized, means. It does not cheer on wars that minimize U.S. combat deaths by the use of robotic unmanned planes or the highly trained murder squads of the Joint Special Operations Command. It does not see war by mercenary as somehow less threatening to the peoples of the world and the U.S. than war by economic draft. It does not give credit to Washington for removing brigades from one country in order to deploy them in the next."

The document demands an end to "all wars, interventions, targeted assassinations and occupations" and U.S. withdrawal from "NATO and all other interventionist military alliances."

UNAC's reasoning is rooted in the principle that all the world's peoples have the inherent right to self-determination, to pursue their own destinies -- the foundation of relations among peoples, enshrined in international law but daily violated by the United States.

Moving from wars to one, Iraq. We're going to do a little exercise first. It's 2016. I decide to throw a party and send out invites to Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor and Al Jazeera), Sam Dagher and Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal), Liz Sly, Alice Fordham, Ernesto Londono and Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post), Jack Healy, Tim Arango. Alissa J. Rubin, Damien Cave, Sabrina Tavernise and Stephen Farrell (New York Times), Nancy A. Youssef, Sahar Issa and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers), Deborah Haynes and James Hider (Times of London), Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, Quil Lawrence and Kelly McEvers (NPR), Borzou Daragahi, Ned Parker, Alexandra Zavis, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times), Lara Jakes, Rebecca Santana, Hamza Hendawi and Brett Barrouquere (Associated Press), Jomana Karadsheh, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Arwa Damon (CNN), Trudy Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer) and Anna Badkhen (San Francisco Chronicle, among others).

That's 34 people. I need a head count so I'm asking everyone to RSVP. It's a week away and only 10 have. That's not a really good sign. 12 show up (11 invited, one not invited). Tim Arango insists he Tweeted his RSVP and since I'm not on Twitter, I missed it. 5 show up just to be kind (Damien Cave, Liz Sly, Borzou Daragahi, Ed O'Keefe and Alissa J. Rubin). 5 show up to tell off the crazy bitch that's slammed everyone online for so many years (Jane Arraf, Arwa Damon, Stephen Farrell, Sam Dagher, Jomana Karadsheh and party crasher David E. Sanger). As we sit down to eat, there is silence that only momentarily vanished during dinner, most people talk to one another, I make some idiotic toast that further alienates everyone present.

The next morning, not even I am stupid enough to delude myself into thinking my dinner party was a success. If someone says to me, "Well people showed up," even I'm not stupid enough to assume they showed up due to some love for me. They showed up for various reasons including manners and to tell me off. I am not idiotic enough to assume that my decision to host a party means my hosting a party makes it a success. Good or bad (and mine was bad), my just hosting a party I invited people too does not make it a success.

The Arab League Summit was not a success for Iraq. Less than half of the heads of countries who are members of the Arab League attended. With the exception of Kuwait, no leader attended because of Nouri. Those other heads of state that attended did so for a variety of reasons but Iraq and Nouri weren't among them.

Today, Liz Sly (Washington Post) offers that "the goodwill generated between Iraq and its Arab neighbors by an extravagant summit in Baghdad last week began unraveling at speed." No goodwill was generated. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani was lavishly praised in public remarks by those attending. And some of that praise was probably for him (he was a gregarious host from all account) but some of the heavy praise was just to make a point -- via contrast -- about Nouri al-Maliki (prime minister and thug of Iraq) who got far less public praise from those attending. When you grasp that most were not there for Nouri and not impressed by Nouri, you can grasp that he's shot himself in the foot every day since as he's verbally attacked Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He has no real ties to the Arab neighbors. If Kuwait didn't want the borders redrawn, they probably wouldn't be as chummy with him as they are.

Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) broke the news this morning that the national conference had been called off according to Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi. Yamei Wang (Xinhua) adds that the the Speaker "attributed the postponement to the mounting differences among political blocs during a meeting by the prepatory committee held on Tuesday." The national conference is something that Jalal Talabani and Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for since December 21st in order to address the ongoing political crisis.

Political Stalemate I (when Nouri wouldn't honor the results of the March 7, 2010 elections) only ended in November 2010 because all parties -- including Nouri -- agreed to the US-brokered Erbil Agreement. Once he was made prime minister -- the main gift to Nouri in the Erbil Agreement -- he tossed it aside, that's December 2010 and the start of Political Stalemate II which has been ongoing ever since. Over the summer, the Kurds began calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement. They were then joined by Iraqiya (who came in first in the March 7, 2010 elections) and Moqtada al-Sadr, among others. The Erbil Agreement found Nouri making various concessions if the others would allow him to remain prime minister. But he got to be prime minister and trashed the agreement, refusing to honor what he agreed to, the very things that made the other political blocs sign off on the agreement.

Liz Sly reports:

Maliki had agreed to hold the reconciliation conference as a last-minute concession to the Sunnis and Kurds ahead of the Baghdad summit, which the government hoped would showcase Iraq as stable, safe and assuming its rightful place in the firmament of Arab nations after the withdrawal of U.S. troops late last year.

But relations with Arab states have since been deteriorating fast, along with any hopes that Iraq will soon be able to resolve its own internal problems. On Sunday, Maliki issued a forceful defense of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, saying his ouster would destabilize the region. On the same day, at a U.S.-backed gathering of "Friends of Syria" in Istanbul, Saudi Arabia endorsed a plan to fund and equip Syrian rebels.

Did Nouri want the meet up to take place? Rami Ruhayem (BBC News) argues that today "his opponents said they would not attend, and his allies said there was no point."

This morning, before the meet-up got the axe, Dar Addustour reported on Nouri's paranoia and how he was girding himself for a possible takeover attempt. He doesn't name Barzani but, as Dar Addustour points out, that is who he's referring to when he frets that he may be replaced. Nouri fears his puppet masters in the US may be about to dump him and that's why Barzani is in DC. (Why would the White House dump him? Nouri thinks they might move towards someone more willing to favor an attack on Syria.) He also fears Tareq al-Hashemi's current diplomatic tour of other countries might have something to do with Arab leaders of other countries gearing up for a coup. Unnamed confidants of Nouri state that he is preparing himself for those possibilities and also for a military coup staged by Iraqi security forces loyal to DC. (Last month, State of Law repeatedly floated that there were several Iraqi military officers -- high ranking -- who were spying for the United States.)

Does that really sound like he wanted the meet-up?

Yamei Wang (Xinhua) reports, "Nujaifi attributed the postponement to the mounting differences among political blocs during a meeting by the prepatory committee held on Tuesday." Wang's reporting that the agenda was agreed to but some other issues came up on Tuesday.

Nouri al-Maliki is not a genius, he's barely literate. But when throwing out possibilities, it's worth remembering that Nouri stalls and stalls and stalls again. He stalled on the national conference to begin with. As Liz Sly noted he postponed it until after the Arab League Summit. Most of the other players -- not just Iraqiya -- were saying that it needed to be held in February, then that it needed to take place before the summit.

The reason for the national conference is what? The Erbil Agreement. He's stalled on implementing that for over a year. When the major protests hit Iraq on February 25, 2011 and the people were demanding basic services, jobs and end to corruption and to the 'disappearing' of people in Iraq's legal system, what did Nouri do?

He said, "Give me 100 days and I'll address it." He took 100 days, he never addressed it. Even now, approximately 400 days after he asked for 100 days, he's never addressed the issues that Iraqis raised. He stalls and stalls. He hopes people forget or that he can exhaust them. That's what he did in his first term as prime minister.

Others may have called off the meet-up (they may not). But if something happened on Tuesday night to bring about this decision, don't put it past Nouri to have instigated that. It his pattern.

The political crisis did not start half-way into December when Nouri started demanding Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post and then that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested. That is, however, when certain media outlets began to take the ongoing political crisis seriously. (Please note, that week that started with Nouri ordering al-Hashemi arrested, it was never news to American broadcast network news because the only one that reported on it that week was The NewsHour on PBS -- CBS Evening News, ABC World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News all ignored the prime minister ordering the arrest of the vice president.)

An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers reviewed much of that time yesterday at Inside Iraq noting:

In a press conference Maliki said that he had a criminal file on Hashimi that he had been sitting on for three years, and was now ready to prosecute him. For the objective observer, the timing of this announcement was telling. [. . .] Confessions of Hashimi's security personnel were aired on state television and an arrest warrent for Hashim himself was issued and also made public on state TV -- All this publicity on Maliki's side in order to burn the bridges and make any political deal impossible in this country where government is glued together with political deals.

A day after al-Hashemi went to the KRG, Nouri issued the arrest warrant. Tareq al-Hashemi has remained in the KRG as a guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani. Until Sunday when he traveled to Qatar. Despite Nouri's bluster, Qatar refused his request to extradite al-Hashemi (who stated it was a visit and that he'd return to the KRG when he finished his diplomatic tour. Habib Toumi (Gulf News) explains, "Al Hashemi was received by the Qatari Emir Shaikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani received Al Hashemi at his court." Alsumaria notes that when asked at a press conference today, Osama al-Nujaifi declared that he understood al-Hashemi to be making an official trip and that, as he understood it, al-Hashemi would be returning to the KRG.

Mohammed Jamjoon (CNN) reports that al-Hashemi has now traveled onto Sadui Arabia. Jamjoon quotes Usama al-Nugali, spokesperson for Saudi Arabia's Foreign Ministry, stating, "He came to Saudi Arabia and met with Prince Saudi Al-Faisal, the foreign minister. He is, after all, the vice president of Iraq."

Turning to the topic of violence, AFP reports that a Baquba sticky bombing claimed 1 life today. AGI notes 5 people have been killed in a Dhuluiya car bombing with at least ten more injured. Fang Yang (Xinhua) reports, "The booby-trapped car went off when a team of police explosive experts were defusing a roadside bomb nearby in the town of al-Duluiyah, some 90 km north of Baghdad, the source from Salahudin's operations command said on condition of anonymity." AFP offers, "The police officer said that the explosion took place at about 8:30 am (5:30 GMT) when Dhuluiyah police chief Colonel Qandil Khalil's convoy was passing by." And they also note, "It was the second attack against Colonel Khalil's convoy this year, after a previous car bombing in January that he also survived." Dhuluiya is in Salahuddin Province. Yesterday journalist Kamiran Salahudin was killed in the province by a sticky bombing. Also yesterday, Al Sabaah reports, the Turkish military shelled Dohuk and Erbil in their continued pursuit of the PKK. The paper notes that the shelling was continuous and lasted for approximately 30 hours.

Dropping back to Monday's snapshot:

Lastly, Jonathan Fisher (WebProNews) covers new threats to the internet from around the world and he notes this on Iraq:

According to a translation from the Centre for Law and Democracy, Articles 3, 4, and 5 of Iraq's Informatics Crimes Law would impose a mandatory life sentence for anyone using a computer or the Internet to do any of the following:

"compromise" the "unity" of the state;
subscribe, participate, negotiate, promote, contract or deal with an enemy … in order to destabilize security and public order or expose the country to danger;
damage, cause defects, or hinder [systems or networks] belonging to security military, or intelligence authorities with a deliberate intention to harm [state security].
promote "ideas which are disruptive to public order";
"implement terrorist operations under fake names or to facilitate communication with members or leaders of terrorist groups";
"promote terrorist activites and ideologies or to publish information regarding the manufacturing, preparation and implementation of flammable or explosive devices, or any tools or materials used in the planning or execution of terrorist acts";
facilitate or promote human trafficking "in any form";
engage in "trafficking, promoting or facilitating the abuse of drugs".

The Act also includes provisions to punish network users who "create chaos in order to weaken the trust of the electronic system of the state," "provoke or promote armed disobedience," "disturb public order or harm the reputation of the country," or "intrude, annoy or call computer and information network users without authorization or hinders their use," the Electronic Freedom Foundation reports. Copyright infringement and hacking would also land users in big trouble under the Act, which proposes a 2- to 3-year prison term for either offense.

Today Alice Fordham (Washington Post) reports on attempts to curb speech in Iraq where bills are being considered that could imprison people who criticize the government or make new requirements/hurdles for demonstrating. She speaks with Iraqi blogger Hayder Hamzoz:

The law also contains a sentence of life imprisonment for using computers or social networks to compromise "the independence of the state or its unity, integrity, safety."
Hamzoz, who does not use his real name out of concern for his safety, said he believes the legislationis intended to allow the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to control social media. The government essentially did just that more than a year ago, when it swiftly smothered an uprising inspired by the Arab Spring revolts sweeping the region.
"It's to attack the activists," he said.

Moving over to the United States, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes:

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES

Wednesday, April 4th,

CONTACT: Murray Press Office
2012 (202) 224-2834



TOMORROW: Murray in Spokane with VA Health Officials to Host Roundtable Discussion with Local Veterans, Tour Homeless Veterans Facility

Veterans will discuss experiences with homelessness, mental health issues, and transition

(Washington, D.C.) – Tomorrow, Thursday, April 5th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray will hold a roundtable discussion with VA officials and local veterans in Spokane to discuss a range of topics including veterans homelessness, issues specific to female veterans, mental health, basic service problems in rural Washington, and transition. Following the roundtable, Senator Murray and Dr. Petzel, Under Secretary for Health in the Department of Veterans Affairs, will tour the Spokane Veterans Homelessness Outreach Center. Senator Murray will discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide, and will use the stories and suggestions she hears on Thursday to fight for local veterans in Washington, D.C.


WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Dr. Petzel, Under Secretary for Health in the Department of Veterans Affairs

Dr. Bastian, Chief of Behavioral Health at the SVAMC

Julie Liss, Women's Veterans Coordinator at the SVAMC

John Davis, Program Coordinator, Healthcare for Homeless Veterans

Monica Giles, Program Coordinator at the SVAMC

Local veterans



WHAT: Roundtable with local veterans and service providers about the difficulties they face in regards to:

homelessness, women veteran's issues, mental health, and transition.



WHEN: TOMORROW: THURSDAY, April 5, 2012

Roundtable begins at 12:00 PM PT, tour will take place immediately following roundtable



WHERE: Spokane Veterans Homelessness Outreach Center

705 W. Second Avenue

Spokane, WA 99201-4412

Map

A new study of PTSD by UCLA's Semel Institute (and published in the Journal of Affective Disorders) is garnering attention. Stephanie O'Neill (KPCC -- link is text and audio) reports, "The new study suggests that a person is more likely to suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or if they carry two particular gene variations that interfere with the body's ability to produce Serotonin. That's the brain chemical that regulates, mood, sleep and alertness." Medical News Today quotes the study's lead author, Dr. Armen Goenjian, stating, "People can develop post-traumatic stress disorder after surviving a life-threatening ordeal like war, rape or a natural disaster ... If confirmed, our findings could eventually lead to new ways to screen people at risk for PTSD and target specific medicines for preventing and treating the disorder." Science Daily notes, "PTSD can arise following child abuse, terrorist attacks, sexual or physical assault, major accidents, natural disasters or exposure to war or combat. Symptoms include flashbacks, feeling emotionally numb or hyper-alert to danger, and avoiding situations that remind one of the original trauma." The study examined 200 survivors of the December 7, 1988 Armenian earthquake which claimed at least 45,000 lives.

On the topic of PTSD, Randy Griffith (Tribune-Democrat) explains, "There are three general characteristics of the disorder, Zitnay said. They are re-experiencing the trauma, avoidance and hyper-arousal. Those with PTSD re-experience the event through nightmares, flashbacks and increased anxiety when reminded of the event. Avoidance is characterized by seclusion, amnesia of the incident and taking pains to stay away from locations, people or objects associated with the trauma." Shuka Kalantari (KALW) reports on PTSD by speaking to Iraqi refugee Jasmine who studies engineering in California.

Shuka Kalantari: Jasmine remembers one of those flashbacks. She was at a women's studies class at her college in San Jose. They were watching a documentary about a war in Chile. After the film, the teacher asked students to try and imagine how their life would be if they lived in war.

Jasmine: So she tried like to make the student feel like the feelings of these people. So she stated [. . .] to the class, "You imagine that you lost your husband." As she came to me, "You imagine that they tried to kidnap you."

Shuka Kalantari: Jasmine didn't have to imagine.

Jasmine: I feel like I'm out of air. I left the class and I remained outside -- for over like 20 hours just like crying in a way.

Shuka Kalantari: For the next her mind was flooded with bad memories. She said that even seemingly unrelated things would trigger her symptoms.

Jasmine: Sometimes like part of songs would make me like really like sad and depression if something happened to me. I feel like I'm out of the war for a couple of days.

Shuka Kalantari speaks to the Center for Survivors of Torture's Dr. James Livingston who explains PTSD is fairly common among those forced to flee their homes. Jasmine's father was shot dead in Baghdad and she left the country when it appeared she was being targeted for kidnapping.

The Defense Dept needs to get out the message that PTSD knows no boundaries, that it could happen to anyone and that seeking treatment is taking control of PTSD. As part of that effort, they have released this video of Chaplain Steve Dundas discussing his PTSD.

Chaplain: Steve Dudnas: I am Lt Commander Steve Dundas. I've been in the military 30 years, the Navy since 1999. When we got to Iraq our mission was to support US Marine Corps and Army advisers across the entire Al Anbar Province. These teams were out by themselves and they would very seldom if ever see a chaplain because of their isolation. I would go out and provide counseling, religious services. The hardest parts of the deployment? One, I've had a lot of experience as a trauma department chaplain and seen a lot of death. But when I got there and actually saw our wounded Marines and soldiers, prayed with them, anointed them, that was one of the really hard things -- was to see what war does to these warriors. I had studied a lot about PTSD and dealt with Marines who had it. I thought I was pretty much untouchable to it because I thought I'd seen everything. But I was really surprised by some of the things I saw and the impact that they had. The sites, the smells especially. The exhaustion. The travel. We went through some of the most dangerous areas of Iraq. Occasionally got shot at. And there was always an understanding that al Qaeda had chaplains at the top of their target list. When I came back to the States, I just felt so disconnected from people, church. I didn't even know if God still existed. And that was one of the most painful parts of my life. Prayer became really hard. Just going -- Doing life became really hard. I was depressed, angry, on edge all of the time. Finally, our medical officer did an assessment and was convinced that I was really starting to suffer PTSD and got me connected with the Deployment Health Clinic at Portsmouth Naval Medical Center and I started seeing a therapist there trying to figure out how to deal with my experiences. For me, writing is something that allows me to work through things and if I didn't write them out [they] would gnaw at me. And some of that deals with my own struggles with PTSD and faith, some of it deals with how I see the world now, and part of it are those things that are part of me: my dad, growing up, baseball. About the only place I can be in a crowd of people and still feel really safe is at a baseball game. And part of it is just the way the diamond's laid out and just the peacefulness of it. My role as a chaplain is to provide the spiritual support as they make this journey and as they begin to open up about what they've gone through. But many times, it requires more than just the chaplain. And so, I'll say, I know it's scary but I think that you need to seek the help of a mental health professional because it's a way to get better. And I tell them my experiences which are good experiences with both the therapists I've had. That they understood and they didn't push me to some track that I was unable to go to. I realize that you can't go back, you can't go back to what you were, you have to adapt to what you are. Do you want to be healthy? Yes. Do you want to be well adjusted? Yes. Does that mean you're going to be the same person you were before you went to war? No. Nobody is. But that's okay if we open ourselves up to get help. It's not something that we're going to be better overnight. What it will be though is a step on the way to healing, a step on the way to integrating those experiences with our daily life now. I don't think it is weakness to seek help. In fact, I think it's a sign of strength. I think it's a sign that you want to move forward. And what I hope is that when I spend time with people, when I share with people, when I listen to people, that I can help them to begin that process if they haven't already started. And to encourage them if they're already getting some therapy. Provide that extra bit of support, that extra bit of connection so that they don't feel that they're alone.

iraq

black agenda radio
glen ford
nellie bailey

the washington post
liz sly
al mada
alsumaria tv
dar addustour
the associated press
sameer n. yacoub
the kurdish globe
rawaz koyee
webpronews
jonathan fisher
alice fordham
agi
afp
xinhua
fang yang
yamei wang

kpcc
stephanie oneill
medical news today
science daily
science daily
the tribune-democrat
randy griffith
kalw
shuka kalantari