Merry Christmas (Talking Post)

Christmas Day. For a little while longer. Hope everyone had a good day whether they were celebrating something today or not.

I had a weird e-mail on that but I'll get to that in a bit and this is what Jim has dubbed "a talking post." Jim used to enjoy those, done by C.I., but would always be going, "You should have opened with ___ and then ___ and then ___." He didn't appreciate the beauty of talking posts from his journalism classes. :D Of course, by the time he started guest posting for the rest of us, he had discovered both their charm and their attraction. :D

It's just a way to talk. And The Common Ills is a conversation. If something gets too much outside attention, C.I. will deliberately pull back. When someone was kind enough to repost a thing I did and I got all this attention from people who do not normally drop by this site, I pulled back as well. And finally got the point about how you do not want too much attention because then you've got a whole crowd of people tuning in that you're really not trying to speak to. And then you can get a rush of 'fame' and start catering your posts to them. But most of them are just following whatever's 'hot' and they're e-mailing you telling you to talk about this or that and it's never the illegal war. Not trying to sound like an 'expert' here because while I never thought there wasn't a point to talking posts, I really didn't get why C.I. or Ava and C.I. for that matter would pull back from attention. I respected their view and didn't question it or mock it but I really didn't understand it until this Italian site reposted something I'd written. I didn't even know they had done that. I log into my e-mail account and instead of my usual e-mails, I've got all these e-mails. And it freaked me out.

But I remembered what Ava and C.I. had been saying all along and I thank them for that because otherwise this would be a different site today. It wouldn't be "Mikey Likes It!" that's for damn sure. That crowd hung around for about four posts and then were gone. But during that time they e-mailed non-stop with, "Cover this __!" and "Why aren't you covering that!" and "Enough on the war!" By day three they were threatening to never read again, by day four they were e-mailing me the kiss-off e-mails.

And I could have done what they wanted. But like C.I.'s says, "I'm not a jukebox." :D You can't just push a button and here the song you want to hear.

When an entry C.I. wrote early on got mentioned on NPR, right away, C.I. said, "Never again." Back then, I wouldn't have known how to write those things but I do know now. And it really is a weaker way of using your voice, obviously if NPR's citing something, it's not going to be hard hitting. So you can do that and flatter (C.I. wrote that thing tired and it only went up because there wasn't time to write anything else -- C.I. wasn't trying to flatter) and be part of the big echo chamber that acts like everything's just a little off but a quick fix will save us all or you can tell the truth.

And if you look at the response to The Common Ills, you know there is a big audience for the truth. They'll find you and they'll find you on their own and through word of mouth. If NPR's plugging you or the other institutions, you're being plugged because they think you're 'safe' and that you won't rock the boat too much. You'll say, "Oh, the sea is rocky today!" but you won't say, "And the boat's taking on water." You'll never note the leak in the boat or that it's sinking.
I think it's known that Jim's brother blogged for a little bit and was pretty big online back before the 2004 election and then packed it in because he didn't care for the echo chamber that was coming into being. And that's all that they gave us and all they still give us, linking to 'Ezra' and to 'Matthew' and you know the drill. Claiming that the country needs some changes but rushing off to Time, Newsweek, The Atlantic, etc. Because it was never about changing anything, it was about setting up a career for themselves.

Anyone telling the real truth isn't going to end up working for a MSM magazine. Don't fool yourself that it's 'breaking through.' As C.I. was noting as early as 2004, they've cut off the head of Cokie Roberts and a million new Cokies have sprung up in their place. There's been no media revolution, just a change of the occupants in the deck chairs.

They didn't value their power. Because truth telling and communicating wasn't enough for them. It was always about them wanting to be the ones invited to the chat & chews.

C.I. doesn't do interviews as C.I. and when Ava and C.I.'s stuff first started getting attention at The Third Estate Sunday Review (and for two years after really), requests for interviews would come in all the time and Ava, who never splits from C.I., would say "no." Jim would be going, "Okay, C.I. doesn't do interviews. But you can do interviews. They want both of you but they'll take either of you." And Ava would say no.

It's probably about once a month now that a request comes in. But their point was always, "Why would we need to do an interview? We have the space to say whatever we think already? You can quote from our writing, if you want, but we're not interested. Thank you."

But if you start getting on that media circus ride, you're not really going to say what you think. Either to the media or at your own site. You're going to start self-censoring because maybe Air America won't have you back on, or maybe you won't get on CNN again, or maybe . . .

You get the point.

So I'm really glad that we'll go out having maintained our independence. We didn't try to curry favor. We didn't pull punches. And when someone said, "You can't go there!" we went.

I really do like seeing the community members online as the Mamas and the Papas of the web. :D And that alone is a good enough reason to go out in November of 2008. :D

Let me talk about the e-mail. It was from someone who identifies as religious and wanted to know why we're ashamed of being religious. She wrote "all of you" and listed sites, so I'll answer for myself and then move to "all of you." I'm Catholic. I've never denied that. I've never pretended that wasn't the case. Anyone coming by picks up on that if they stay awhile and any regular reader knows it. Kat's Catholic as well and that's known and mentioned at her site and it pops up in some of her CD reviews. Ruth's Jewish. I don't know if Cedric and Betty have noted their specific denomination online but they have repeatedly talked in roundtables (and Cedric at his site) about their churches and Christianity. In terms of others with sites, I don't know if they have talked about in roundtables or at their own sites. One doesn't believe in any higher power which is certainly their right. Others do.

The e-mailer was thrilled that C.I. came out today as religious. The woman needs to re-read the site. C.I. will never use an 'crowd pleaser' to hide behind. C.I. will not hide behind God, the flag, the military or any other 'safe' topic to "couch my view on." For all the e-mailer knows, C.I.'s the one I spoke of who doesn't believe. (I'm not saying it's C.I.) "Ruth's Report" went up last night and Ruth had another report she planned to post. It was noting that she was Jewish and when her husband first started out as a doctor he was always working Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Her point was why does independent media take days or a week off for Christmas? There are non-Christians, including Jewish people, in independent media. Some of them head magazines, some of them host programs. So why does independent media shut down completely for a Christian holiday? Her point was that the medical community had a higher degree of responsibility and professionalism.

She saw an e-mail right before she posted that let her have a way to weigh in on Iraq Veterans Against the War and how they are doing their Winter Soldiers Investigation in March (13th through 16th) and that's their day. So she wrote a new report and posted that.

In "Motor Scooters in Iraq" C.I.'s explaining how we will get softer stories in our papers on Christmas Day and that's because less people read the paper on Christmas Day so no one wants to break a big story then. While C.I. was typing it a friend who's visiting for the holidays, who used to be a daily newspaper reporter, pointed out that the writer of the story C.I. was talking about (Cara Buckley) would probably get a snide little remark from a media watchdog (like CounterSpin) about how it wasn't a hard article. It's not. It's not news. It's a feature story and that's what you get today. But little media's taking days or the entire week off so they really have no point to criticize and then C.I.'s bringing in the points from Ruth's report that didn't go up. That has to do with independent media. It shouldn't be read as anything other than a critique. And if you listen to Pacifica, you probably heard -- last week -- hosts saying, "We'll see you again next year." Hosts of once a week or daily programs who were taking off last week. Are they all Christians? No. In fact some are Jewish. Why do they need two week vacations to 'celebrate' a holiday they won't be celebrating and why do listeners need to be stuck with two weeks of repeats?

For the record, C.I. -- go back to the early days of The Common Ills -- called out the nonsense of Air America taking two weeks off for Christmas as well. So did Rebecca and Rebecca will tell you how shocked she was to hear Rachel Maddow show up after a two week vacation where repeats of Unfiltered were offered noting some story from the Saturday papers (that she wrongly said were in the Sunday New York Times and Washington Post) and telling listeners that the fact that Maddow was talking about proved how important Air America was and how needed. If it was needed, maybe the whole network shouldn't have taken two weeks off?

And that's a good point. Whether you claim to be news or public affairs, if you're considering yourself a professional (I'm not talking about blogs) where do you get off doing nothing for two weeks? They've already got their vacations during the year. But they all go dark and that's really nonsense.

So that was what C.I. was addressing, media.

In terms of me, I regularly make many points that acknowledge that I believe in Jesus. I'm not embarrassed about it. But Catholics don't try to convert (at least not in this country! or in this century!). And I wouldn't be interested in doing so regardless. People believe what they believe. Either because they were raised that or they thought about it on their own or both. So some people don't believe in any Higher Power and that's their right. And some people don't believe in Jesus and that's their right. And some people practice Eastern religions or other things and that's their right.

There was a comment in the snapshot yesterday that someone saw as C.I. believes in ghosts! :D That made me laugh because I was on the phone with Jess and C.I. was dictating the snapshot (they were running errands) on another cell phone and I go, "Jess! Tell C.I. to redo that statement. Someone's going to see it as religious!" So Jess tells C.I. and "eternally damned" (may the people trying to brain wash Iraqi prisoners be eternally damned) became "eternally haunted." And I thought that was a good save but I'm checking my e-mails this morning and someone's written that they believe in ghosts and they're so glad to know C.I. does too! :D (I'm not saying C.I. doesn't believe in ghosts. I'm not saying C.I. does. I'm saying that wasn't the point of the statement.)

I was checking my e-mails because all my relatives were over. And my great aunt on my dad's side, who doesn't usually come each year because she lives in Chicago and has some children there and it's a long trip when you get older, was there. And she goes, "Now Micheal, what is this 'web' I keep hearing about? I understand you are on it." :D

I was laughing so hard. Not at her. I gave her a big hug and we went into the kitchen to get on Ma's computer so I could show her what the web was and all. She wanted to see my site and Ma's too. And I showed her other stuff too. (She goes, "Don't show me anything dirty. I know there are a lot of dirty things online." :D) So we were looking around at different stuff and I was showing her how to use a computer mouse (I don't know why they call it a mouse -- she asked me that and I told her "I don't have that answer" :D). So she goes, "Well what sort of people read you and your mother?" So I got into my account and had to explain what e-mails were (I'm not making fun of her, the net is something that she's never seen). She said, "Oh that one looks nice." She was pointing to one that had a title of "Dearest." I explained that none of my readers would use that and when you get "Dearest" it is a spam e-mail. Then I had to explain spam and my brother helped me out by telling her it was like all the junk mail you get in your physical mail box. So we were looking and there was an e-mail from the vet I quoted and my great aunt was really glad about that (because of "manners" and because I had posted his comments so people could get the kind of stuff this bad media is causing). So she wanted to see the kind of e-mails Ma got and Ma is at the stove pulling together this feast so she shouted out her password and we log in and there's a woman needing help. She even put her phone number in. Because it was a Christmas cooking emergency, Ma called her. She wrote about it today in "My oven doesn't work!" and my great aunt said that between helping that woman and putting up the veteran's comments, Ma and I were "doing good work." So there you go. :D

All of Ma's relatives live close by but some of Dad's relatives live out of the city. The people on her side all know about the web and it was interesting today because I realized how much I take for granted. She'd been trying to remember, my great aunt, a movie she saw about Christmas that she just loved once upon a time but she couldn't remember the title and had tried to rent it at her local video store but only knew that Barbara Stanwyck was in. They kept telling her it was Christmas in Connecticut (sp?) and she kept going, "No." That's not the one she meant. So I showed her how we could pull up movies and just pull up Stanwyck's movies on IMDB. We were looking through the lists and she goes, "That's it! Meet John Doe!"

Dad's got that and I told him and he gave it to her. She tried to pay him for it and he goes no and goes for her to keep it cause it's at all the stores. But she was so excited to be able to find her answer online.

Her daughter told me they tried to get her a computer a few years back but she wasn't interested at all. She says now they're going to get it for her as a birthday gift (her birthday is January 11th). So that's pretty cool. But Elaine and I went into the kitchen with her and showed her different stuff. She wanted to see Elaine's site too. So we went there and she read Elaine's "Call out Katrina vanden Heuvel." She goes, "Good for you dear. There was a time when they wouldn't even let us vote." :D

So it was a pretty good Christmas. Got to see a lot of the family, got to stuff my belly full and then some, and I got to see some excited faces opening presents. And, we have my niece this Christmas, which is pretty cool. This was her first Christmas (she was born in July). And we all watched Meet John Doe after the excitement so it was just a really nice day.

I should probably add that we talk about Iraq in my family on Christmas. I hope others celebrating did as well. That was pretty much a two hour discussion around the table with everyone weighing in.

Regardless of whether you celebrated it or something else or nothing, I hope you had a good day too.

Be sure to read Wally's "THIS JUST IN! U.S. MILITARY KILLS 'TERRORIST'!" and Cedric's
"Christmas in Baghdad"

trinas kitchen
the common ills
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
ruths report

Third, John V. Walsh

Christmas Eve, Christmas Eve. :D The painting is by Betty's oldest son and he's made Santa a snowman because Christmas, like snowmen, doesn't last forever. He's a smart kid (and talented).

This is me talking in The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Roundtable:"

Mike: I put down "vets" and this does flow because my point here was that there are a few I talk to because they're Elaine's patients and I'm usally at her office Thursday evenings so I'm talking to them before the group session and after. I also hear from vets who see something at my site. And there is just so much disbelief and anger at ALL media for their lack of coverage. One guy was telling me Thursday, after the group session, that he has to remind himself not to get angry at people he bumps into who are focused on whatever or talking about whatever because he reminds himself how easy it is, even if you're reading the paper every day, to forget that the illegal war is going on. He thinks it's intentional on big media's part, and I agree, but he listed off a lot of little media, and he included blogs in that which we don't consider little media but just to note his point, and just noted how disgusting it is to, basically have a voice or platform, and not use it. When he was in Iraq, if he had computer access, which was often because if you're out in Iraq and not just stationed on a base, you're computer access is a lot less. But he did two tours of Iraq and he remembers some of the big names early in the illegal war who were strong voices and just calling it out. He said he hopes they don't expect credit for that because they've done nothing in the last year. I told him I'd talk about that in a roundtable that was planned here and then after I'd copy and paste that section at my site because he is really angry about that. He said if I did to add one more thing. He knows the war is illegal, he observed it, took part in it. But now he's back here and the easiest thing to do right now would be to deny that and go along with the lie that it's "noble" and the reason for that is because the only people who really seem aware of the war are the right-wingers. I grabbed paper and wrote this part down, this is him speaking, "Do you know what it's like to take part in something you're wrong and come home and want to, need to talk about it but find out that no one gives a __ damn ___? One thing to do is to stop talking and just shove it all inside. But the easiest thing to do is just sort of talk about it to war supporters because they at least listen." That's included with his permission. And before anyone e-mails to say, because Elaine's not going to say a word about it, not even to me, Elaine doesn't talk about her patients. I'm talking about him in terms of what he spoke to me about and with the understanding that he wanted it shared. I tried to think about a way to give an example all weekend and the only thing, which is probably a bad comparison but in case anyone can relate to the illegal war, I could come up with is you're mugged on the street. You've got a lot of pain, anger and other things from that. You want to talk about it. When no one cares except the group going, "You da man! They pulled a gun on you and you're still alive!" after awhile it probably is tempting to turn around and go, "Yeah, I am da man!" just because you need to talk about your experiences and no other group gives a damn. He's considering signing up for IVAW's event by the way. He is going but he's considering signing up to talk.

Thank you to C.I. for noting it at The Common Ills Sunday. I promised the vet I would note it here after it went up at Third. I figured it would work better there and think it did. That way it got up at two sites (and, thanks to C.I., three -- four if you count the mirror site for The Common Ills) so hopefully some people will see it and maybe stop a minute to think about how damaging their actions are and how they hurt.

Let's jump right into Third:

Truest statement of the week -- Elaine and she earned it. I know the week's just starting but Ava's already got my vote for next Sunday. If you saw it, you know what I'm talking about. If not, wait until Sunday.

A Note to Our Readers -- Jess, Ava and C.I. break down the edition.

Editorial: Should we pray to Santa? -- The painting at the top of my post is used here, the one Betty's son did. I like this editorial. I know it was a problem in terms of figuring out how to use Santa (we wanted the painting up). C.I. figured it out after someone said something. I can't remember what it was, but C.I. (joking) said, "Should we now pray to Santa?" And we all go, "That's it! That's the editorial!" :D This covers IVAW, Jamie Leigh Jones, Tracy Barker and a lot more. We didn't think we could pull it together around that phrase or going with that phrase but it worked out pretty good.

TV: The Weak Get Weaker -- Let me be Jim here (who took this weekend off), Jess read this to us when Ava and C.I. finished it and I was the one to say, "It doesn't matter what else we do, that covers it." Jim usually says something like that about their writing because it's always one of the strongest things every edition. This one is amazing. And they didn't know what they were writing about before they left to go off alone and write it. We were asking them and they listed off several shows and said they'd have to look at their notes. This is just perfect and you will laugh your ass off! :D

The Nation featured 491 male bylines in 2007 -- how many female ones? -- This one should you make you angry because Katrina vanden Heuvel (a woman as far as anyone knows) is in charge of The Nation magazine and despite the magazine saying they know there's problem there was NO improvement in the number of women they published. Look at the full year statistics and be disgusted. Way to go, Katrina, way to help out other women. What a Queen Bee.

Roundtable -- I quoted myself in the rountable already. The big deal here was who would be moderator. Jess wanted Ava or C.I. to do it and they're the note takers -- nobody else can write down what we're all saying and get it down word for word. Jess agreed to do it and I think he really did a great job. We didn't have a hard time limit and Cedric and Betty are really doing some amazing comments in the first half. I think the whole thing is amazing. Kat's got a great wind up and it's just all amazing. That may be because we had less people. It is not because Jim wasn't doing it. He does a great job moderating. Betty's son did the painting.

"I Hate The War" -- This is about The Ballet's "I Hate The War" which is a great song. Go to their website and download it if you haven't already. (If you want to watch a video, there's a link to one in the article.)

Dems & Iraq -- I didn't work on this one. This is just Ava, Jess and C.I. and they did it to include Betty's son's painting of Obama. I really like this and it was nice to wake up, log in to see how everything turned out and read something I didn't even know was in there. :D

Iowa -- At last, we got around to this. That's been on the backburner forever. It's an important issue.

Cynthia McKinney announces run for president -- Cynthia McKinney is running for the Green Party nomination for president. If you're a Green or an independent or someone fed up with the Democratic Party (a lot of people), you really need to check into her campaign.

Things to watch, things to listen to -- Some things you can catch this week.

Highlights -- Betty, Wally, Kat, Elaine and I worked on this.


Here's who participated:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava and Jim,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Wally of The Daily Jot
and Ruth of Ruth's Report

Rebecca found something and just called me asking if I'd note it too? Yeah, no problem. John V. Walsh regularly speaks truth to power. This is from his "Clueless Crusaders:"


Tom Hayden has been given the cover article for The Nation's December 17 issue to instruct the peace movement for 2008. Not since the cover page endorsement of the prowar John Kerry in 2004 has there been such an embarrassing face to this journal. In essence Hayden's call is to vote Democraticocrat in 2008 - and keep your fingers crossed. That is about it. Confronted with prowar Democraticocrats and prowar Republicans, Hayden cries, "Stop the war. Vote prowar Democraticocrats." At the same time his co-counsellor for the official peace movement, Phyllis Bennis, has been lamenting that antiwar voters, in the depths of their benightedness, may fail to understand "intuitively" why they should vote for prowar Democraticocrats in 2008.
Hayden begins with what cannot be denied, conceding that the "leading" Democraticocrats, HRC, BO and JE do not pledge to end the war, always hedging their promises to remove troops by limiting the pledge to "combat troops," a recipe for "Vietnamization" which Hayden should be able to recognize; by speaking of keeping troops in Iraq at least until 2013; by failing to give dates for Democraticolishing the gargantuan bases still going up; and of course by labeling hapless Iran as a "danger." Hayden even quotes one anonymous voice within the Beltway Democratic establishment: "It's beginning to look a lot like 2004." But how does Hayden characterize 2004? In that year he says, the Democraticocrats "muted and muddled their antiwar position." "Mute and muddled"? "Antiwar position"? Wth a few hiccups, John Kerry ran an explicitly prowar campaign in 2004. In 2006 the Democrats ran what looked like an antiwar campaign until you read the fine print. Of course since they gained control of Congress, they have supported the war funding at every turn. "Mute and muddled" it's not; full-blown complicity in the war it is.

It's a great article. And you know what? I would pair it with "Who's killing the peace movement?" which covers some of the same terrain. I like Tom Hayden but when someone's wrong, they're wrong. When they're wrong with a cover story, silence isn't the way to handle it. I generally agree with Walsh (I think I always agree but I might be forgetting something in the years I've been reading him -- and it's fine if we disagree) and what I really like is he's not taking any crap. He's not saying, "Oh, we're not supposed to call out ___ so I'll be silent." But a lot of people are being silent.

You've got a whole 'left' platoon covering up for Katrina vanden Heuvel who is not left (leftist don't turn an issue over to a centrist organization). I'm sick of it. And I'll call out anyone I want to and I won't look back or freak out over it.


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

Monday, December 24, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, 'tis the season for . . . mass kidnappings, mercenaries are back in the news and, in honor of the gift giving season, a 'left' 'voice' telegraphs just how unimportant the illegal war is to him.

Starting with war resistance. And let's deal with why, unless your name is In These Times, left and 'left' print magazines don't have anything to point to with pride in 2007. They've been silent on war resisters (this also goes to a number of radio programs) and have refused to cover any war resisters (in the US, in Canada or Eli Israel, the first service member to publicly resist while serving in Iraq though you wouldn't know that fact if you counted on independent media to bring the news to you). Every year at this time The Nation's Katha Pollitt does a column on where you could donate your money. This year's column appears to address some of last year's criticism, so here's the link. That is Pollitt's trademark and has been for years -- that column. Paul Loeb apparently thinks he can be the male Katha. (In his dreams. And, yes, I'm aware he's one of those three named monstrosities but he's signing off his Free Press column with "Paul Loeb." It's entitled "Who I Give To" with the message that it's who you should give to.

And what do we have. In order: Working Assets, Better World Club, IPA, MoveOn, Sojourners, WellstoneAction, America Votes, Democracy for America, the DNC, John Edwards' presidential campain, Barack Obama's presidential campaign, Public Campaign, 1Sky coaltion, Focus the Nation, Climate Crisis Coalition, Sierra Club, Fight Back America, Jobs With Justice, NAACP, ACLU, Peace Action, True Majority, The War Resister's Leauge, The Backbone Campaign, Americans For Peace Now and Brit Tzedek. He notes the last two are "pro-Israel." Reading over the list, where is IVAW? Where is Courage To Resist? Where is the War Resisters Support League? Where is Veterans for Peace? Where is CODEPINK? Where is SDS? Where is United for Peace & Justice? Where is World Can't Wait? Where is A.N.S.W.E.R.? Where is the National Lawyers Guild? (NLG has a group for war resisters.)

No where. An overly praised, fawned over writer opens his empty head to reveal to you just how shallow 'voices' are. Anyone stupid (and you have to be stupid, there's no other word for it) to give to two presidential candidates and not grasp they are not 'helping' either and they are cancelling their donation out, already started out in the Dumb Zone. But could that money not have gone to IVAW, War Resisters Support Campaign or Courage To Resist?

"I'm not a pacifist," he feels the need to reassure (no one thought he was a pacifist, it would be surprising if anyone thought he had the skill or ability to think long enough to reach that position), "but The War Resister's League has carried the banner of peace activism for 85 years, and I always admire what they do." The American Friends Service Committee has 'carried the banner' for 90 years. But though Working Assets and True Majority (covering the same damn terrain) can get shout outs and it's non-stop election central (including donating to two candidates running for the same slot), American Friends Service Committee is not mentioned .Paul gives a true gift this holiday season: a glimpse into the heavily pimped shallow mind that makes up too much of the so-called left today. With his list, that he wrote himself, he has told you what is important and what isn't and he has told you that he can't even plug the War Resister's League without rushing to reassure any reader that he's not a pacifist. Running scared and running brain dead, one of the most heavily pimped 'lefties' of the decade makes it very clear that he's all about the Democratic Party and elections and he's not at all about ending the illegal war. What's surprising is that he left off a Hurricane Katrina charity -- how many bad articles did he bore America with on that topic after Katrina hit? Well, that's the 'left' you for, a tiny-minded mocking bird, flittering and fluttering from here to there but never landing.

An illegal war is going on and the answer in an overly long, bad column (men who try to copy Katha Pollitt will always come up short), he tells you where his priorities are. He supports Jewish organizations that are pro-Israel, he supports Sojourners with money though he doesn't agree with their 'evangical' measures. He supports anything and everything but those committed to ending the illegal war with one exception and, when noting that exception, it's important for him to rush to assure America he's no pacifist. No one ever thought a shallow thinker could wade to that conclusion, Loeb, no one ever did.

Apparently there's no show tune for him to stumble across ("the impossible will take a little while") about war resisters so they're not on his list of concerns. But, in that list, you see 2007 independent (or 'independent') media coverage in all its horror. Give money to candidates! Give it to two candidates running against each other! Give money to the Democratic Party! Give money to groups working on clean elections! Give money to groups working on getting people elected! Give, give, give till it hurts.

And the reality is, in 2007, independent media has hurt war resistance. This December 23rd published column also explains how useless independent media is. Is anyone really thinking, this late in the game, "I must get a gift! I know I'll donate!" If they were, links would be required for someone wanting to be 'helpful.' No links are provided. Typical independent media in 2007, advocating badly.

Does Loeb know that on November 15th, the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey? Does he even care? Judging by his column, the answer is no. An over hyped voice of the 'left' gives the greatest gift of all in 2007: The reality of how little the alleged 'left' cares about ending the illegal war. (Give to the DNC! Give to two presidential candidates who refuse to promise, that if elected in 2008, they would pull out the troops by 2013!) That just about sums it all up. In the real world, the Canadian Parliament has the power to let war resisters stay in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

On Sunday, Alissa J. Rubin and Damien Cave (New York Times) provided the lengthiest coverage of Iraq the paper's offered in some time as they explored the 'Awakening' Councils that US government has decided is the quick-fix to reducing the violence just enough to stop Americans from caring that an illegal war is going on. Not noted in the article is that the Sunni thugs want the US out. Noted in the article is that the they don't support al-Maliki's puppet government. This is why the Shi'ite thugs are furious. They were armed and backed by the US early on and were very effective at 'cleansing' areas through force, intimidation and death squads. Now the US is arming their enemies and they're worried. Arming but unable to control. In Ramadi, Cave and Rubin join Second Lt. Stephen Lind who discovers that, despite "a rule that bans the Iraqi Army from the city," the Iraqi army is at a sheik's and, when asked by Lind why, the response is: "The sheik told us to come." And that's that, time to roll out and rules (like laws) really don't matter but let's all pretend the US is somehow in 'control.' Rubin and Cave observe, "The standoff, though, underscored the Awakening's long-term challenge."


The US is not 'improving' things in Iraq, they are laying the groundwork for further tensions and anyone could tell them that but the government doesn't want to listen. Very similar to how they did not want to listen about the issue of mercenaries. Steve Rainaru (Washington Post) reports on how warnings were repeatedly ignored by the State Dept and the Pentagon
which addresses how warnings were ignored by the government (US) repeatedly regarding mercenaries, cites the lack of "substantive action to regulate" mercenaries -- lack of action from the State Dept. or the Pentagon and while "previous wars . . . had prohibited contractors from participating in combat . . . in Iraq, military planners rewrote the policy" via a September 20, 2005 order that granted mercenaries the power "to use deadly force". From the article:

Critics, including the American Bar Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, warned that the Pentagon had used an obscure defense acquisition rule to push through a fundamental shift in American war-fighting without fully considering the potential legal and strategic ramifications.The provision enabled the military to significantly raise troop levels with contractors whose "combat roles now closely parallel those of Constitutionally and Congressionally authorized forces," wrote Herbert L. Fenster, a partner with McKenna Long & Aldridge, a Washington-based international law firm that represents several major defense contractors. Fenster questioned the provision's legality in a lengthy comment he filed in opposition. The practice "smacks of a mercenary approach," he wrote in an e-mail.But neither the military nor the State Department set guidelines for regulating tens of thousands of hired guns on the battlefield. Oversight was left to overburdened government contracting officers or the companies themselves, which conducted their own investigations when a shooting incident occurred. Dozens of security companies operated under layers of subcontracts that often made their activities all but impossible to track. They were accountable to no one for violent incidents, according to U.S. officials and security company representatives familiar with the contracting arrangements.



In England, accountability is also an issue with regards to contractors. PA reports that the Parliament may be addressing "clains that a UK-based security company" ArmorGroup "deliberataly withheld intelligence from the British armed force in Iraq" with regards to "militia infiltration of the Iraqi police in Basra" Henry McDonald, Duncam Campbell and Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian of London) report that Colin Williamson (who worked for ArmorGroup in Iraq) has made "[t]he most serious allegations" which include this, "My role was to go to certain Iraqi police stations daily in the Basra area. But we were told not to report back any intelligence we picked up there, not to hand it to the British military. Why? Because our bosses and probably, in turn, the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] didn't want to expose how corrupt and infiltrated by the militia the police were." If true, his statements mean that ArmorGroup is just another contractor that's yet to face accountability.


Equally unaccountable are the US employees who gang-rape and sexually harass in Iraq. Yvonne Roberts (Guardian of London) addresses the crimes against Jamie Lee Jones and notes that there has been no accountability in the two years since the gang-rape was reported and that laws favorable to US corporations (Halliburton/KBR are who Jones' attackers worked for) may allow them to avoid prosecution. Roberts notes, "MoveOn, a democracy-in-action pressure group is organising a petition calling on Congress to investigate Jamie's case, hold those involved accountable, and bring US contractors under the jurisdiction of US law so this can't happen again. Sadly, the petition can only be signed by American voters. If you take a look at what happened to Jamie Leigh Jones and at least 11 other women now claiming they have been raped and sexually assaulted while working in Baghdad's Green Zone, then it's difficult to avoid the notion that if these contractors behave in such a sexually barbaric fashion to their working colleagues, what have they been inflicting on the female Iraqi population - apart from apparently randomly beating and shooting their men?"Meanwhile, Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports today on a disgusting development for those who did not assume the United States resorted to tactics of totalitarian regimes: 'deprogramming.' Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone is identified as the one responsible for what's called "the battlefield of the mind" and just the fact that the US uses such languages and wants to 'militarize' the mind should be enough to frighten most. But reading on you realize that Iraqi prisoners are now experiment subjects -- against their will -- and may every anthropologist, sociologist, medical personal, et al be haunted eternally for what are they doing. Pincus tells you that who the military wants to assist with these attacks on a person's sanity, will and mind are "teachers, religious and behavioral science counselors" and that the goal is 'reintegration.' Here's a thought: How can Iraqis be reintegrated into their own occupied country? If the military's telling you this much, it's probably much worse; however, Stone doesn't have the common sense to grasp how offensive what he is peddling to the public is. I am unaware of an waiver that allows for brain-washing in a war (legal or illegal) but apparently that's one more thing being tossed aside.


Moving on, Leila Fadel (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) shares details of Eid al Adha celebration including the shopping ("a toy store where little boys crowded around toys, picking their holiday gifts. They all wanted the same thing, toy guns, just like the men they see on the streets.. . . The toys hear are a reflection of the reality they live, humvees, military helicopters and guns. All the little boys want sto emulate the violence on the street"), a McClathy correspondent's relative who has to to Iran for medical treatment ("Although a trickle of people are returning so many professionals are absent and simple medical procedures are only available outside Iraq") and a meal where inquiries about marital status were made with Iraqi woman explaining, "My fiancee was killed at the beginning of the war. I've never found anyone like him."

And the violence goes on . . .


Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Bagdad mini-bus bombing that claimed 1 life and left five wounded, two Baghdad roadside bombings that wounded six people and a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and wounded three more. AP reports that the mini-bus bombing was "near the Baghdad governor's office" and "near the heavily guarded Green Zone" and that it's "unclear if it was detonated remotely or just went off."


Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash at a police station "north east of Sulaimaniyah."

Kidnappings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 14 people were kidnapped from a mini-bus north of Baquba, 7 truck drivers were kidnapped south of Kirkuk. Reuters reports that the 14 kidnapped off the bus today were all "members of one family". AFP reports on the 14 Shi'ites kidnapper that they were stopped at a fake check-point outside of Baquba and were taken off a bus at the checkpoint and kidnapped -- this was "all the passengers" on the bus "including some women and children" according to Iraqi police officer Hazim Yassin.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

In addition, Al Jazeera reports on a Sunday train crash that claimed the lives of many members of the Hamid Hrat family -- two adults, five girls and six boys for a total of 13 -- who were apparently unable to move over the train crossing (stalled car? who knows?) and were plowed into by a train in Hilla. (AP and some other domestic sources report the train crash as happening today.)

Finally, despite PO'LICeandTICksOh providing a back channel to Nancy Pelosi's Blue Dog Congressional enemies last Friday, Dennis Camire (The Honolulu Advertiser) reports that US House Rep Neil Abercrombie states that Dems will "push on with the effort" to end the illegal war and that "Rep. Abercrombie said it's only a matter of time and American casualties before the public gets fed up enough and forces politicians to bring the troops home." Apparently, the writers' strike has also resulted in Congress airing re-runs. The 'strategy' is not 'new.' It's the one John Harris (PO'LIceandTICsOh) summed up as describing what Congress was hoping for in 2007 when speaking on PBS' Washington Weak over the weekend. (Here for the program's web site. Here for Ava and my review.)

john v. walsh
the ballet
the common ills
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
ruths report
iraq
iraq veterans against the warthe new york timesalissa j. rubindamien cave
the washington post
walter pincussteve fainaruyvonne roberts

Robin Morgan, The Ballet, Ralph Nader

Friday! The Weekend! :D I'm excited this time of year always! :D

Okay, in a week where we've talked about how some Wiener Boys wanted to minimize Ike Turner's torture of Tina Turner and even suggest that Tina needs to 'forgive' Ike, I really thought this thing spoke to reality. This is from Robin Morgan's "The Four Solictice Miracles:"

The fourth is a woman I've met only once. Her face is hard and lined. She is poor, not young, not educated. She works as a doorkeeper at an old house in a side street in Catania, in Sicily. I was there in the mid-1990s, during an Italian book tour with Maria Nadotti (real name), friend and journalist who's also my Italian editor/translator/interpreter. On our last day, as Maria and I rushed to the airport, this woman recognized us from a TV interview we'd done on violence against women (in Sicily, yet). She called out. Maria translated rapidly.
"Is it really true?" the woman asked, clutching Maria with one hand and me with the other. "What you said? That women in many places are fighting back, against the violence? Against being beaten?"
"Yes," we said, sophisticated writers trying hard to swallow the emotion rising in our throats, "It's true. Women are fighting back. Many, many places. Far beyond Sicily. All over the world."
"And one day they will make it stop? The pain? They--we--will make this happen?" Her eyes shone.
"Yes," we cried, openly now, clinging to each other and her, "One day. Women everywhere. Trying. Yes."
She nodded, blessing us with a radiant, gap-toothed smile.
"That is very good," she sighed. Then added, with great dignity, "Because then I am not all alone in my fight."
The following year I dedicated the Italian edition of The Demon Lover: The Roots of Terrorism to this woman, whose name I'd learned was Adriana Russo, and I've told this story, too, in many countries since that day. Hearing it, women spontaneously cry out, in answer to a Sicilian woman they'll never meet, "You are not alone." Yet wherever she stands, she herself recreates all possibility. She is indeed The Doorkeeper, who opens the portal and shows the way. Her card--replete with angels and magi, you bet--arrives every December. And so does my greeting, in fractured Italian.

What this time of year means to Morgan is connecting with four women and that's one of the four. Again, I picked her because of the nonsense behind all the Ike Loving Tributes that domestic abuse really isn't 'bad' and it's not anything to 'judge' Ike by. It's just part of who he was. That's been the crap we've had to hear from the boomer men and they kept sounding that note so often, we really should start asking, "How many women have they beat in their life?" Because, honestly, that's what it seems like when all they do is defend 'poor' Ike. That's a really good piece by Robin Morgan and all four women she's writing about are really interesting but I went with that one because Tina Turner's been chided, insulted and told she "has to" 'forgive' her torturer.

Okay, I want to talk about C.I.'s "I Hate The War." I told you last week that there were changes coming to the Thursday night entry. :D C.I. mentions me in the entry and notes that I was a sounding board. That was basically me going, "Do it!" :D C.I. really wanted to do it and really needed to do it. If you haven't read it, "And the war drags on" is no longer the song noted in the Thursday entry or the title.

From a writing perspective, the Thursday entry has been hard for about four months now. On Thursdays, C.I.'s speaking to student groups and women's groups and other groups. There are the three entries (two in the morning and the "snapshot"). There is the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin that C.I. always participates in. There is the column for the round-robin that has to be written. And then C.I. has to do the Thursday night entry (and get up three to four hours later and start all over). Because Sunday and Thursday are both "And the war drags on," some people expect them to be the same type of entry. They're not and can't be. Sunday night's catches you up on the violence on Sunday and usually on Saturday. On Thursdays, C.I.'s already covered the violence in the "snapshot" that day. And C.I.'s tired and just wanting to go to sleep and say "Screw it." We've talked about this for awhile now and usually on Saturdays it's one of the things we talk about when we're doing our early in the morning run.

The song "I Hate The War" is written by Greg Goldberg and on The Ballet's Mattachine! (The Ballet's the group that recorded the song) and we all love that song now. And that includes C.I. The title works as a title for an entry title. And it's a way to shake things up. But C.I. was (last week) really on the fence about the reaction. And I kept going, "You think you've got two more months left" of those Thursday night entries. "You need to do this," is what I said. But C.I. hates to make any big changes without checking with the community.

It was too late (last Friday) for Gina and Krista to do a poll before Thursday (they would have done it but C.I. didn't want to push that off on them). And my point was that, "Yeah, we all want everything just like we want it when we want it but no one's going to be upset about this change." See, here I write what I want and that's what I do. C.I. has to speak for the community (C.I. built the community) and that means knowing where they stand, knowing what they're comfortable with and knowing where to push. But my big point was that no one was going to be upset and that C.I.'s put in enough time that no one in the community is going to feel like, "What! Why wasn't I consulted!"

C.I. basically felt like, "I'm singing the song twice a week and the second night I'm really starting to phone it in." There have been some amazing entries in the last four months on Thursday night but they've been really, really hard to do (or "churn out" to use C.I.'s phrase).

And the other reasons for the change, which C.I. notes in the entry, were really important reasons to C.I. You've got about 44 or 45 weeks of The Common Ills left (if it goes dark after the elections). C.I. really wanted to use that once a week slot to promote that song, to promote an independent band and because "It's the sort of song that, during Vietnam, it wouldn't have mattered. It wouldn't have gotten attention if the group was open about being gay because that would have killed off the song back then." C.I. really felt this was important for a huge number of reasons. And I was going that those were good reasons.

And I also know that if The Common Ills is going to go dark before the elections it would be right now because C.I. hates winter and hates cold. And C.I.'s not in California due to speaking and always coming to my area at the end week to see Rebecca's baby (to see all of us, but that really is about being there for Rebecca and her baby and Rebecca was there for C.I.'s kids -- Rebecca has the "miracle baby" -- both because it was so late and because of her history with miscarriages). C.I. needs that California sun to feel alive and having to go where it's cold every week and end up here (where we have real winters! :D) and already being tired, I really could see C.I. saying, "Forget it" right now if it was going to happen. I don't mean this month but I mean next month when it feels like winter's never going to end.

So I was always saying "Go for it." I don't think any member minded but I will say that as a sounding board, I was never voicing objections (but C.I. voiced enough objections for five people! :D).

Here's the opening verse and chorus to "I Hate The War:"

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh

That's a really cool lyrical opening. And the song's amazing in terms of you want to sing along and all. But it's just a great song. And C.I. really felt like if it was the song every Thursday between now and the elections, it was a way of stressing (including to some of C.I.'s friends who are so convinced that if they record a song against the illegal war, their careers will go up in flames) that people are recording these songs today.

I mean, that's 40+ times that song gets noted. And we're going to remember it. Even if it's someone who doesn't hear the song, years from now, we'll remember, "Yeah, there was a group called The Ballet that did this song called 'I Hate The War'." I mean, I love Neil Young's Living With War CD. And I love Joni Mitchell and Ann Wilson for making great albums and weighing in and standing up. And Ben Harper and Michael Franti are tops in my book. But this is a group that wasn't around for my dad and stuff. This is a group that's emerged today. And they do deserve to be applauded and to be noted.

"And The War Drags On" is a song I didn't know until The Common Ills. I go, "Dad, what's this song?" And he's dragging out the vinyl and we're listening and it's a great song. (I love that song.) But C.I.'s been speaking with 'young people' (that would be my age group! :D) since Feb. 2003 about the illegal war and talking about the importance of using your power and your voice and here's a group that is and it's just totally in keeping with everything C.I. talks about so there was no way I was going to say, "No, poll first."

My dad can reel off all these great songs from when he was my age and younger that were against Vietnam. And I love those songs. And I love the few and the brave from Dad's time that are standing up today. But here's a group a little older than me, starting out, and they're standing up. And it's a song I can point to when I'm Dad's age and go, "Yeah, we had people weighing in."

And C.I. knows how it works. Those songs from Dad's day didn't become standards off one recording. They became standards because everyone was covering them. And everyone was talking about them. And there was a base of knowledge about the song for those who cared. These days, not only are most chicken to cover "I Hate The War," they are also not covering songs today. You get them dropping back to the sixties and doing whole albums of Beatles sons (I'm not talking about Ann Wilson who did covers and picked them so that they commented on today, that was art -- I am talking about people like a 'peace' voice who has not weighed in via song on the war despite putting out three albums since the war started, two of which were cover CDs). (Dolly Parton also did a cover album and picked songs that commented on today, to give another example of someone proving you can pick covers wisely.) So including the song each week is a way to raise awareness of it. I could talk more about it but I think we're going to write about it this weekend for The Third Estate Sunday Review. (We wrote about the group last Sunday in "Best war song you may not have heard.") After that piece, I'll probably write about the song some more here.

Did you catch Rebecca's post Tuesday? I loved it:

that's from ralph nader's site. i saw that while surfing the net and if it's already aired in your area, get the dvd. you can rent it or you can buy it. (or you can have a wonderful who gives it to you - the way c.i. gave it to me.) i love this film.
do i regret my vote in 2000? yes, i do. i voted for al gore.

:D After I read that, I told myself I had to highlight Ralph Nader this week and haven't had time until now. So this is from his "Big Oils Profit and Plunder:"

While many impoverished American families are shivering in the winter cold for lack of money to pay the oil baron their exorbitant price for home heating oil, ex-oil man, George W. Bush sleeps in a warm White House and relishes his defeat of the Congressional attempt to get rid of $15 billion in unconscionable tax breaks given those same profit-glutted oil companies like ExxonMobil when crude oil was half the price it is today.
This is the same George W. Bush who, calling himself a "compassionate conservative" in October 2000 made this promise to the American people: "First and foremost, we’ve got to make sure we fully fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which is a way to help low-income folks, particularly here in the East, pay for their high, high fuel bills."
So what did this serial promise-breaker propose this year? Mr. Bush wanted to cut the fuel aid program by $379 million! This entire assistance program is funded at about half of the $5 billion that state governors and lawmakers believe is essential to meet the needs of the six million people eligible to apply for such help this year.
Everyone in Washington knows that the big, coddled, subsidized oil industry has many politicians over a barrel. When it comes to oily Bush and Cheney though, the global melting industry has these two indentured servants marinated in oil.
Look at what ending regulation of natural gas prices has produced: prices up 50 percent since last year. Home heating oil prices are up 30 percent. Bush's own Energy Department estimates the rise of heating oil costs will impose an average increase of $375 for customers this winter. No way that supply and demand explains this gouge.

This is going to be a big issue throughout winter as the bills start coming in. By the end of winter, I have a feeling a lot of people are going to be hurting but it's not an issue we get much attention on.

I will be posting Monday and probably just a brief note on Tuesday. (But don't hold me to that! :D)

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

Friday, December 21, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, it's reported that Dems will round out their year of selling out with promises to sell out even more, media discussions on PTSD, the 3900 mark hovers, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Travis Lupick (Canada's Straight) notes the season and, "It will be a lean Christmas for some Iraq-war resisters living in Vancouver. These former U.S. army recruits are waiting on refugee claims and are fighting a return to the U.S. that could include imprisonment. Brad McCall moved to Vancouver after abandoning his army company in September. He told the Straight that this Christmas was going to be different from those of his childhood in Alabama. There wold be no spending money on presents this year, said McCall, who is still without a work visa. But it's not all bad. 'I've got plenty of dinner invitations,' he added. 'There will be no lack of food for me.' McCall said that he would spend the holidays quietly, just hanging out with his Canadian girlfriend. He maintains that he has no regrets, including joining the U.S army. 'Now that I'm in Canada and I'm in Vancouver, I realize how little I did really know about the world,' he said. 'I had pretty much been brainwashed my entire life, not to realize the struggles that are happening all over the world on a daily basis'." The publication first told McCall's story in October when Charlie Smith reported on McCall's attempt to enter Canada September 19, 2007 only to be denied entry by Canadian authorities, "I don't know what kind of police officer he was. He put me in handcuffs in front of all these people that were watching that were trying to get into Canada also. I told them, 'Why are you playing the part of the hound dog for the U.S. army?' They didn't know what to say. They just started stuttering and mumbling."


On November 15th, the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. The Canadian Parliament has the power to let war resisters stay in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.


"In the face of a scandalous health care system, failing schools, and a fraudulent endless war, we are as docile as tattered scarecrows in a field of rotten tomatoes. As for that war, you may have heard that a quarter of the heavily-armed 'shooters' working in the streets of Baghdad for the Administration's mercenary Blackwater foreign legion are alleged to be chemically influenced by steroids or other mind-altering substances," declares Bill Moyers on tonight's Bill Moyers Journal. That's from tonight's essay and you can catch it right now at YouTube. PBS is fundraising in some markets so if you're thinking of watching PBS programming this week, check your local listings to make sure that the program airs at its usual time. On WBAI Sunday, 11 a.m. to noon, The Next Hour will feature Paul Krassner and Sean Kelly joining Janet Coleman and David Dozier for a discussion about the season. Monday's Cat Radio Cafe (also on WBAI, from two p.m. to three p.m.) will continue the seasonal motif with Coleman and Dozer. And Wednesday (the 26th), CCCP returns to WBAI for their monthly broadcast. The Christmas Coup Comedy Players is original comedy programming created for public radio. It will air from two p.m. to three p.m. and feature Coleman, Dozer, John McDonagh, Marc Kehoe, Scooter, Moogy Klingman and (Wally's favorite) Will Durst. Remember WBAI broadcasts from NYC and for those not in the broadcast area, WBAI streams online. For those who may miss Bill Moyers Journal, remember it streams online and it provides transcripts as well. It is fully accessible for all news consumers. PBS' NOW with David Brancaccio also regularly airs tonight (again, check your local listings) and the half-hour program will be addressing the issue of being homeless as they probe a new program which provides apartments to homeless persons." This show is already posted online for streaming. NOW with David Branccacio has also selected their "Top 10 NOW reports of 2007" (currently on the front page of the website).
And lastly, Rory O'Connor examines what's being left out in the promotion of the selection for Time magazine's latest "Person of the Year" in "Time to Cover up?" (MediaChannel.org).

From media notes to media gossip passed off as reporting. Frank James (Baltimore Sun) notes an article that ran in an online publication we don't note (the 'objective' reporters that aren't). Grasping fully that the grapple with the truth at PoorLice andTicksOh and the truth always loses, it's equally true the website is a megaphone for the Jane Harman types so when they 'report' something, fully grasp that they may be attempting to advance something that's not set. They report that "Iraq fatigue" has set in among the Congressional Democrats not at the top of the House or Senate. This "fatigue" -- the laughable 'news' source tells you -- is from a number of factors including the desire to "avoid showdowns with Bush over the war, wherever possible". There have been no showdowns with the White House. PoorLiceandTicksOh then wants to talk about how "forcing" votes on withdrawal hasn't worked. What withdrawal? There's been no voting on withdrawal -- forced or otherwise. PoLiceandTicksOh may be advancing for the "Blue Dogs" (no surprise) but if their report is correct, then prepare yourself for issues such as "troop readiness," diplomatic escalation and the alleged benchmarks while the Dems new strategy will be "to push Bush to accelerate any withdrawals called for by Petraeus". That's not a strategy. That's cowardice and a betrayal of the Congress. Petraeus can give any report he wants (and we now all grasp it doesn't even have to be factual) but the United States Congress is the third branch of the federal government, a branch co-equal with the executive and judicial. The idea that a new 'strategy' will be to do whatever General Davey Petraeus says is an insult to the Constitution. Citizens elected Congress members and they weren't elected to turn over the powers to a military general. Could it happen? Anything could but Nancy Pelosi already has her record lowest numbers in the eighth district currently and she is facing re-election. If she wants to hand the seat over to Cindy Sheehan, she should go ahead and pursue this non-strategy. Sheehan is a serious challenger. It's not a vanity campaign and she actually stands for something. Katha Pollitt and others didn't grasp it before the polling but Pelosi, who looks so wonderful from outside the Bay Area, has been a middle-of-the-roader while representing one of the country's leftist districts. She's going to have to campaign to win the election -- this from the woman who called off her regular townhalls in 2006 after she flat out lied to constitutents that there were no plans for permanent bases in Iraq and, when challenged on that lie, tried to back peddle with, "Well, nothing's permanent. Nothing lasts forever." No, nothing does. Including Congressional terms. Something Pelosi's beginning to grasp.

We're going to stay on the Congress for a bit more. The following is the letter that Senator Hillary Clinton wrote last week (December 12th) to Secretary of State Condi Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Attorney General Michael Mukasey:

I write to express my deepest concern about recent news reports that the U.S. government has failed to properly respond in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, a young American woman who claims that she was brutally raped and detained in Iraq by U.S. contractors. I urge you to take swift action to investigate these allegations immediately.
As I hope you are all aware, recent news accounts indicate that Ms. Jones, a Halliburton/KBR employee in Baghdad, alleges she was gang-raped by her fellow employees and then held under guard against her will in a shipping container in order to prevent her from reporting the horrific crime. She states that she was denied food and water during her detention and told that she would be fired if she left Iraq to seek medical attention. More than two years later, news reports state that no U.S. government agency or department has undertaken a proper investigation of the incident.
These claims must be taken seriously and the U.S. government must act immediately to investigate Ms. Jones' claims. These allegations implicate all three of your departments. If one of your departments has already launched a private investigation, I urge you to disclose your findings without delay. If no investigation has been started, I urge you to decide the proper course for an inquiry into these claims and to commence your investigation with the utmost urgency.

Click here for the PDF formatted letter. First, note that Clinton didn't just send the letter to Mukasey -- who, as AG, is over the Department of Justice -- it effects all three departments. (And more.) Second, Clinton led on this issue among women in the Congress and Clinton wasn't one of the women running for office in 1992 on the gender-quake and the rage of what was done to Anita Hill in 1991. Hello, Di-Fi, where are you? Patty Murray was among those women and she is circulating a letter similar to Clinton's (and also to all three department heads). Republican Olympia Snowe (who ran for the Senate three years after) has signed on to Murray's letter. But a lot of women were happy in 1992 to point to Anita Hill facing the all male Senate panel and say that's why we needed to elect them. Many of them got elected and many are still in office. Exactly what are they doing? (There's no reason to let the men off the hook but I am noting, for those too young to remember or those who forgot, the mistreatment of Anita Hill in 1991 fueled the 1992 genderquake which a number of female politicians were eager to ride the wave of. Of the male Senators, Florida's Senator Bill Nelson is among those being active on the issue. And, of course, it was a House Rep, Republican Ted Poe, who immediately sprung into action.)

Marie Tessier (The Women's Media Center) observes, "The Jones case is the perfect storm of competing public values. It is a dreadful reflection of a thriving American culture of violence against women. It is one odious long-term consequence of an ill-conceived war in Iraq in an era of troop cutbacks. It illustrates the fate of crime victims in the real world experience of criminal and employment law. Still, Jones, now 23, is an emblem of a new generation of women who have come of age expecting justice for sexual assault, and willing to tell their families, the media and the world about their exploitation. They intend to hold law enforcement officials and employers accountable for every violation of trust that has followed the crime. As employment lawyers know, Jamie Leigh Jones is, in the end, one extreme example among thousands of victims of violence whose jobs and careers suffer as a result. Experiences like hers at KBR are the reason that sexual assault is recognized as an occupational safety problem throughout the workforce by the Centers for Disease Control and the Pentagon, for example." Stephanie Mencimer (Mother Jones) zooms in on the possibility that Jones may not be able to sue KBR:

When Jones went to work for KBR in Texas, and later for its subsidiary, Overseas Administrative Services, she signed contracts containing mandatory binding arbitration clauses, which required her to give up her right to sue the companies and any right to a jury trial. Instead, the contracts forced Jones to press her case through private arbitration, which she did in 2006. In that forum, the company that allegedly wronged her pays the arbitrator who is hearing the case. For that she can thank Dick Cheney.At the time of the alleged attack on Jones, KBR was a subsidiary of Halliburton, the behemoth military-contracting and oil-technology firm. (KBR was sold off earlier this year.) So Jones is covered by the Halliburton dispute-resolution program, which was implemented when Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. The system bears the markings of Cheney's obsession with secrecy and executive power. On his watch, Halliburton, in late 1997, made it more difficult for its employees to sue the company for discrimination, sexual harassment, and other workplace-related issues.

AP explains that along with Jones, Tracy Barker (sexually assaulted by a State Department employee STILL employed by the State Dept even after he admitted to the assault) and notes of the third woman that Rep Poe spoke of, but did not identify, that she "was molested several times and raped by a KBR co-worker. After the alleged rape, her attacker was allowed to work alongside her. Military officers escorted him off the base when she complained, and she was fired."

On Iraq, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorializes regarding the military bombings by Turkey, "Turkey's air and land attacks on Kurdish civilian targets in an attempt to disable the Kurdish separatist group, the PKK, have been roundly condemned by both Iraqi and Kurdish governments. Not only was the Iraqi government not notified -- so that's how we treat soverign nations -- our own military commanders there were left in the dark, and Gen. David Patraeus is angry about how it was handleed. So now U.S. and Turkish officials are reviewing how the attacks went, hoping to 'streamline' the process furhter. Gosh, not informing two of the four concerned parties seems pretty streamlined to us." China's Xinhua reports that Condi Rice spoke with Ali Babacan, Turkey's Foreign Minister, Wednesday night via phone and that "during the phone conversation, Babacan told Rice that Turkey was pleased with intelligence sharing from the United States." In other news from the Kurdish north of Iraq, Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reports that the region's prime minister, Nechirvan Barzani, has stated that things "must be changed" or the Kurdish MPs will leave the 'coalition' (puppet) government which would destroy al-Maliki's leadership role (emphasis on "role"). Things? The oil law and the referendrum on oil-rich Kirkuk [whether it remains a part of the central (puppet) government or is folded into the Kurdistan region]. Also at the Telegraph of London, Con Coughlin provides (apparently unknowingly) the laugh for the day: the United Kingdom's new Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, states "the big difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that Iraq has the wealth and resources to finance its own reconstruction, whereas Afghanistan has to reply on hand-outs." For those not in on the joke, that lie's been repeated many, many times before. Click here for the Institute for Policy Studies' "Wolfowitz Chronology" to be reminded of War Hawk Paul Wolfowitz telling Congress pre-Iraq War and after it started that reconstruction would be paid for with Iraqi oil.


War Hawk Down? Many hoped when John Howard was outed in elections and Kevin Rudd became the country's new prime minister. AFP notes that Rudd "was elected on a promise that he would pull out the 550 troops deployed in Iraq along with the British forces in the south of the country." In addition, Australia has approximately 1,000 troops stationed 'outside' of Iraq. AFP reports Rudd commented on a surprise trip to Baghdad today, "Australia will continue to support our friends in Iraq through navy deployment in the Gulf to assist in long-term security of Iraqi exports." Doesn't sound like Australia is "out" of the illegal war or that the new prime minister is planning for that.

While Democratic leadership may or may not be planning a coma for 2008 (you really can't call it caving after it keeps happening), it's worth noting that the number of service members announded dead since the start of the illegal war currently stands at 3896. That's four away from the 3,900 marker. With over a week left in the year, it might end with the marker being reached.

Perspective on the Democratic 'leadership' in Congress: The 3000 mark was reached December 31, 2006. And, in one year's time, nearly a thousand have died. The Congress held their first session on January 4, 2007. At that point the number dead was 3006. There was a huge shake-up in the Congress, for any who've forgotten. Democrats promised a lot with regards to Iraq and they delivered nothing. In the November 2006 elections, they had a sweep. They had hoped to win control of one house. They won control of both houses of Congress. Since their first session, 890 US service members have been announced dead in Iraq. Since they were handed control, Byron W. Fouty and Alex R. Jimenez went missing. They were part of a group that was slaughtered. (By Iraqis waived through checkpoints, for those who've forgotten.) Hopefully, they are still alive. But they went missing May 12th. (They are two of four missing since the start of the illegal war. Keith M. Maupin went missing April 16, 2004 and Ahmeda Qusai al-Taei went missing right before the November elections, October 23, 2006. Ahmeda Qusai al-Taei is the US soldier who married an Iraqi and was captured while visiting her in Baghdad, outside the Green Zone.) The count doesn't include the deaths from physical wounds following the departure from Iraq. Five service members are known to have died. The number is probably higher. This year three died, from physical wounds received in Iraq, after leaving Iraq: Jack D. Richards (July 29, 2007), Gerald J. Cassidy (September 25, 2007) and Anthony Raymond Wasielewsk (October 8, 2007). In addition there are the many who have come back with mental traumas and have taken their own lives. They aren't included in the count either.

That is what Democrats have to show for their non-action after the American people went to the polls in November 2006 to give them control of both houses of Congress with a mandate to end the illegal war. They have not ended the illegal war (they really haven't even tried to end it) and 890 US service members have been announced dead in Iraq since Congress' first session of this year.

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed the lives of 4 police officers and 1 civilian (seven police officers and one more civilian were also wounded) and the driver of the car was also killed, and an Al Salam mortar attack that claimed the life of 1 child (two more wounded).

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 people shot dead in Diyala province.

Kidnappings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person was kidnapped in Al Touz.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Mohammed Al Dulaimy also reports, "The U.S. military and Iraqi police said one Iraqi police officer was killed and one marine was injured in an altercation at a joint outpost in the Jazeera area of Ramadi on Wednesday. The police officer died of stab wounds and the marine was treated for minor injuries from lacerations at a military hospital. The U.S. military said the incident is under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Colleagues of the police officer said the man's throat was slit." On Thursday, Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reported on an event that left someone, assumed to be 18-year-old Waleed Khalid Khudhaier, an Iraqi police officer, dead -- Farrell noted that the event was under investigation (an Iraqi police officer and a US marine are thought to have been involved in a knife battle on a base and the police officer was killed) and that:

The incident is an embarrassment for the United States military, which has paised Anbar as a model for Sunni tribes and American soldiers cooperating to fight fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown militant group that United States intelligence officials say is led by foreigners. The death has provoked local anger and demands for legal action.


Today UNICEF announced, "An estimated two million children in Iraq continue to face threats including poor nutrition, disease and interrupted education. Iraqi children were frequently caught in the crossfire of conflict throughout 2007. Insecurity and displacement continues to cause hardship for many in the most insecure parts of the country and further eroded access to quality essential services country-wide." Among the many distrubing facts UNCIEF reports, we'll grab two. "Hundreds of children lost their lives or were injured by violence and many more had their main family wage-earner kidnapped or killed." Earlier this week, IRIN reported that "Iraqi women parliamentarians and activists are pressing for a new law to help the increasing number of widows and divorced women in their war-torn country" and quoted parliamentarian Nadira Habib stating that violence had created ("over the past three decades") over 1 million widows in Iraq but the country plans to cut subsidies in next year's budget, despite the fact that "country's social protection programme" already only provides the US equiavalent of fifty-dollars a month to those in need. Cara Buckley (New York Times) reported on some of the problems facing Iraq's internally displaced refugees and noted that you have to jump through a hoop to get new benefits in another area -- you must return to the area that turned you and your family into a refugee to ask them to take you off the role (one of the women interviewed by Buckley explained it was just too dangerous for her to return there) and then apply in your new neighborhood.

UNICEF also notes: "Approximately 1,3500 children were detained by military and police authorities, many for alleged security violations." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) examines the realities of the US prison releases in Iraq and doesn't find 'happy' and 'pretty.' She tells the story of a woman (Leila Nasser) who sees her husband hauled away while she's six-months pregnant because he committed the 'crime' of sleeping on the roof. At least 15 months later, she waits outside the prsion for Mohammed Amin's release, waits with their one-year-old son Moubin that the father has never seen due to the 'crime' of sleeping on his home's roof. Fadel notes, "More than 25,000 Iraqis are now in US dentention facilities. The Jihad reconciliation committee of Sunni and Shiite Muslims had requested that 562 men be released. Last month, 48 people were released, but more were detained."

In other non-progress news, Reuters reports, "Iraq's powerful Shiite Muslim leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, has called for curbs on US-backed neighourhood patrol units, which are mainly Sunni, saying weapons should only be in the hands of the government. Mr Hakin, head of the biggest party in the Shiite-led government, praised the role of the patrols, known to Iraqis as 'Awakening councils', in contributing to a sharp drop in violence but said they should only play an auxillary role."

Finally, two things on the issue of the PTSD. The Army Times' Kelly Kennedy spoke with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) today about her recent reporting:

JUAN GONZALEZ: Your series presents a really fascinating picture of how the medical folks who dealt with some of these soldiers, the psychologists who dealt with them, reacted to their situation, and also how the commander dealt with being faced with an actual mutiny by his troops. Could you enlighten us about that some more?
KELLY KENNEDY: Yeah, I think there's--that's one of the key differences of this war. I'm a veteran myself, and I served in Mogadishu, and I served in Desert Storm. We didn't know what PTSD was--post-traumatic stress disorder. We didn't have mental health people we could go to while we were out in the field or while we were out in battle. We didn't talk about ethics. We didn't talk about how we were feeling or how we would react professionally to certain situations. And these guys are. They're going to mental health, and they're saying, "Hey, I'm upset about this." And the mental health people are talking with the unit commanders and saying, "Hey, maybe you need to pull your guys out Adhamiya," or "Hey, maybe your guys need some more rest." And they're certainly saying, "Listen, if you think you're going to act unprofessionally, you need to do something else. You need to take care of that." And I think that's huge. I don't think a lot of people understand that that's a big difference in this war, between the last war and this war.
And the reason they do that is because early on in this war we did have situations where troops did not behave properly. In Vietnam, we certainly saw it. For these guys to stand up and say, "Listen, we're not sure we can handle it right now," could be considered very courageous, in my mind. The commander, I think, also realized that, and he said as much, that he sees the two sides of the situation.
After Bravo Company's IED went off, Charlie Company was supposed to go back out and patrol the same area. When some of the members who had been patrolling with Charlie Company before the scout platoon went as the quick reaction force to the IED attack for Bravo Company, they were struck by how much it looked like the first IED attack that--the roadside bomb attack, and they reacted as if it were their own men, and they went right to mental health and they got sleeping medications, and they basically couldn't sleep and reacted poorly.
And then, they were supposed to go out on patrol again that day. And they, as a platoon, the whole platoon--it was about forty people--said, "We're not going to do it. We can't. We're not mentally there right now." And for whatever reason, that information didn't make it up to the company commander. All he heard was, "2nd Platoon refuses to go." So he insisted that they come. They still refused. So volunteers went out to talk with them, and then he got the whole situation. In the meantime, it was called a mutiny, which is probably a bigger word than should be used for it, but that's what the battalion called it.
And eventually, what they did was they separated the platoon. They said, you know, "You guys aren't acting well together anymore, so we're going to split you up, and we're going to have you work with other platoon sergeants, other squad leaders, and see if we can turn things around this way." But they also punished them, in a sense, by flagging them and saying that they couldn't get promotions and they couldn't get their awards for two months. So there was a feeling that there had to be punishment for these soldiers refusing to go on a mission, but there was also understanding that the guys may have acted properly in this case.
AMY GOODMAN: Kelly Kennedy, I think what is so profound about this story is the refusal of the men to go out. Were there women, by the way, in this unit?
KELLY KENNEDY: No, it was all infantry.
AMY GOODMAN: The refusal of these men to go out, because they were afraid they would commit a massacre. Explain that.
KELLY KENNEDY: Yeah. They're--I need to say this: they are good guys. I mean, I saw them take care of each other. I saw them take care of Iraqis.
When the IED, the roadside bomb, went off, it was so close to one of the Iraqi police stations that they should have been able to see somebody burying that. It was right in front of somebody's house, and nobody said anything. Nobody said to these guys, "Listen, there's a bomb here. We're worried about you," even though they had been going out and patrolling and doing what they were supposed to be doing, in their minds. So when that IED went off and killed their five friends, they're in--you have to understand, they've been living together for a year like brothers in the basement of this old palace. And it's--they're right on top of each other and going out and taking care of each other on the battlefield, daily firefights. And so, they're closer probably than anyone could be. And when they lost their five men, they--I think they gave up on the Iraqi people. If the Iraqi people weren't willing to fight for them, then what was the point? And they were so angry. They just wanted to go out and take out the whole city. They didn't understand why they couldn't finish up what they call the war, and the whole idea of counterinsurgency is that you're supposed to be building relationships, but they're trying to build relationships with people who obviously aren't that concerned about them. So this idea of a massacre was just--they were just so angry, they could barely contain it anymore.

And yesterday on All Things Considered (NPR), Daniel Zwerdling explored the topic of PTSD and noted the number of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and being discharged without all their health benefits which means receiving treatment for PTSD is very dificult which is why there is a "call on the nation's leaders to declare an amnesty" and "restore full benefits to all troops who were discharged for misconduct or other behaivor after they returned from combat if they were also diagnosed with mental health problems such as PTSD." Ruth noted Zwerdling yesterday. And the December 17th snapshot contains links to the Army Times series.


the ballet
i hate the war
ralph nader
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
the third estate sunday review
iraq
travis lupickbrad mccall
marie tessier
stephanie mencimer
bill moyersbill moyers journal
wbaithe next hourcat radio cafechristmas coup players
now with david branccaciopbs
media channel
rory oconnor
the new york timescara buckley
stephen farrell
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
democracy nowamy goodman
juan gonzalez
kelly kennedy
nprall things considered
ruths report
the daily jot