Friday, December 04, 2020

Joe Biden's Titanic

Jimmy Dore:



All the bad publicity that Neera Tandem's earning and Joe Biden's sticking with her for OMB nominee.  All the ill will it's building and he's sticking with her.  Supposedly, Republicans are saying they will not let the nomination pass the Senate and he's sticking with her.


Joe Biden's demonstrating no ability to think on his feet, no ability to adapt.  The Titanic is sinking and he can't even point you to the lifeboats.  This is not good news.  


This is the easiest point of Joe's presidency.  The pre-honeymoon period.  If he's failing here, how does it ever get better?

(It doesn't.)


This:


Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is urging her fellow lawmakers in the Senate to block President-elect Joe Biden's pick for director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Neera Tanden.

 "Neera Tanden's 'think tank' took millions from WallStreet, UAE, & defense contractors. She advocated taking Libya’s oil to pay for bombs we destroyed their country with. At OMB she’ll support more costly regime change wars & military industrial complex. Senators, I urge a NO vote," Gabbard said in a post on Twitter.

 

Tanden, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, has been the chief executive officer and president of the Center for American Progress since 2011.

Her opponents have pointed to the millions of dollars her think tank has taken from controversial donors such as the United Arab Emirates – a country known for its poor human rights record.

 

 

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

 

 Thursday, December 3, 2020.  Joe Biden's picks just get worse while the press ignores Moqtada al-Sadr's assault on people and one reporter rushes in to explain that others did report it, honest!, forgetting that she was supposed to report it for her own paper.


CONFLICTS OF INTEREST speaks with Iraq and Afghanistan War veteran Scott Spaulding.




The wars go on.  And so does the incompetence of Joe Biden who, please remember, helped start the illegal war and continued it.  He's putting together a cabinet and it's a cabinet of eye sores.  Neera Tandem, for example, presided over a toxic work culture at the Center For American Progress where women were repeatedly harassed on the job and where their complaints were not taken seriously.  Neera finally 'addressed' the issue after the media reported on it -- she did so by holding a staff wide meeting where she outed one of the women who had gone to the press.


That should mean the end of any career in management Neera might have.  But Joe looked at it and said, "Hey, she's my kind of girl.  I'm accused of harassment by multiple women and accused of assault by one woman.  I could send a strong message that I will not tolerate harassment in my administration but, what the hell, let's run with Neera instead."


I don't believe Gina Raimondo tops Neera but she's certainly just as bad.  Julia Rock and Andrew Perez (DAILY POSTER) report:

Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo has presided over one of the deadliest COVID outbreaks in the country — and new documents obtained by The Daily Poster detail how she helped nursing home lobbyists shield health care companies from coronavirus-related lawsuits. 

Now, Raimondo — a former Wall Street executive — is reportedly being considered for the nation’s top health care policy job in the incoming Biden administration.

Politico reported last week that Raimondo, who made her name slashing state workers’ pensions, is one of the finalists to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President-elect Joe Biden. Raimondo was also previously considered for Treasury Secretary, according to the American Prospect.

As governor, Raimondo has slammed proposals to expand Medicare to cover everyone. Amid the pandemic in August, her administration approved health insurance companies’ steep premium increases that were criticized by the state’s Democratic attorney general as “unnecessary and ill-advised.” Health insurers have been raking in record profits, with fewer people seeking care because of the pandemic.

Raimondo has also pushed for Medicaid cuts that nursing home workers warned would result in unsafe staffing levels — and in April, she issued an executive order sought by health care industry lobbyists that shielded nursing homes from lawsuits when their business decisions injure or kill people. The order was later expanded to shield nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers.

While the Biden transition is reportedly considering Raimondo for HHS Secretary, residents and workers in Rhode Island’s nursing homes have faced deadly consequences. Documents obtained by The Daily Poster show that Raimondo quickly responded to lobbyists’ demands for an executive order granting them legal immunity during the pandemic.

“What immunity has done is allow nursing homes to act unreasonably without accountability,” one personal injury lawyer told the Providence Journal last month.

Rhode Island currently has one of the highest coronavirus death rates by population in the country, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). More than 70 percent of COVID-19 deaths in the state have been linked to long-term care facilities — only two other states have seen similar nursing home death rates, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The state’s hospitals are completely full. On Monday, patients were admitted to field hospitals for the first time in Rhode Island during the pandemic.


There are many qualified women -- and men -- the ones Joe continues to pick are not qualified.  At BLACK AGENDA REPORT, Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III points out:

When you look at Biden's cabinet announcements it takes me to former Giant's coach Bill Parcels who said, "you are what your record says you are." In this case, you are what your cabinet says you are.  It is the people who make the policy; policy does not make itself. The history of many of these nominees reflects America’s darkest impulses not its better angels.

“Biden has it backwards.”

What was good about America “green lighting” the NATO bombing of Libya and the resulting execution of Muammar Gaddafi?  This led to the destabilization of the country and the region.  According to The Atlantic , “The Libya intervention marked the third time in a decade that Washington embraced regime change and then failed to plan for the consequences.”  America’s better angels?  I think not.

What good has come from America “green lighting” Saudi Arabia’s invasion in Yemen and the continuing logistical support for what the UN  has called the worst man-made humanitarian crisis in the world?  Per the UN, after nearly six years of conflict, “14.3 million people are classified as being in acute need, with around 3.2 million requiring treatment for acute malnutrition; that includes two million children under-five, and more than one million pregnant and lactating women.”  If America were winning the battle of our better angles, we would stop our support of the Saudi’s and provide these starving people food, water and medicine. Instead, America is losing the battle to the MIC, big oil and its darkest impulses. These impulses convince you that it is more important to sell weapons and take resources than provide humanitarian aid. 

America’s imperialist, hegemonic and evil regime change policies did not make themselves.  Again, it is the people who make the policy. Look at the record of some of Biden’s cabinet nominees and their involvement in these atrocities. 

“America is losing the battle to the MIC, big oil and its darkest impulses.”

Biden’s choice for Secretary of Defense is projected to be Michele Flournoy. She was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy during the Clinton administration. During her tenure she authored the May 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).  The founding principle of this document is that the unilateral use of force is acceptable to defend any US interest the US deems important and the US is the sole arbiter of these issues. She is the proponent of permanent war or as she calls it, “full spectrum dominance.”  As the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the Obama administration, she was instrumental in designing the horrific regime change policies that led to the invasions of Libya and Syria.

Biden’s choice for Secretary of State is Tony Blinken. He was a top advisor to then Sen. Joe Biden who was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They played a major role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq. 

We can also thank Avril Haines, Biden’s pick to be Director of National Intelligence for her role in the Yemen, Libya and Syria policies. Haines also supported arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

On the domestic policy front, Biden has named Neera Tanden as his nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget.  It should be troubling that a nominee for this position has advocated for cuts to Social Security and other vital social safety net programs.  During a pandemic, an economy in recession and 30-40 million Americans facing eviction, austerity is not the appropriate response.  

“Flournoy is a proponent of permanent war.”

Tanden also has a hawkish foreign policy side.  Leading up to the Libya bombing she was advocating taking Libya’s oil as repayment for the US backed bombing of the country. “If we want to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil rich countries partially pay us back doesn’t seem crazy to me…” This is the same mindset that Trump articulated in Syria.

In his speech, “Time to Break Silence” Dr. King warned us about austerity, “A few years ago…it seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor…through the poverty program…Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.”  Just replace Vietnam with Afghanistan, Syria or Yemen, etc.  We are still “a society gone mad on war”.



At WSWS, Kevin Reed observes:


In the three weeks since former Vice President Joseph Biden and Senator Kamala Harris declared victory in the 2020 presidential election, it has become clear that the Democrats are assembling a right-wing administration that represents the interests of corporate America, the financial elite and US military-intelligence.

The truth of this assessment is demonstrated by the tech policy of the president-elect, which has been articulated in policy statements, media reports and comments made by Biden himself prior to the November 3 elections.

Although tech policy is not identified as a top priority on the Biden-Harris transition website, it is evident that the relationship of the new administration with Silicon Valley is a critical element of the overall of strategy of the Democrats.

According to a report by CBS News on November 11, the Biden transition team is being advised by a “cadre of tech industry types, including executives with political data company Alloy, formed by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, and Google chairperson Eric Schmidt’s firm Rebellion Defense.”

After leaving Google in 2019, the multi-billionaire Eric Schmidt has become an evangelist for the integration of big tech with the US military. Schmidt sits on at least two government advisory boards that promote the use of artificial intelligence technologies by the Defense Department and he has invested in military tech startups such as Rebellion Defense.

Rebellion Defense is a Pentagon contractor that specializes in analyzing video filmed by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The company website says, “Artificial Intelligence is redefining the art of the possible. Consumers worldwide benefit from it—but our adversaries are using it against us. Our national defense urgently needs to harness Silicon Valley’s best technologies and talent to address this challenge. We help our defense and national security agencies unlock the power of data across all domains. … Rebellion Defense builds for the warfighter.”

Meanwhile, members of the incoming Biden-Harris cabinet are being drawn from private consulting and investment firms with deep ties to the technology sector and the military. According to a report in the New York Times on Sunday, both Biden’s choice for Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, and one of the leading candidates for defense secretary, Michele Flournoy, are co-founders of WestExec Advisors.

The Times report says that among WestExec’s clients is a firm called Shield AI, “a San Diego-based company that makes surveillance drones and signed a contract worth as much as $7.2 million with the Air Force this year to deliver artificial intelligence tools to help drones operate in combat missions.”


Jimmy Dore offers the following commentary on Biden's picks.



THE KATIE HALPER SHOW offered the following discussion.





Looking at this landscape, Osita Nwanevu (THE NEW REPUBLIC) argues:


It’s been noted elsewhere that the left has responded much more quickly and aggressively to Biden’s selections than it had to Obama’s as he put together his first presidential cabinet. If so, it doesn’t seem like the flurries of statements, social media posts, and articles that have been written to counter every stray rumor and announcement have mattered very much at all—the process is chugging along and Biden’s nominees are just a couple of notches left of the Obama team; activists might take a small victory in torpedoing an Emanuel nomination. There was never good reason to expect more. This is partially because a Republican Senate, should Democrats lose in Georgia’s runoff elections next month, will be an obstacle to the confirmation of even moderate nominees. But it’s more substantially because the moderates in the Democratic Party don’t share the left’s policy goals and would oppose giving them a meaningful presence in the Biden administration even if they could.

The conventional wisdom about the left’s relationship with the Democratic Party has fully reversed itself in the space of six to eight months. As the Democratic primary ended, it was often argued that Sanders and the left lost because they had marginalized themselves—anti-establishment rhetoric, refusals to accept compromise, and the toxicity of prominent voices had alienated not only most of the Democratic electorate but also Democratic elites who might have otherwise been won over. “Twitter isn’t real life,” it was said. But naturally, after election day, Democratic underperformance down-ballot from Biden was blamed mostly on the left’s influence. Democratic elites, it’s said now, were persuaded by the left into taking on or accepting unpopular messaging about socialism and policing—thanks in part, evidently, to the awesome and terrible power of tweets from left activists, writers, and podcasters.

Both arguments are wrong, but the first was closer to the truth than the second. The left’s influence on Democratic elites has indeed been extremely limited. This is less a consequence of any particular feature of the Sanders era—over many years, many different progressive candidates with many different political styles and orientations toward the party establishment have similarly failed to move it—than of elite hostility to the left and their policies, which they consider substantively bad, politically risky, or both.

And while elites and major candidates have shifted noticeably on several issues in recent years—the minimum wage, healthcare, climate, and so on—those shifts, which are unlikely to make their way into federal legislation, are probably best understood as the product of specific conditions. First, a remarkable decade in organizing spurred in part by a massive financial crisis helped a left-wing candidate turn in a surprisingly strong performance in the 2016 Democratic primary. And second, Clinton’s narrow loss led to a wide-open primary this year in which multiple candidates made self-interested efforts to appeal to the constituency that Sanders revealed and activated. The period from the launch of his first campaign in April 2015 to his concession this past April was an unusual half-decade in American politics, and a window of opportunity for the left that has now closed. Another will not open for another eight years at an absolute minimum. Yes, a left-wing candidate might mount a challenge to Biden or Kamala Harris in 2024. But it is almost certain that they will lose, as incumbent challengers in the modern primary system always have.

[. . .]

So much, then, for voice. But what about exit? The structural barriers that would limit the viability of another alternative left-wing party in the United States have been written about extensively elsewhere and won’t be repeated here. That said, it seems fairly clear at this point that the left should, somehow, put itself at a more meaningful remove from the Democratic Party—that it should abandon the notion it might significantly move Democratic elites from below, and instead build out a detached movement adjacent to the Democratic Party that might interact with it only when it makes strategic sense to do so. Democratic socialists refer to this as an “inside-outside” strategy; frankly the inside portion of the term should probably be dropped. After all, a party that’s unwilling to turn over the reins even to younger moderates ideologically aligned with leadership isn’t ripe for further ideological transformation on a timescale adequate to meeting the crises the country faces, including, obviously, climate change.


Meanwhile, over at THE NATION, Jonathan Smucker is insisting the answer is not to abandon the party but to take it over.  Smuchker?  Schmucker?  At any rate, the scmuck seems to think he's just invented the wheel when the idea he's advocating is the same idea that's been repeatedly advocated.  The student left of the sixties?  Remember when they were going to take over and change everything.  That never happened.  It never happens so maybe schmucky can tell us in his following column exactly how the latest attempt will end any differently?


Maybe he can ponder that during all the time THE NATION takes off from covering Iraq?  The Iraq War continues.   The violence continues.  It's just the press coverage that ceased.  


We'll note this Tweet:

Dhi Qar: The activists of the October Revolution are preparing to stage large demonstrations next Friday; In response to the attacks targeting them by (Muqtada al-Sadr) militias.
Image
4:02 PM · Dec 2, 2020


The November 30th snapshot detailed the assault Moqtada al-Sadr organized and implemented against the peaceful protesters in Nassariya.   He set his cult loose on them and they killed and wounded many.  Some reports have put the dead at 18 and over eighty were left injured.  Where is the coverage?


Joel Wing notes:



Was coverage of the initial attack but nothing afterward Associated Press, “Demonstrators in Iraq take to street unmasked amid pandemic,” 11/27/20 Reuters, “Three killed in Iraq as Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s followers stormed protest camp,” 11/27/20
2:06 AM · Dec 3, 2020


Louisa Loveluck weighs in with this Tweet:


Just for the record - AFP, Reuters, AP and Al Jazeera did quick and sterling work on this. Others too I believe, but this is off the top of my head.
2:15 AM · Dec 3, 2020


No, Louisa, they didn't.  REUTERS and AP were first out of the gate with their stories filed on Saturday.  REUTERS offered a bit stronger story than AP.  AFP followed.  ALJAZEERA waited two days to file and largely just picked through the reporting of AP, REUTERS and AFP.  They do have reporters on the ground in Iraq, ALJAZEERA does.  Is there a reason that they didn't have a truly original report? Is there a reason that it took them so many days to compile?


Is there a reason that Louisa ignores ARAB WEEKLY's coverage?


More to the point, Louisa, you work for who?  THE WASHINGTON POST?  Don't you find it strange that there's no story from THE POST?  Especially since you're the one who should be writing it for the paper? 


Does it get more feather brained than that?  A question is rightly raised about the lack of coverage in the western press and Louisa, the Iraq reporter for THE WASHINGTON POST, rushes in to say, "Hey, other outlets covered it!"  


The following sites updated:






Posted by at

Thursday, December 03, 2020

Why JACOBIN sucks

Here's Jimmy Dore.



Nancy Pelosi's disgusting.  Calling her a disappointment is underselling it.  She betrays us.  Her legacy, her historical footnote is going to be as someone who betrayed the people.  


Elwin e-mailed asking why I don't note JACOBIN much anymore?  Because of Ana.  I can't stand her.  She hosts a JACOB program.  She's already on THE YOUNG TURDS and that's more than enough.  If JACOBIN can't be unique and come up with their own brand for a webcast, I'm really not interested.  She's hateful and she's a liar and they're promoting her so they f**k themselves as far as I'm concerned.


This is from THIRD's "Media Roundtable:"


Jim (Con't): What's a big beef about the media that's supposed to be serving us?


Betty: As Ava and C.I. have repeatedly noted in the last weeks, the lack of women as guests.  We need our shows, our programs, to be working harder at including women.  We also need to be working harder at including people of color. 


Wally: JACOBIN needs to fire Ana Kasparian.  That I have to make that point goes to how sad 'our media' is.  A) She's already on THE YOUNG TURKS where she's been an embarrassment for years.  B) JACOBIN needs to have its own brand.  It doesn't need to be watered by THE YOUNG TURKS.  It is so stupid to have her on a JACOBIN program.  They should ask Liza Featherstone or Marianela D'Aprile to host.  Co-host?  Branko -- what's his name?


C.I.: Branko Marcelic.


Wally (Con't): Thank you.  He's someone with passion.  So is Walker Bragman.  I'd even be fine with David Sirota being a co-host.  But they need to kick Ana to the curb.  She's alienating to many people.  She's become a joke.  You can't be in any discussion online when her name comes up that they're not mocking her for her claim that you can't buy a house with $100,000.  She's out of touch.  She's a rude jerk who's always picking fights online.  


Mike: Amen.  I won't listen to JACOBIN's weekend program anymore because of her.  And that was bulls**t the crap she pulled on Jimmy Dore.  I don't watch YOUNG TURDS, I never have.  I was never tricked or fooled by Cenk -- just a fat ass Republican who thought he could push his way to the front of the line if he moved over to the left.


Cedric:  Ana is irritating.  We tried, Ann and I, to listen to JACOBIN but Ana's so prissy.  She's just so irritating as a personality.  Ann?


Ann: Agreed.  She thinks she's so important and she's really not.  But she is off putting.  I would add that I'm really disappointed who is and who isn't on 'our media.'  Ava and C.I. noted a few weeks ago why are these programs -- RISING, Katie Halper, etc -- why aren't they inviting Margaret Kimberley or Glen Ford from BLACK AGENDA REPORT?


She's awful.  A loudmouth sell out.  I can't even stand that fat f**k on TCM who always looks like he needs a bath Ben FatF**k because he's part of the THE YOUNG TURDS.  


If JACOBIN doesn't want to find someone that represents them then they don't really care about anything and they're just a joke -- like US SOCIALIST WORKER was.


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

 Wednesday, December 2, 2020.  The push for Toxic Neera continues.

Joe Biden got harasser Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.  Now he's working to put toxic workplace 'manager' Neera Tanden in charge of the OMB.


To be fair to Neera, there are people who defend her.  For example, 'journalist' Victoria Bosworth Tweeted:

Biden OMB pick

@neeratanden

supports a Federal Jobs Guarantee, opposes punitive right-to-work, welfare-work & Medicaid-work laws. She supports $15 min wage. Claiming she's anti-progessive is tediously knee-jerk. Also, putting WOC in white male jobs IS progressive. Be less racist.


That makes no sense -- non-progressive people do not make a world progressive merely due to their skin color.  Be less stupid, Victoria. 


But Neera's got the pedophile vote sewn up.  That is what Victoria Bosworth is.  Asking a trans person to show you their genitals?  That's appalling, that's treating a person as though they are a thing.  More to the point, the trans person in question was underage.  That makes Victoria a pedophile.  So remember that, the pedophiles are on board with Neera.  Thanks for sharing, Vicky, now don't ask any children to show their genitals today, okay?


In October 1991, Clarence Thomas got on the Supreme Court.  According to Pedophile Victoria Bosworth's 'logic' that was a great progressive moment in history -- he was put "in white male jobs [that] IS progressive."  He has done damage ever since.  You can thank Joe Biden.


You can thank Joe Biden for the assault on Anita Hill after she came forward about enduring Clarence Thomas' harassment.  April 25, 2019, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Carl Hulse (NEW YORK TIMES) reported:


Joe Biden knew Anita Hill was going to be an issue for him. So a few weeks ago, as he prepared for his presidential announcement, he reached out to her through an intermediary and arranged a telephone call, hoping to assuage her.

It did not go how he had hoped.

On Thursday, the first day of his presidential campaign, the Biden camp disclosed the call, saying the former vice president had shared with Ms. Hill “his regret for what she endured” 28 years ago, when, as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he presided over the confirmation hearings in which she accused Clarence Thomas, President George Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, of sexual harassment.

But Ms. Hill says the call from Mr. Biden left her feeling deeply unsatisfied.

In a lengthy telephone interview on Wednesday, she declined to characterize Mr. Biden’s words to her as an apology and said she was not convinced that he has taken full responsibility for his conduct at the hearings — or for the harm he caused other victims of sexual harassment and gender violence.

[Read excerpts from Anita Hill’s interview with The Times.]

She said she views Mr. Biden as having “set the stage” for last year’s confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who, like Justice Thomas, was elevated to the court despite accusations against him that he had acted inappropriately toward women. And, she added, she was troubled by the recent accounts of women who say Mr. Biden touched them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable.


Confirmation hearings have never shown Joe in a good light.  I was at one where yet another Republican got put on the Court and Joe's refusal to fight and his personal betrayal of a woman left the woman crying in the hall.  That's Joe Biden.  Betray a little, betray a lot, that's Joe Biden.  


And demonstrating that he still will not oppose toxic work environments, Joe is nominating Neera who oversaw the toxic work environment at CAP where women were harassed constantly and Neera -- in charge of the whole thing -- looked the other way until BUZZFEED reported on it.  Then Neera took action: She outed the woman who had spoken to BUZZFEED -- that shows you who Neera sides with in a toxic work environment: The harassers.


Neera is not fit to be in charge of anything.  Her history is appalling.  The most basic thing a manager has to be able to do is to ensure a safe work environment.  Neera failed to do that.  And yet Joe wants to put her in charge of the OMB.


It goes to the fact that Joe is not a defender of women.  


Joe pretended for a long, long time to be a good guy, a defender of women.  But the reality is, it's 2020 and he's trying to put Neera in charge of an agency which demonstrates he's still supporting the attacker and not the attacked.


Anthony Zenkus Tweets:


Neera Tanden, who outed a sex harassment survivor at a work meeting, went from #BelieveWomen to deleting all references to Believe Women from her twitter. Amazing how being offered a job by a president-elect credibly accused of sexual harassment and assault can change things.
Image
Image
1:13 PM · Dec 1, 2020



Professor Zenkus doesn't seem to get it himself.  Yes, outing a victim of harassment to the entire workforce is appalling and needs to be called out.  But you're not holding her accountable for the toxic environment that led to women being harassed.  Women complained and they were not treated seriously.  You do not put the person over a work environment like that in charge of any agency.


The whole reason the attacked was outed was because she took her story to the media.  Stop acting as though the only thing Neera did was out the woman.  Neera was responsible for the work environment.  Credible charges of harassment were repeatedly made and women were not listened to.  That was Neera's choice -- a lot like Doormat Hillary Clinton.


Remember, Hillary had multiple relationships -- work relationships -- with men who were toxic.  Jessica Estepa (USA TODAY):

Hillary Clinton reportedly asked to keep an adviser to her 2008 presidential campaign onboard, despite accusations that he had sexually harassed a young woman.

The New York Times reported that Burns Strider, Clinton's faith adviser at the time, was accused of harassing a 30-year-old woman who sharing an office with him. The woman told the campaign that Strider sent her suggestive emails, rubbed her shoulders inappropriately and kissed her on the forehead.

A sexual harassment report was made to campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle. Doyle reportedly approached Clinton and asked that Strider be fired. Clinton declined to do so, and Strider remained on staff.


As Ana North (VOX) noted:


Clinton’s history when it comes to sexual misconduct allegations against her husband — and others in her circle — is a complicated one. She’s never had a satisfying response to questions about the accusations against her husband, which include Juanita Broaddrick’s accusation that he raped her in 1978. On the other hand, she allowed an adviser to keep his job with her 2008 campaign despite allegations of sexual harassment — and when she addressed that decision this year, her comments left a lot to be desired. 


That's Neera's mentor.  Hillary mentors a lot of weak women -- weak women who march about in public life but are at home alone and crying because they married a bastard who cheats on them and publicly humiliates them.  It's the bonding thread of so many of Hillary's relationships with women -- the sick join with the sick to avoid healing.  Neera's a joke.  She's basically an emotional punching bag at home and that's probably why she's so damn nasty to so many when she's acting out in public.


("And you?"  I'm just a bitch.  I never claimed otherwise.)


Neera's confirmation hearing in the Senate?  If it takes place, women who worked at CAP and were harassed should be invited to tell their stories to the American people so we can decide if that's the sort of management we believe should exist in the federal government.


Tara Reade has made a credible accusation of assault.  I believe her.  I believe Joe Biden assaulted her.  She recently wrote:


The hypocrisy of the Democrats and the Me Too movement is not anything new. It was done to Rose, Juanita Broaddrick and others. The Democratic party is not only complicit with rape, it empowers the predators all the while hiding behind rhetoric that women are protected. I am a woman, I was a Democrat, and I was not protected. One of the unfortunate consequences of the fall-out for this U.S. Presidential election is the chilling effect my experience is having on other survivors. My coming forward and the resulting attacks on me illustrated the very dire consequences of anyone coming forward about a powerful person, most especially a Democrat. However, I do not regret coming forward about my history with Joe Biden, nor speaking up against xenophobia and the absurd anti-Russia narratives being weaponized to brainwash American citizens.


Time and again, we fail.  We fail over and over and we fail for a number of reasons.  Tara Reade was a test and too many feminists shoved her aside because Joe was their personal savior.  Bill Cosby?  Guilty of multiple attacks on women.  News in the '00s and this decade.  But, help me out, I seem to remember a woman calling him out in the 1990s.


What was her name?


Tammy Bruce.  She was part of NOW -- forced out for calling out OJ Simpson.  It's so interesting how the women who best exemplify what feminism is supposed to mean are the ones the movement lets down or flat out betrays.


I think we've betrayed Tara.  Yes, some of us have spoken out for her.  But when we let liars publish op-eds in NYT saying 'I believe her but I'm voting for Joe and I'm a feminist,'  no, bitch, you're not a feminist.  Rape and assault?  We don't dismiss those.  That's what Men's Rights activists do.  That's what the US legal system did for far too long.  We betrayed Tara.  We let these liars pose as feminist.  They're not feminists.


Don't talk to me about abortion if you can't defend a woman from assault.  Don't talk to me about any rights you supposedly believe in.  Because if you're okay with a woman being raped, you're not a feminist and you're not anyone that should be allowed to pose as a feminist.


Tammy Bruce is a right-wing figure now.  I have no idea what she speaks of or what issues she supports.  I do know that instead of ostracizing her and punishing her, we could have tried to have a lively debate, a give-and-take, and kept someone who is passionate about women's issues (or was then -- again, I have no idea about today).  But she was shoved aside.  Phyllis Chesler remains a feminist but she was betrayed by the movement.  She was raped and instead of getting support, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem undermined Phyllis to protect their friend (her rapist).  


These are stories and issues that The Fourth Wave will need to grapple with and address.  I hope they do so honestly.  Gloria never did.  She emerges, pushing Betty Friedan aside, and she immediately damages the movement.  When Betty was around (1972), women made demands at the Democratic Party convention.  1976?  Gloria's there telling women we're asking too much and we must not rock the boat.  We go form staging sit-ins at magazines to doing nothing but our near annual abortion march.  We don't fight for rights, we beg for the rights we do have to be upheld.


And time and again, she pushed this or that woman aside.  The Red Stockings is just one example.  There's her hissy fit when 60 MINUTES was recording a meeting and Camile Paglia's name came up and Gloria shut the whole taping down immediately.


She's a coward and that's no surprise when you look at her history.  She didn't lead, she misled and she set the cause back.  She also failed to step aside which must have  Betty Friedan laughing somewhere since she used Betty's age (Betty was in her fifties) to push Betty out of leadership


There's a lot there for The Fourth Wave to unpack.  And it will be messy and it should be.  It should be lively and rewarding as well.  


Let's hope they're up to the task.

Let's hope that they aren't ridiculous like John Grant at COUNTERPUNCH.  Is he tonguing Joe Biden's shaft or just the nuts?  Don't pretend you're against the Iraq War and write that ridiculous column.  Joe is a War Criminal.  And I'm so damn tired of the 'professional' peace movement and their stupidity.  Joe's overturning the 2010 elections in Iraq need to be called out and, all these years later, I've lost sympathy for the cowards who can't do it.


You want to end wars, you have to disrupt.  You're not going to end anything with butterfly kisses to Joe Biden.  Let's hope The Fourth Wave has the spine that people like John Grant lack.


Dropping back to Monday's snapshot:


Friday saw an attack on the peaceful protesters in Nassariya.  This was an attack, it was not a ''clash.''  The protesters had been in al Haboubi Square for some time.  When Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi ordered the Baghdad square attacked and the tents torn down a month ago, he attempted something similar in Nassaiya.  It did not fly in the city, it did not fly in the province (Dhi Qar Governorate).  Mustafa had to back down and the protesters continued their peaceful protest.  As Sinan Mahmoud (THE NATIONAL) observed yesterday, "The coronavirus and violence against demonstrators has seen the moement slow elsewhere but it endures in Nasiriyah."


Friday, they were attacked.  The death toll has now risen to 16.  With over 80 more left injured that number could continue to increase.  


Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered the attack.  Dilan S. Hussein (RUDAW) reports that Moqtada told his cult to "clean up the 'atheism' that he said had taken over the city's streets" before sending them out on Friday.  They arrived at the square with loaded guns, in four-wheel vehicles and with props.  


 Basra journalist Mohammed Qasim Tweets:


#Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia mixed alcohol with the #Rainbow flag, meaning that homosexuals and #alcohol are corruption and must be eliminated, and this is a public violation of #human rights.
Image
Image
Image


9:34 AM · Nov 27, 2020


Moqtada gave the orders and then sicked his rabid cult on the protesters.  


This was a planned assault.  Not only does the Iraqi government need to disarm his goons, they need to put them on trial.  Equally true, it was not necessary for the cult to enter the town square (al Haboubi square) -- where the peaceful protesters were -- and have been for over a year -- in order to get to any destination. They chose to enter that square, they did so with props and they did so with guns.  And they chose to enter the square in "four wheel drive vehicles."  This was not a 'clash,' it was a planned assault.


ALJAZEERA notes:


By Tuesday, Nasiriya protesters were back at the site, albeit surrounded by federal police and at the mercy of a curfew. But unlike Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, where in October tents were cleared out and roads reopened, Haboubi Square is still alive with demonstrators.

“The people of Nasiriya have always been praised for their revolutionary belief,” said Sheikh Imad Rikaby of the Rikaby tribe. Like him, Iraq commentators have frequently alluded to Nasiriya’s long history of rebellion and revolutionary politics to explain Dhi Qar’s central role in the protests.

“I think the real explanation is likely more mundane and reflects primarily the comparative neglect of the province by the federal government when compared with Basra,” said Ben Robin-D’Cruz, a researcher on Iraqi politics at the University of Edinburgh.


We'll include this Tweet:

@JoeBiden
A massive campaign of arrests targeting civilian activists in Nasiriyah by the new police chief of the criminal Muqtada al-Sadr militia, and within two days many young Iraqi heroes were arrested #helping_civil activitors_in thiqar city
Image
Image
4:44 AM · Dec 2, 2020



TRT WORLD observes:


Iraq has one of the world’s youngest populations. Many of them are out of work and look to family and friends for financial support. 

Instead of taking tough decisions to strengthen institutions like the judiciary, which can enforce private contracts, politicians have used Baghdad’s oil wealth to reward supporters with jobs.

This has bloated the public sector; a large chunk of the government's budget of $80 billion is spent on salaries and pensions. This burden is set to increase as the country's population of 38 million increases by almost a million people every year. 

This year, the cost of salaries for 4.5 million public sector workers and 2.5 million pensioners, will eat up all of Iraq’s oil revenue, according to the Iraqi finance ministry. 

In October, the Finance Minister Ali Allawi released a white paper promising to cut government deficit and plug the holes from where corrupt officials siphon  off state revenue. 

Corruption has become endemic in Iraq. Only a tenth of the $8 billion in customs revenue reach the official coffers - the rest is pilfered along the way. That’s why even a minor job of a clerk in the customs department is being sold for as much as $100,000, Ali Allawi recently said. 

While the oil revenue was spent on pacifying constituents, little has been spent on developing infrastructure to facilitate the private sector, which plays a miniscule role in the Iraqi economy. 

“What’s mainly holding Iraq back is corruption and mismanagement,” says Mawlawi. 


We'll wind down with this alert from Human Rights Watch:


The ongoing closures of Iraq’s displaced persons camps on short notice is forcing some residents into homelessness and poverty, Human Rights Watch said today.

Human Rights Watch has repeatedly said that the authorities should allow freedom of movement for residents of camps, which in some cases have functioned like open-air prisons. The government’s renewed action to facilitate documentation for families is a positive step toward this goal. But the authorities should not force camp residents out without first ensuring they have alternative access to shelter, food, water, health care, and other basic services in a safe and secure environment.

“Reintegrating families who have spent years in camps back into Iraqi society so they can start to lead a normal life is a positive step.” said Belkis Wille, senior crisis and conflict researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But the current approach of forcing people out of camps that have provided them with food, shelter, and security for years, often with only 24 hours’ notice, makes them even more vulnerable.”

In October 2020, Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi formed a committee with the mandate to close about 17 camps, currently housing at least 60,337 people. The camps house people displaced by fighting between the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) and Iraqi forces between 2014 and 2017. Since mid-October, authorities have closed 11 camps and rendered another two into informal settlements, forcing out at least 27,191 residents, mostly women and children, according to aid workers. At the time of publication, in Baghdad-controlled areas only five remained open and more camp closures were ongoing.

The committee has said that it aims to close all camps in Baghdad-controlled territories by December 2020, and those in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq by 2021, three aid workers told Human Rights Watch. Many of the families have stayed because they have been unable to obtain civil documentation and because they fear retaliation if they return home because they may have family links to ISIS. Others are unable to afford rent, basic services, or to rebuild their destroyed homes, or their home areas lack basic services including health care and education.

Human Rights Watch reporting has documented that the Iraqi authorities have generally made decisions on where these families can live without adequate consultation, deciding either to leave them in the area which they fled, move them to another camp, or force them to return to their home areas. Up until now, the government has not undertaken a thoughtful analysis of each family’s specific situation and vulnerabilities before forcing them out of camps. Aid workers said the government is trying to develop a returns plan with these elements in mind but does not have this in place yet. The government’s newest push to close all remaining camps is so rapid that it is forcing people out with no time for them to figure out where it would be safe for them to go or how to get housing.

From November 11 to 17, 2020, Human Rights Watch interviewed five residents of Hammam al-Alil (HAA) camp in Nineveh and three residents of Habbaniya Tourist City (HTC) camp, all of whom requested anonymity. The authorities closed HAA on November 14, forcing out at least 8,585 residents. HTC was closed on November 11, though the authorities allowed the site to remain open on an informal basis because over 200 families in the camp had nowhere safe to go. Before forcing camp residents out, security forces in HAA conducted a “security screening” of the residents, and as part of the process helped facilitate access to civil documentation for families missing identity documents.

Security forces had previously denied security clearances required to obtain identity documents and other essential civil documentation to thousands of Iraqi families perceived to have ISIS affiliation, usually because of their family name, tribal affiliation, or area of origin. This denied them freedom of movement, their rights to education and work, and access to social benefits and birth and death certificates needed to inherit property or remarry. The authorities have prevented thousands of children without civil documentation from enrolling in government schools, including schools inside camps for displaced people. The efforts to issue documents alongside these closures is a positive development.

However, aid workers at HTC and HAA told Human Rights Watch that the authorities there had forced some families to engage in a process known as tabriya in order to get their security clearance before leaving the camp. The process of tabriya requires them to open a criminal complaint disavowing any relative suspected of having joined ISIS. After they file the complaint, the court issues them a document to present to security forces enabling them to obtain their security clearances. 

After completing the screenings and issuing documents, security forces only gave camp residents Human Rights Watch interviewed between one and seven days to choose whether they would return home or settle elsewhere in the country, with most given only 24 hours. None of them got free government transportation if they were not returning to their homes, nor any financial support, although the government had promised to give all returnees a compensation package of US$1,500. It is unclear whether families who did not return to their homes but resettled elsewhere will ever receive the package.

All of the families interviewed said they would not return home because of concerns for their personal safety. Some were able to move elsewhere, though they were struggling to afford the rent. A man from Anbar who was forced out of HTC said that security forces gave him the option to move to another camp in the area that has not yet been closed, but he refused and instead chose to rent a home in another city.

“Since 2017, the authorities have relocated me three times,” he said. “I don’t know why they keep moving people from one camp to another. If the government is not going to give us some compensation so we can rebuild our homes and afford basic services and guarantee our safety, then why are they closing the camps?”

According to aid workers tracking the camp expulsions, many of the families forced out of HAA have since reported that they were struggling to afford basic services in the areas where they had ended up. Aid workers who have followed camp departures from August to October said that 50 percent of displaced people had less access to food upon leaving and 60 percent said they had less access to water. Twenty-five percent said they were not able to get health care. These figures are of particular concern as the weather gets colder and the Covid-19 pandemic rages on in Iraq. Aid workers also said some families were suffering from “daily harassment” and blackmail at the hands of their local communities since returning.

Four of the residents interviewed said they had wanted to return home but that local residents had blocked their return, forcing them into further displacement and leaving some even more vulnerable.

Iraq is obligated under international law to protect, respect, and fulfill the right to an adequate standard of living, which includes ensuring that everyone has adequate food, water, sanitation, and housing. Article 30 of Iraq’s constitution states that, “The State shall guarantee to the individual and the family – especially children and women – social and health security, the basic requirements for living a free and decent life, and shall secure for them suitable income and appropriate housing.”

The authorities should ensure that every person in Iraq has access to their civil documentation, and should halt all efforts to push residents out of camps until they renew the residents’ identity documents. Before closing any camp, the authorities should ensure that families in the camps have a minimum of 30 days and are given enough information to decide where they want to resettle, as well as accessible transportation to their preferred location.

The authorities should ensure that they provide families with damaged homes with the financial resources to rent a property as well as financial assistance to help them rebuild their homes. The authorities should also ensure that families who cannot afford to pay for food, electricity, water, and other basic services have access to all of these without charge.

“While the aim of this push to close camps seems to be to improve stability across the country, stripping people of the only access they have to shelter, food, and water and sending thousands into further displacement will actually have the opposite effect,” Wille said.

Families Prevented from Returning Home

Three HAA camp residents told Human Rights Watch that they wanted to return to their hometown, Qayyarah in Nineveh. But once the closures were announced, their town’s mayor visited the camp and informed them that he could not vouch for their safety if they returned. He warned of vigilante violence against them for their perceived links to ISIS. One woman, age 28, with three young children said:

I don’t know where to go. I can’t return to my village. My house is destroyed, and anyway, the community would not accept me back. I can’t afford rent somewhere else because I am a single mother with no income. I felt safe with my children here in the camp, with aid workers around. I am a young woman, and outside of a camp, I might be exposed to sexual harassment. They should let me to stay here rather than exposing me to further risks outside the camp.

Another woman from Qayyarah said that armed forces were occupying her home, so even if she did risk returning, she would have nowhere to live. She has five children and is taking care of three more. She said that though she had found a house in Mosul to rent, she had no stable income to afford it. “If the government could help me safely go back to Qayyarah and sell my house, then I could afford to buy a new house in Mosul,” she said.

 

A woman who had been living in HTC, whose husband is in jail on terrorism charges, said that she was thrilled when security forces told her on November 1 that she could return home to her village in Jazirah al-Khaldiyah, a subdistrict in Anbar:

They promised that if we decided to go home, they would guarantee our safety. On November 8, a group of seven families headed back to my village, escorted by two military vehicles. While we were at the checkpoint to enter our village, an old man came and said that he knew us all personally and that we were not allowed to return home. The military tried to negotiate with him but it didn’t work, and so they forced me to move to another camp in the area, saying I was not allowed to go back to HTC because it was being closed. I want to be stable in one place so I can register my children in school and have a normal life like everyone else.

According to the aid workers, at least 121 families from HAA camp and 503 families from HTC have been unable to return to their homes and have been forced to move to nearby camps that remain open for now. Aid workers who have followed camp departures said that 33 percent of the displaced people were ultimately not able to return to their home areas, with over 60 percent of women they spoke to saying they could not return home because of concerns for their personal security.

A man with seven children from Shura district in Nineveh said that security forces gave him 24 hours’ notice to leave HAA. “They gave us the option to go wherever we wanted, but they didn’t give us time to prepare or even plan where to go,” he said. “Many of us didn’t have houses still standing to go back to, and some of us would face security risks if we went home to areas where there are tribal tensions.” He said he was currently renting a home in a town where he thought he might be safe, but that he had limited means to keep up on his rent payments.


  The following sites updated:






Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)