Mashed Potatoes in the Kitchen

I've said before, don't ask me about turkey leftovers because I'm no help there. In my home, there is always very little left over on Thanksgiving or Christmas and what is left over goes into sandwiches the day after. But community member Gina and a visitor named Lyla both offered recipes for leftover mashed potatoes.

Potato Pancakes
2 cups mashed potatoes
1 egg, beaten
1 onion, chopped
dash of salt
dash of pepper
margerine or butter

Combine the ingredients, stirring together. Heat a skillet with margarine or butter and drop spoonfuls of the potatoes mixture into the skillet. Press down lightly with spatula. Brown on one side, then flip and brown on the other side. They can be eaten plain fresh from the skillet or you can dress them up with one of the following: some grated cheese on top, some catsup, some plain yogurt, some sour cream or some fresh salsa.

That was Gina. Lyla e-mailed that she really didn't have a recipe. What she does requires leftover mashed potatoes, slices of bread, butter and a skillet. You spoon some mashed potatoes onto a slice of bread, fry the bottom of the bread in a skillet with butter (or margerine) and when it is toasted on the bottom, flip it and fry it on top (where you've placed the mashed potatoes). Eat as breakfast, a snack or with a salad for a meal, Lyla recommends.

Doug asked if I could note "Dennis makes the most of his limited time in CNN debate" from Dennis Kucinich's website?

Dennis makes the most of his limited time in CNN debate
Although he received the least amount of time of any of the seven Democratic Presidential candidates during last night's CNN debate -- less than six minutes of the two hours -- Dennis Kucinich made the most of it with crisp answers to questions about the war in Iraq, China Trade, the Patriot Act, the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear waste dump, and other issues.
Kucinich noted that most of the other candidates who previously voted in favor of those measures recently have changed their positions. "You've seen here tonight people who voted for the war, voted to fund the war, now they have a different position. People voted for the Patriot Act. Now they have a different position. People voted for China trade. Now they have a different position. People who voted for Yucca Mountain. Now they had a different position.
"Just imagine what it will be like to have a president of the United States who's right the first time. Just imagine," Kucinich said to thunderous applause."
He also drew an equally enthusiastic response when he said that the President and Vice President are "out of control, and Congress isn't doing anything. It's called impeachment and you don't wait. You do it now. You don't wait."
Click here to see the video highlights of Dennis' comments last night.

I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich. If you're undecided, I hope you will consider visiting his website and learning more about where he stands on the issue. I asked C.I. to upload a photo from Kucinich's website. I don't know the first thing about Flickr so I'm not about to try to start a Flickr account but I really loved the photo of Kucinich.



I love that photo and I'll tell you why that is, it's a genuine smile. It's not forced. It's not hiding anything. It's an honest smile and in these dark times, someone who can smile is someone who can lead. I am not joking. I am completely serious. When I called C.I. to see if it was possible to upload the photo to The Common Ills Flickr account, it was because of that photo. I don't think I've seen a lot of photos of Kucinich with a wide smile. I think his stands on the issues speak to how ready he is for the White House and what an amazing job he would do as president but I know a lot of people look for signals from gestures or images. If you're one who does, look at that photo and grasp that someone who, even in dark times, can express joy and a belief in the future.

If you missed it, he continues to tell the truth. The Nashua Telegraph reports:

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said Wednesday the vow from his party's leadership in Congress to stand up to President Bush on ending the war in Iraq amounts to a "total fraud."
The Ohio congressman said the most recent House-passed plan to set a timetable for ending the war still would permit permanent bases in Iraq and allow Americans soldiers to train Iraqi military and police and to fight off insurgents.
"This is a fraud, a total fraud, and it breaks the promise the Democrats made to the voters that we would get out of Iraq," Kucinich said of his own party's congressional leadership during an interview Wednesday.
"They want to be on all sides of the issue. Instead of getting out of Iraq, we are getting in deeper," Kucinich said.

That is the truth and it takes courage to tell the truth and buck your party's leaders. Kucinich has heart, strength and mind. He will end the illegal war. He doesn't hesitate on that issue, he doesn't fudge on it. He tells you straight out that he will end it. He was against the illegal war before it started and he has repeatedly called it out and worked to end it in Congress. He is the only candidate who can make that claim.

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

Friday, November 23, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the mainstream press continues to issue spin, the so-called 'coalition of the willing' receives notice that one member is leaving the club, and more.


Starting with war resistance. Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey are US war resisters in Canada who have sought refugee status. That status was denied and Canada's Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals to that decision. Matt Mernagh (Canada's NOW magazine) reports the status on legislative efforts: the leaders of Canada's Liberal party are cowards. Instead of addressing the situation, they're attempting to buy time by scheduling a hearing. Mernagh notes that war resisters will be allowed to testify at the hearings and quotes war resister Phil McDowell declaring, "We'll give them an understanding of what we're doing here. I think we can make a great case." Dee Knight (Workers World) ties the refusal by the Canadian Supreme Court with other recent actions and decisions and notes, "In the U.S., the organization Courage to Resist has organized a letter-writing campaign to Canadian government officials. The letter asks them "to make a provisionfor sanctuary" for U.S. war resisters, and cites Vietnam-era Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's statement that "Canada should be a refuge from militarism." (To sign, go to Courage to Resist.)"


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).


The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $21 for previews and $41 for regular performances (beginning with the Nov. 18th opening night). The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.

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 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

On Thursday, NPR's Melissa Block and Guy Raz (All Things Considered) reported that the US military was saying that violence in Iraq had been reduced. Block and Raz are both self-effacing and not interested in giving credit to their peers. The reality is the US military said it and then the neutered and spaded press repeated it over and over -- including Block and Raz. Truth didn't matter. Actual reporting didn't matter. It only mattered that they all file the claim and then -- if they hadn't already strained themselves taking down dictation -- they grab onto some anectdotal 'evidence' (which Centcom has been happily supplying) and offer that as proof. From the Abbey of Non-think, St. Thomas filed in the New York Times this morning the absurd claim that, "It's clear that the surge by US troops has really dampened violence in Iraq." Never one to be left out on a misinformation campaign, the paper's own War pornographer Michael Gordon (Judith Miller's co-writer on several of the more fictious 'reports') was given room to prance around naked on the front page shreiking "violence in Iraq on the decline"! And I thought that was his career that was on the decline? Gordo and St. Thomas and all the other cowardly peers missed the fact that Thursday saw at least 54 deaths reported in Iraq with reports of over 29 injured. And that doesn't Cara Buckley (New York Times) reporting today on an attack on Hawr Rajab village that claimed the lives of "at least 11 people" with the attackers wearing the uniforms of either the Iraqi military or the US collaborating Awakening Council. That would take the 54 to 65 dead. However the number is higher and AFP's reporting suggests that Buckley's referring to one incident but using the numbers from another. AFP reports that there was an attack in Hawr Rajab but it killed 3 Iraqi soldiers and 10 citizens while 11 died in another attack -- an attack on the village of Al-Kulaiyah. Regardless of where the attacks took place, that's another thirteen bringing Thursday's total to 78 dead. At least 78 deaths that were reported. And the press organs sends their dancing monkeys out to entertain with lies of safety. Dance, little monkeys, dance, prove that training didn't go to waste.

Staying on the topic of lies there's The Myth of the Great Return. Things are so safe in Iraq, that people are eager to return. That's the lie anyway. BBC tried to enlist and do their part this week. Like a battered woman confronted by the stares of her neighbor, they repeated the lies they were told to, that a large number of Iraqis were returning to Iraq. They used the numbers the puppet government of Iraq fed them. They didn't try to verify the numbers. Maybe because the numbers can't be verified and they figured, "Why bother?" But buried in their own 'reporting' were certain uncomfortable realities. The Iraqi government is sending buses into Syria to bring Iraqis back and paying them to return. That explains the small trickle. But don't let the press off the hook because desperate though the refugees may be, if the media hadn't popularized the lie of 'safety' in Iraq, some might have elected not to return. The families of any who die should closely scrutinize the reports and columns to determine whether they have a case for litigation. The United Nations today issued a statement condemning the claims which noted, "UNHCR does not believe that the time has come to promote, organize or encourage returns. That would be possible only when proper return conditions are in place -- including material and legal support and physical safety. Presently, there is no sign of any large-scale return to Iraq as the security situation in many parts of the country remains volatile and unpredictable." Repeating from the statement "no sign of any large-scale return to Iraq".

Patrick Martin (WSWS) zooms in on the lies of the New York Times regarding the alleged 'Great Return': "A front-page report in Tuesday's New York Times gave the newspaper's stamp of approval to the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. The report, spread across four columns under the headline, 'Baghdad's Weary Start to Exhale as Security Improves,' described improving conditions of life and security in the war-torn Dora neighborhood in southern Baghdad, portraying it as the outcome of the massive US military buildup in the Iraqi capital. The Times report consists of a single anecdotal account--the story of one Shiite family who fled sectarian violence in Dora and has now returned--buttressed by figures supplied by the US military and the Iraqi regime, showing a decline in violent attacks from the highs recorded in the early part of this year. . . . After laying it on thick in this fashion, the Times is compelled to admit that the Shiite family profiled is more the exception than the rule. It describes the condition of a second Shiite family, the Nidhals, who fled violence in the west Baghdad neighborhood of Ghazaliya and have not returned because a Sunni family now occupies their home. . . . Why then the rose-colored portrayal of conditions in the Iraqi capital, prominently displayed in the most important American newspaper? Clearly what is involved here is a political adaptation by the Times, the most influential voice of official liberalism, to the Bush administration's policies in Iraq."
Operation Happy Talk never ends, it's just one wave after another. In the real world . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Salahuddin roadside bombing that left four police officers wounded, a Mosul truck bombing targeting an Al-Qayara bridge in which "[t]wo of the bridge pillars" were destroyed, 2 Mosul car bombings that claimed 9 lives and left twenty-one wounded and a Baghdad roadside bombing on a pet market that claimed the lives of at least 13 people with fifty-seven more wounded. CNN puts the wounded toll at fifty-eight. Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reports, "The explosion left headless bodies, dead birds and shattered fish tanks around the Ghazil animal market in east Baghdad, where many families of all sects visit one of the most popular attractions in the city on the Muslim day of prayer." Paul Tait (Reuters) calls it the worst attack in Baghdad since car bombings on September 26th and notes, "Body parts were strewn among bird carcasses as bystanders piled victims into carts and rushed them to ambulances after the blast at the crowded Ghazil pet market. Police said four policemen were among the wounded." Reuters notes a Jurf Al Sakhar car bombing that killed 2 people visiting a mosque and injured two others. That's at least 24 reported dead today with at least eight-five wounded.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that yesterday a "husband and wife" team of journalists for Al-Hayatt were shot at while traveling in their car but survived unharmed while today a boys school in Diyala was where a security "guard and his wife" were beheaded because "their two daughters are not following the Islamic laws." Reuters reports the beheadings differently: "Three suspected al Qaeda militans, including two sisters, beheaded their uncle and his wife forcing the couple's children to watch, Iraqi police said on Friday. The militans considered that school guard Youssef al-Hayali was an infidel because he did not pray and wore western-style trousers, they told police interrogators after being arrested in Diyala province northwest of Baghdad. The three cousnins executed Ayali and his wife Zeinab Kamel at the all-boys school in Jalawlah in Diyala province, village police chief Captain Ahmed Khalifa said." Reuters notes that yesterday "a doctor who was working with the US military" was shot dead in Kut.

That's two dead today (other reports were from yesterday but reported today).

Kidnappings?

Reuters notes "the manager of a grain company in Dhi Qar province" was kidnapped today.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 6 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 3 corpses discovered in Dhuluiya.

That's at least 9 corpses reported found today. Add it to the previous figures and you have 35 reported dead so far today.

Free Bilal Huessein -- the Pulitzer Prize award winning photo journalist who has been imprisoned by the US military since April 12, 2006. AP reports, "A media watchdog on Thursday urged the U.S. military to show good cause for the detention [of] an Associated Press photographer in Iraq, and described his incarceration as 'unjust.' Military officials have alleged that Bilal Hussein, who has been detained for 19 months, had links to terrorist groups but are refusing to disclose what evidence or accusations would be presented. An AP investigation of the case, made public Wednesday, shows no support for allegations that Hussein, 36, took part in insurgent activities or bomb-making, and few of the images he provided deal directly with Iraqi insurgents. In a statement, Johann P. Fritz, director of the Vienna-based International Press Institute, said that the only grounds for Hussein's detention appeared to be the suspicion that he committed an offense. The burden of proof lies with the U.S. military to prove Hussein's guilt, Fritz said, adding it was fundamental to any criminal system that those holding the accused show good cause as to why they arrested him. This, he added, should then be tested in an independent court." David Crary (AP) reported on the AP investigation noting that, "Evidence and testimony collected by the AP shows no support for allegations that Bilal Hussein took part in insurgent activities or bomb-making, and few of the images he provided dealt directly with Iraqi insurgents" and then quotes from the fifty-page investigative report, "compiled last spring by lawyer and former federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe," noting, "Despite the fact that Hussein has not been interrogated since May 2006, allegations have been dropped or modified over time, and new claims added, all without any explanation. . . . The best evidence of how Hussein conducted himself as a journalist working for AP is the extensive photographic record. There is no evidence -- in nearly a thousand photographs taken over the 20-month period -- that his activities ever strayed from those of a legitimate journalist." The fifty-page investigative report can be read in full here (and it's not PDF format so there shouldn't be any problems for anyone attempting to read it). Bilal's 'crime' was documenting reality at a time when other trained (or 'trained') journalists were happy to supply fluff and stenography.

Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) continues to report reality from Iraq and notes that the true escalation of the year was the money the US tossed around to thugs and militias creating the roots for warlords (similar to the 'success' that is Afghanistan) and quotes Iraqi historian Wayil Hikmet explaining, "It is said in the Arab world that if thieves were not seen while stealing, they would be seen while dividing the loot. That is what goes for the accelerating collapse of the Iraqi political system that was made in the USA. The thieves of the Green Zone are now giving me and my colleagues good material to write down for the coming generations." and
Lukman Jassim explaining why the American-imposed 'parternship' of Abdul Aziz Hakim's Supreme Islamic Council in Iraq and Mutqtada al-Sadr's Sadr Movement will not work, "Hakim and Muqtada were brought to the scene by the Americans who employed the two ambitious clerics in order to fight side by side against any Iraqi resistance. But it is well known in Iraq that the two groups cannot put up with each other because of the historic disputes between their fathers and grandfathers and the conflict between them over power in Iraq. It was another American mistake."


Meanwhile the 'alleged' coalition continues to shrink. Press TV reports Donald Tusk, new prime minister, has declared Poland will be withdrawing from Iraq: "In a year's time, I will tell you here in parliament that our military mission in Iraq is over."


iraq
dee knightjeremy hinzmanbrandon hugheyali al-fadhily
matt mernagh
patrick martinthe new york timesmichael gordoncara buckley

Work

The big cooking tip today is: "You don't have to participate."

Terri e-mailed throughout the week. Her job had their Thanksgiving dinner -- pot luck -- yesterday. All during the week, she was afraid it would go badly. It did.

Terri brought the turkey and ham (both of which turned out fine). They were supposed to take turns on Friday waiting on customers so that everyone could go to the party. Terri was first up. She waited and waited. An hour later, she was supposed to have had someone take her place after thirty minutes, two women come to the counter while she's waiting on a customer. With her standing there, the two women begin to talk about her.

They insult her without naming her. One of the two women, just FYI, didn't bring anything to the pot luck. She's got a customer and has to stand there while she's insulted (without being named) and she looks over to see one of the two women writing something on a piece of paper about her.

She made it through until five p.m. and later e-mailed me to tell me the whole thing was a disaster and she wished she hadn't taken part.

She should feel that way and she's right to.

Office parties are the worst things in the work place. I'm not trying to curtail anyone's party here, I'm just saying they need to be done better.

I have a friend who has waited 21 years for one person in her office to retire. Why? Each year that person plans every party.

You get things like that all the time. One person tries to control everything or you get over 40-year-old women acting like they are in junior high (I'm talking about Terri's co-workers). Or you get an office that does nothing for some and everything for others.

One of my daughters just got a promotion. It meant she had to move to a new office (which she now supervises). She had to deal with the party issue almost immediately. The office she inherited had an office snitch. Most offices do. The office snitch was the boss' pet. She got to do whatever she wanted (spy and make personal phone calls) all day. She never did any work and pushed it off on her co-workers (with her boss' consent) whenever a deadline meant something had to be done.

The boss had made an arrangment with the snitch where the snitch skipped lunch and used that hour to pick up her child from daycare. But the snitch not only still took an hour lunch, she then worked out in the building's gym for an hour. So she got an hour lunch, an hour workout and a hour off to go pick up her daughter each day but got paid for 8 hours of work each day even though she didn't do any.

When my daughter informed the snitch -- when the snitch first snitched to her -- that she needed to focus on getting her own work done, the snitch wouldn't take the hint. Finally, my daughter had to bring her boss into the whole thing and they had to sit the snitch down and explain that the job description required certain things be done each day and snitching wasn't one of them. There was a big scene with the snitch yelling and screaming.

The job involves computer work -- as most offices these days do -- but the snitch can't even work a computer. When they switched over to computers, her snitching abilities allowed her to go years without doing any work. The snitch (who quit last week) ended the meeting wanting to know where she was being taken for her birthday? The boss took the snitch out every year on her birthday. My daughter explained she wasn't planning on taking anyone out for a birthday but if others in the office wanted to, that was fine, provided there was coverage. Snitch didn't have any friends to take her out.

Snitch made such a huge to-do over the birthday that my daughter had to call everyone in -- one at a time -- and find out what was going on. Here's what was going on. The former boss had a birthday the first week of February. Every year, they went out of their way to do something for the boss. They gave gifts, had cake, had a lunch. The Snitch's birthday was the last of the year -- immediately before Thanksgiving -- and the boss took her out. In between, everyone got at least a cake. Some got more than that, some got less.

But one person, I'll call him "Dale," got nothing. His birthday was January 26th. Each year he was overlooked completely, not even a card. Why? The boss lost it each year at the Christmas party. The boss would get angry that the party lingered. January 1st, each year (this went on for 12 years), the boss would send out a memo saying that there had been too much partying, that it had cut it into work productivity and that, as a result, they weren't doing any more birthday celebrations.

Now when February rolled around, the boss got a party, a huge party. Everyone would ignore the memo and the boss would eat it up. But Dale, whose birthday fell after the yearly memo and before the boss' birthday, never got a thing.

Dale had a grievance and could have presented it at any time (it's been dealt with now). But that stuff happens all the time.

Stephanie wrote about her office party this week too. She works at a bank and the tellers had their own party but the loan officers came in and raided. A plate would have been fine, Stephanie explained, but they filled up several plates each and then left. They were left with a little bit of ham and all the tellers had been to lunch yet.

I'm not arguing for work place parties to stop. I am saying that people need to be smart and supervisors need to do their job and supervise.

X works at a county job (county government) and he e-mailed about his party. The big problem there was not everyone was invited (to an "office party") and those who were were told that they would be doing ___ but then others decided they didn't want to and changed it at the last minute.

If you're not seeing the problems, maybe you supervise such an office.

In addition to the tensions this creates in the work place, there's also the issue of liability. If you're always overlooked, you could make a case for a hostile work environment.

So if people are going to hold office parties, here are a few tips.

1) Everyone's invited.

Someone may have declined before -- may always decline. That doesn't matter. An office party means everyone in the office is invited. Some may not want to participate. That's their right. But some may be short on cash, may be having issues outside of work, may have any number of reasons for refusing previously.

2) You do a memo.

To make sure everyone's invited, you do a memo. This can be a print up or an e-mail. But everyone is invited.

3) Planning is not always done by one person or one group of people.

That's not fair to one person or one group to always make them do the planning. It's also true that it's not fair to the rest of the office because no one else ever gets a say.

4) It starts at the given time.

One of the big complaints I've heard of over the years is how some people 'forget' so that they can leave work, spend a half-hour to an hour getting things (while on the clock) and by the time they return the party's almost half-over. There are times when something gets forgotten. If it's utensils, send someone else for it. If it's anything else, it's gone. I don't care if it's the turkey. If they didn't bring it up get it on some arranged with the boss time, it's not going to be at the party. I once worked with a woman who always made fruit salad for every party. Every party she forgot it. She'd leave a half-hour before the party, she'd get back after the party had been going on for at least 50 minutes. (She lived ten minutes from work.) She did this every party. When she'd walk in, she'd announce the dessert was here. But other people had brought desserts. As everyone finished up their lunch hour, she would whine that she hadn't had a lunch hour. So after using at least 80 minutes to go pick up her fruit salad, she would then get another hour for lunch. Every party. Over and over throughout the year. If it's not there, it's not there. There's no, "I forgot it and am going home." If you forget, you've got 15 minute break in the morning. If you can't get it on your break, then get something else or don't get anything. But this nonsense of people getting additional hours off as a 'reward' for forgetting isn't fair.

5) The microwave is for warming items.

You need to prepare your items at home. I have heard about this problem and I have seen it. People show up with stuff that they haven't prepared or cooked and use the bulk of the morning to put it together. I once saw, no lie, a woman bring a can of corn to an office party. She used at least a half-hour to 'cook' it. She was just trying to get out of working.

Either everyone fixes their items at home or no one does. I raised eight kids. I made time to fix my items at home. It can be done. If you have an emergency (they do pop up), you need to explain that. If you have a pattern of "emergencies," you should bring something that doesn't require cooking, preparing, etc.

6) You have a right to say "no."

Terri had a bad feeling about her office party. She kept going back and forth on whether to participate. In the end, she decided to and now says that was a mistake.

If you have a bad feeling, don't participate.

No one needs to explain their "no." An invitation can be accepted or declined. That's the nature of an invitation.

No supervisor should allow the office to bad mouth someone for saying "no." That's what Terri was worried about. A co-worker had a son in the hospital (adult son) with kidney problems at Halloween and did not participate. The co-worker was going to the hospital each day at lunch. That co-worker got trashed. "She doesn't think she's part of the group," etc. The supervisor not only allowed it, the supervisor joined in.

7) Supervisors need to remember their roles.

That does not include bad mouthing an employee not present to other employees. I know a woman (a neighbor) who is a supervisor and she's always complaining to me about how she has to tell her staff that she can't plan parties. At her company, employees can plan parties but their supervisor is not allowed to. The thinking is that if the supervisor plans it, everyone will feel forced to participate. But guess what? She loves Easter and every Friday before Easter, she plans a luncheon. She cooks it, she serves it. At work. Despite the rules. Then she wants to complain when employees expect her to plan a party?

The worst thing I ever saw myself was a boss bad mouthing an employee to several working under him on the employee's birthday. He said, "I don't know why we're doing anything for her. All she ever does is complain." That's the boss. So others quickly joined in. (I didn't. I was just starting to work and was a temp.) I could not believe the fake smiles and fake congratulations at the party and I couldn't believe that a boss would trash an employee to others in his office while he was in his office.

You're there, as a boss, to provide gudiance. You're not there to provide friendship. My last boss (I don't work outside the home these days) always wanted to get personal. He always wanted to be your best friend. I'd hear all about the problems he had with his wife. I'd hear all about the problems he had with his kids. I'd hear all about his health problems. My problem? This was during my evaluation. After he'd wasted 90 minutes of my time, he then got down to my evaluation in two minutes.

Sort of.

He could only give three of us in the office a raise. (I'd already heard him go on about his own raise and how he feared he wouldn't get it because someone at the same level had been trashing him to his boss.) Then he asked me to sign the evaluation (I did) and to backdate it. By thirty days because this was already supposed to have been done.

I left his office and went back to my cubicle. I was honestly confused about what had happened. In the two minutes of my evaluation, he'd told me how he could count on and he appreciated that and that's why he assigned me projects and gave me the projects of other.

I went on my morning break and bumped into a woman in my office. She asked me about my evaluation and did I get a raise? I told her that it sounded like I did but I didn't know. I explained it seemed to be going well (the two minutes) but then he got a phone call from his wife and just told me to sign it and backdate it while he spoke on the phone with his wife. They were arguing so I left and intended to go back later and ask him how much of a raise I got?

I didn't get a raise. She had a similar experience without the phone call from his wife. As she pointed out, if I was getting a raise, a supervisor would have said so. By the same token, we both agreed, a supervisor should say, "You're not getting a raise" if you don't and the whole point of the evaluation is about a raise. We had been on a "freeze" for two years. I did my job and did it well.

I went back to his office and, when he got off the phone, explained I wanted to know about a raise. He repeated that he could only give three people a rasie. He went into how hard that was for him. He's not my friend, he's my supervisor. I'm not really concerned whether his job is hard for him or not. If he didn't want it, he shouldn't have taken the job.

I again asked if I was getting a raise.

I had to repat that until he finally answered.

The answer was no.

I told him I was going home for the rest of the day.

I didn't want to go back but was prepared to do so when I cooked dinner. I was going to go back and put on a fake smile and act like it was okay that I got screwed over when I was putting in longer hours than anyone else, when I was doing my work and the work of others (he repeatedly sent me to meetings in his place) and despite the fact that this would have been my first raise in three years.

I was down and I'm sure it was noticable. My husband asked me about it after dinner. I explained it and said I was going back the next day but was sick of the job. He pointed out that Mike was in high school now and we just had him and his sister in terms of college to worry about. (We didn't need to end up worrying about either. Mike took care of his own until C.I. kindly took care of it and my daughter is on a scholarship.) Everyone else was out of college.

Throughout my life, I had worked part-time jobs and temp jobs. This had been my first full time job. (Eight kids doesn't allow for a lot of work time.) My husband said the house was paid for and we could manage. I thought those were just comforting words but he was serious. He said I could get another job, another part-time job or not work at all. I had taken this job because I got off at four-thirty so I was home in time for dinner (whether I fixed it or not). I often had to take projects home with me so usually had to work after dinner but that was fine. Provided I was appreciated.

If you're leaving me in charge of the office, if you're sending me to your meetings, if you're asking me to do your spread sheets and present them, I would assume I'm doing a good job since I don't have your position. So when you turn around and tell me that you wish you could give me a raise, you're whining to the wrong person.

I didn't go in the next morning. After everyone was off to work or school, I made a pot of coffee and just relaxed in the kitchen. I didn't call off. I didn't call in late. 25 minutes after I was supposed to go in, the phone was ringing. It was my boss. Was I coming in? I knew I had that presenation to do for him, right?

I told him I was quitting.

He started begging and pleading. If I would come in and do the presentation (he didn't even know the topic of it, I'd researched it, done the hand outs and charts, put together the audio-visual presentation), "it would be such a big help."

I told him I had a son and daughter who still weren't 18 and I had a husband. "See, my problem is," I said echoing his words, "is that I can only help three people."

He was dense and didn't grasp immediately that I was referring to his remarks about how he could only give three raises. When he finally did, he said that he'd make it up to me. There was another raise period in six months and I would get a raise then.

I told him I had no reason to believe him. Obviously, my work was important and was solid or he wouldn't be freaking out that I wasn't able to do the presentation today. He had to choose three people to give raises to and I didn't make his cut. I told him he didn't make my cut on my list of priorities and hung up on him.

Work is work. I think too many bosses abuse their roles, abuse their captive audiences, by making a point to unload all their home problems on them. I also don't think most grasp that their role is to provide supervision. I've had some bosses who were not the sweetest in the world. That didn't matter to me if they could be clear about what they needed. I wasn't there to be their best friend, I was there to earn a pay check and help pay the bills.

I don't buy into the talk of "teamwork" or "we're all a family." If we were, then we'd all get a raise. But I heard that over and over at various jobs. The bosses I respected were the ones who didn't repeat that garbage to me.

Some people may need touchy-feely bosses who go on and on about how their wives won't have sex with them (as my boss did even after I repeatedly told him I didn't want to hear about it -- after that he would still do it and then apologize for 'forgetting').

These days, I do volunteer work with my church. All of my children are adults. I don't want to hold down a job. I did that over and over while my kids were growing up because, like many families, we didn't have the choice. For those who do have the choice, if you've got a job you enjoy, you should work. I'm a feminist, I don't believe a woman's place is in the home. I also don't believe a woman's work outside the home is something to be ripped off but I saw that happen repeatedly. When I was part-time, that was the excuse I'd be given, that my getting credit wouldn't really 'help' me because I was part-time so it was given to someone else.

If you're not grasping it, I had some really lousy work experiences. But, like most of us do, I went on with the job because I needed the check. I think bosses who don't grasp that (and their superiors) are idiots. I understand that they are cheap. Giving employees earned raises or cost of living raises might mean they themselves take home less.

One thing that really gives me hope is the number of office workers that are unionizing. Over the years, when I would complain about something at work (usually sugar coating the complaint), my husband would point out that if I had a union rep (he belongs to a union), they wouldn't be able to pull that. By the same token, because he belonged to a union, I don't think he grasped how bad it could be for others for the longest. He really thought I must have misheard a boss who cancelled my lunch one day because he needed to go to shopping for soemthing personal. I've heard horror stories from friends about how they had to pick up their boss' personal items (including birth control) and often it was off the clock, either on lunch or "after work, it's on your way so . . ." (I never did personal errands. If I was asked, I would reply back, "Sure, and you're going to pick up my children from school today, right?" That would end the request.)

As everyone knows, we've switched from a manufacturing econmy to a service-based one. The switch has resulted in most of us working in non-union jobs and that has to change. We keep hearing how CEOs pay has sky rocketed while workers have seen a decline in real wages. The two are connected, the emphasis on non-union jobs has allowed many to screw over workers. When you've had a three year pay freeze, to use my last job as an example, and you're suddenly allowed to give raises, that needs to be everyone. Three people in an office of 21 is not fair. You're going to have 18 people furious. And they have a right to be. They've done their job. If they weren't effective in their job, fire them. If they weren't fired and they've done their jobs, they deserve a raise. Costs don't stop rising just because there's a pay freeze.

A union could bargain for better work conditions. Unions aren't perfect. But they do and have guaranteed better wages and, therefore, better lives for many Americans in the past.

I thought I'd write a little and then include a recipe before sharing my thoughts on the awful move by the Canadian Supreme Court not to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey; however, it's late and I went on too long.

In terms of Thanksgiving, if you're a regular reader, you already know what to do or not do in terms of cooking for it or taking a dish. The only thing I'd add is if it makes you miserable to go somewhere on Thanksgiving, don't. In your personal life you also have the right to say "no." That's one problem I've never had but there are many people who do not get along with their familes and some for very good reason. Better to be with friends or people you like. Barring that, better to sleep in, make a grilled cheese sandwich and enjoy your day alone than go through with a day where you're just going to get upset.

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

Friday, November 16, 2007. Chaos and violence contine, the war resistance movement continues, Congress accomplishes nothing (but does get a vacation), Brian De Palma's film Redacted opens in select cities, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign. staged rallies across Canada yesterday in support of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey whose appeal the Supreme Court refused to hear. Tracy Huffman and Debra Black (Toronto Star) report that Hinzman was at a rally in Toronto but not making public statements, instead letting Jeffry House (Hinzman, Hughey and many other war resisters in Canada's attorney) speak, "He's disappointed. He's tired of talking." John Ward (Canadian Press via London Free Press) dexplains that the focus will now be on the country's federal government and quotes House stating "the focus now turns to a political solution" and Canadian Friends Service Committee's Jane Orion Smith stating the legislature can "create a provision for them to stay." Kari Huus (MSNBC) cites Lee Zaslofsky of the War Resisters Support Campaign explaining, "What we need is for the (Liberal) party as a whole to take a stance on this. Together (the three parties) have a majority, and if they act together they can put something through the House of Commons." The Liberal Party currently has 96 seats in the House of Commons, the New Democratic Party has 30 seats. Those two bring the total to 126 which is the number of seats the Conservative Party holds. Bloc Quebecois holds 49 seats and 3 seats are held by the Independents (four seats are vacant). CKNW (AM 980) quotes Vancouver organizer Bog Ages explaining that the Bloc Quebecois and New Democratic Party members are on board and "we have a number of Liberal MP's who said they would support us. So, all we have to do, we'd like the Liberal Party as a whole to take a stand. But even if they're split, enough of them, that combined with the other parties, they have a majority, potentially, in Parliament, to change the law." The New Democratic Party cites the poll where 64.4 percent of Ontarians believe the war resisters should be allowed to remain in Canada, notes that NDP Citizenship and Immigration Critic Olivia Chow is introducing a motion to call for hearings on the issue and quotes her declaring, "To deport courageous war resisters who oppose the illegal invasion of Iraq is saying Yes to George W. Bush's war and No to supporting and protecting people seeking peace."


In the US, Tom Hayden declared, "I hope that the Canadian people stop the Bush Administration from using the Harper government to hound a handful of war resisters and erase Canada's proud heritage as a haven for resisters and refugees." Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Attitude and Screed) also lamented the events in Canada (and compared Prime Minister Stephen Harper to adult acne): "if i was even slightly right about what canada once was, i know the people can still stand up and force their government to stand with them. but they better do so quick. if they want to see how it looks when they don't, just take a gander southward. we're becoming the text book example of a failed state."

In July of 2004, Democracy Now! spoke with Jeremy Hinzman:AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Can you talk about how you made your decision?
JEREMY HINZMAN: Pretty much what it came down to was-- I mean, I won't go into the false pretences and everything that we know about, but being in an illegal war, it would be being complicit and a criminal enterprise, and you may say that, oh, well, you're not a policymaker or a general or whatever, that the Nuremberg principles wouldn't apply to you. But in light of what's happened since Abu Ghraib, when they scapegoated like the lower enlisted soldiers for simply carrying out what the policy was from the upper echelons, I think it's pretty fair to say that we made the right decision. Because I was in the infantry and there is a good chance that I would have-- I would have been pretty active in a negative way. And so I'm-- that's why we came here pretty much is that I wasn't-- I don't want to shoot people. I would have been happy to go to Iraq as a port-a-potty janitor or operation human shield. I just don't want to shoot people.

Goodman spoke with Hinzman again on October 15, 2004 and also participating in the interview were Jeffry House and Brandon Hughey:
AMY GOODMAN: Brandon Hughey, why did you go into the military?
BRANDON HUGHEY: My story basically starts off almost the same way. I enlisted when I was 17 years old with basically the promise of a way to better my life financially. Again, it is a way to get a college education without amassing thousands of dollars of debt.
AMY GOODMAN: Where did you grow up?
BRANDON HUGHEY: I grew up in San Angelo, Texas. So, also when I signed the contract, I wasn't naive to the fact that I could be deployed to fight in a war, but I did have this image growing up that I would be sort of -- a good guy, if you will, and fighting for just causes and fighting to defend my country, and after I got out of basic training, and when I realized that basically the U.S. had attacked a country that was no threat to them, in an act of aggression, it shattered that myth, I guess you could say.
AMY GOODMAN: How old were you when you signed up?
BRANDON HUGHEY: I was 17.


At the rallies for Hinzman and Hughey, among those attending were war resisters from the Vietnam era and war resisters from today's illegal war. Huffman and Black note Kimberly Rivera -- Iraq veteran, mother of two -- spoke at one rally: "I strongly believe we are doing the wrong thing in Iraq." Rivera went on to explain that, while serving in Iraq, when she looked "at the shaken crying Iraqi children" she was reminded "of her own daughter in Texas.": John Ward notes war resister Tim Richard attending one rally and wondering, "Why is it legal for me (to stay), because my father was born in New Brunswick, and not legal for somebody else who did the exact same thing?"

Meanwhile war resister Rodney Watson has gone public. Suzanne Fournier (The Province) notes the 29-year-old, African-American, Iraq veteran self-checked out a year ago and now lives in Canada and quotes him stating, "I I realized the war had nothing to do with 9/11 or helping Iraqis or stopping terrorists. It's all about guarding oil for the U.S. , , , I'd rather do my time in jail than be a party to the racism I saw in Iraq. As an African-American, I grew up with racism. But in Iraq, I saw the same kind of abuse and mistreatment, only this was U.S. enlisted soldiers and American contractors, like security forces, abusing Iraqis."

Tom Regan (NPR News Blog) points out the difference between this week's court action (or inaction) and last week's. While Hugey and Hinzman were not allowed to seek out a legal remendy by the Canadian Supreme Court, last week US District Judge Benjmain Settle ruled in Ehren Watada's favor, "The judge says the military court is ignoring Watada's constitutional right not to face double jeopardy after his first court-martial ended in a mistrial.
The injunction means Watada has a better chance of winning his case, but it also means he might not get a chance to test his central argument -- that the Iraq war is illegal -- in court."
Noting the Watada ruling yesterday, NPR's Martin Kaste (All Things Considered) covered the story and Kenneth Kagan, Watada's civilian attorney along with James Lobsenz, explained the double-jeopardy issue (the February court-martial ended in a mistrial over defense objection) was something many courts grasp: "Civilians courts understand that, state courts understand that but for some reason military courts weren't acknowledging that reality."

Another reality that some (the press) has a hard time acknowledging is the number of service members electing to check out of the military on their own. AP reports that this year the desertion rate has jumped to "the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase" since the start of the illegal war. AP continues to deny reality by offering the claim that the US military does little to track down those who go AWOL or desert -- despite the mountain of public evidence to the contrary.
As to the figure cited, September 21st, Nick Watt (ABC's Nighline) examined war resisters and noted the number of people being processed for desertion at Fort Knox "jumped 60% last year" (to 1,414 for Fort Knox -- US military figures) while concluding his report with, "If the total for the first six months of 2007 doubles by year end, it will become the highest annual total in twenty-six years." At 80% the total has more than doubled and not only is there another full month left in the year, it's also true that you have to be gone at least 30 days to be declared a deserter (unless you're Agustin Aguayo and the military wants to screw you over) and, in addition, the military figures have been 'lower' than they should be before (NPR caught that earlier this year) and the rolls aren't up to date for AWOL let alone desertion.


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.


The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Zinn will take part in the November 18th presentation (the official opening night -- but performances are already taking place) and musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who appeared on Democracy Now! Friday addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $21 for previews and $41 for regular performances (beginning with the Nov. 18th opening night). The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.

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

Starting next week, IVAW's announcement above will be summarized in each snapshot until the March testimony begins. Winter Soldier is the documentary that was made of the 1971 investigation and it is available via Vietnam Veterans Against the War for $28.95 (four dollars of that is for shipping). Staying with films for a minute more, Brian De Palma's Redacted opens today in select cities and, although fiction, is inspired by real life events -- specifically the gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza and the murder of her five-year-old sister and both parents.Opening Today:
11/16/2007 Berkeley, CA: Shattuck Cinemas Los Angeles, CA: The Landmark Palo Alto, CA: Aquarius 2 Pasadena, CA: Laemmle's One Colorado Cinemas San Francisco, CA: Embarcadero Center Cinema Santa Ana, CA: South Coast Village 3 West Hollywood, CA: Sunset 5 Washington, DC: E Street Cinema Chicago, IL: Landmark's Century Centre Cinema Cambridge, MA: Kendall Square Cinema New York, NY: Sunshine Cinema New York, NY: Lincoln Plaza Philadelphia, PA: Ritz at the Bourse



Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing claimed 1 life and left four more wounded, a Baquba mortar attack left six people wounded, while 2 Baquba bombings left three civilians and four police officers wounded.

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that an Iraqi 1st Lieuntenant and his brother were shot dead in Misan while en route to their home today and yesterday "5 civilians were injured in a random fire by the Iraqi army in Al Siniyah town north west of Tikrit city."

Kidnappings?

Reuters reports Muntazer al-Zaidi, a 26-year-old journalist for Iraqi television, was kidnapped in Baghdad today.

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.


As the violence continues the US State Department has had a public relations nightmare with diplomats not filling posts and threats from the chain of command that they would be ordered to Baghdad. This morning Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported that an announcement would be coming today "that volunteers have filled all 48 open jobs at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad for next year and that it will not order any foreign service officers to work there against their will, officials said yesterday." NPR's Morning Edition reported earlier today that the positions had been filled; however, Reuters -- citing a State Department flack -- reports that it may -- may -- be unnecessay to order some diplomats to Baghdad and quotes Sean McCormack insisting, "It appears that we are getting very nearly to the point where we will have volunteers for all of the open, identified jobs."

As Reuters notes, some objecting to be assigned to Baghdad have compared it to a death sentence. This as DPA reports that the Turkish military has been moving tanks to the northern border of Iraq. Gareth Jones (Reuters) reports that some members of Turkey's ruling political party have stated Turkish troops will not enter Iraq if the PKK disarmed. Since they really aren't able to make that promise and since the PKK would be highly unlikely to disarm under such a vague offer, the tensions continue between northern Iraq and Turkey.

Turning to the US Congress, the Democratic shell-game (Let's tell the voters this is a withdrawal!) passed in the House but didn't come to a vote today in the Senate. Noam M. Levey (Los Angeles Times) reports the measure garnered only 53 votes of support and that Congress is now expected to leave DC for their two-week Thanksgiving vacation. For those attempting to keep track, Congress just took a 30-day vacation in September but apparently carving a turkey takes several days when you're in the US Congress. Possibly the lack of spines makes the standing difficult? Pelosi pushed through the measure in the House and many in the Out of Iraq caucus held their news and voted to support it -- even though it did not mean withdrawal and even though it would have given Bully Boy $50 billion more dollars for the illegal war. Earlier this week, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold went on record opposing the measure because it continued funding the Iraq War and was toothless and non-binding. Toothless and non-binding? In "Don't Ask Her to Play Hostess" news Corporate Crime Reporter's Russell Mokhiber (via CounterPunch) shares the latest social tidbit from US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, "I'm not happy when people come to my house." Oh. So that's why she entertained the Dalai Lama at the MCI Center in 2005. And those of us in her district just assumed the location was another reward to her corporate donors. Actually, it's Fancy Nancy having another public fit over the fact that CODEPINK potests. She loved CODEPINK . . . when they called out the powerful . . . back when Republicans controlled everything. Now that Democrats control both houses in the US Congress and CODEPINK stays true to their purpose of calling out the powerful, Fancy Nancy has a snit fit. Repeatedly. Fancy Nancy declares of CODEPINK, "And if they think the longer they stay there the better the chances they will have a meeting with me -- I think I've disabused them of that notion." No, all she's done is demonstrate that from Richard Nixon through PW Botha on up to the Bully Boy and a hop and skip over to Fancy Nancy the bunker mentality thrives. CODEPINK is nation wide with chapters all over but many in the Bay Area see it as the "home team" so, when you're already tanking in the polls, with your highest negatives and your lowest approval ratings ever, it's probably not a good idea to go after them or present yourself an advocate against free speech. Fancy Nancy's a Maryland transplant (that never really took) so possibly she's unaware where the Free Speech Movement began? The eighth district's own Joe Lieberman appears eager to continue digging her own grave.

Finally, Robert Parry was a guest on CounterSpin today where he explained his article "Why We Write" (Consortium News) and spoke of the immediate positive effects during and following Watergate that quickly fell away and how the US press became what it is today. He and his sons Nat and Sam will be speaking at Busboys and Poets in Arlingtion, Virginia Saturday Nov. 17th from four p.m. to six p.m. discussing their new book Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush. Sam and Nat Parry have established their own journalist skills at Consortium News and they and Robert Parry can discuss any of the topics pertaining to the current administration but remember that Robert Parry has been doing investigative journalism for years -- long enough to have had neocon Daniel Pipes insult his reporting long, long before the Iraq War -- a sure sign his investigations cause discomfort.

iraqand the war drags ondonovanjeremy hinzmanbrandon hugheyehren watadademocracy nowamy goodman
martin kastenprall things considerediraq veterans against the war
redactedbrian de palma
the washington post
karen deyoung
anthony arnovehoward zinn
robert parry

Iraq

Here is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:

Friday, November 9, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, 5 more officials are targeted (and killed) in Iraq, the Democratically-controlled US House of Representatives attempts another con related to the illegal war, Iraq War resister Ehren Watada and the Constitution win a victory, and more.

Starting with war resisters. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes today, "There has been a development in the case of Ehren Watada -- the first Army officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq. A federal judge has ruled the Army cannot hold a second court-martial for the Iraq war resister until the court resolves Watada's claim that it would violate his right against double jeopardy. Watada's first court martial ended in a mistrial." Ehren Watada is the first officer to publicy refuse to deploy to Iraq. When he was informed he would be deploying to Iraq, he did as his superiors had advised him, learn as much as he could so he could better serve those under his command. As he began researching, he realized that the Iraq War was illegal. In January 2006, he phoned his mother, Carolyn Ho, to advise her that he was going to be doing something very difficult, refusing to deploy. Shortly after that, he informed the US military which made the pretense of wanting to work out some sort of alternative. As his unit's deployment grew closer and nothing was being accomplished, Watada went public via an interview in June 2006. The initial interview was followed by others. He would tell his story on Democracy Now!, on MTV, on CNN, at Truthout, in LeftTurn, New American Media, Nichi Bei Times, and many other outlets. His mother Carolyn Ho, his father Bob Watada, his step-mother Rosa Sakanishi would appear in multiple outlets including, again, Democracy Now!, Laura Flanders' radio program, Law and Disorder, KPFK's Sojourner Truth and Uprising, KPFA's The Morning Show and Aaron Glantz's reporting on all aspects would spread the issue over all of KPFA's programming, etc. Rolling Stone magazine would put Watada on their "Honor Roll" for the 2006 year-end issue. Watada, as the first officer to resist, would garner more attention than any other Iraq War resister thus far and, in doing so, underscore several realities. Of chief interest to war resisters and those who support war resisters, the silence from The Nation magazine. Readers of the print magazine would make it through the end of the 2006 issues of the weekly 'political' and 'left' magazine without ever seeing the words "Ehren Watada" though there was plenty of time to provide glossy fluff on bad candidates (the DLC's Harold Ford being only one example) and to do 'theme' issues (such as their food issue). There just wasn't time to cover war resisters. Watada would finally make it into print in the January 8th issue (actually a double-issue but we're not going into that nonsense) where he would be called a "coward." The magazine that sat out Watada (and Abeer) throughout 2006 finally prints his name and it's in a statement calling him a coward. (No e-mails on the 'online exclusives,' they were covered long ago.) The article's a cover story (done by The Pooper) and it also contains a tiny sidebar that kind-of, sort-of tells Watada's story . . . after The Nation has already introduced him to print readers as a "coward." It was a telling event that would finally call to everyone's attention the magazine silence on war resisters under the 'leadership' of The Peace Resister. In their laughable article over the summer of 2007, they would manage to insult everyone participating (left, center and right) but the telling moment (after the fact that they wanted praise for an article which bragged of "dozens" of photos of abuse to Iraqis but printed NONE -- the photos did and do exist) would be in the way they reduced war resisters -- Camilo Mejia was a "deserter" (that call is in question since the military legally could not extend -- as they did -- Mejia's enlistment through stop-loss since Mejia was not a US citizen) but he wasn't billed as a "war resister." The coverage and non-coverage of Watada was a water-shed moment in many ways which did include instructing news consumers on who stood with and who stood far, far away. It's also worth noting that many other resisters went public in the wake of Watada: Darrell Anderson, Agustin Augyo, Kyle Snyder, Mark Wilcox, Ricky Clousing and . . . stop there. Stop there and don't continue because that's how All Things Media Big and Small, with every few exceptions, have treated 2007's crop of war resisters. Despite the fact that 2007 is set to be a record year -- according to the military's own official numbers -- for war resistance, emerging war resisters fell off the media map. James Burmeister was the strongest example. Either you followed Canadian media or you caught NOW with David Brancaccio or you didn't have a clue. Too bad for everyone because the last week of September "kill teams" (US service members setting out equpiment as traps to shoot Iraqis) would become a huge story but Burmeister was telling the story when he went public in June of 2007. Eli Israel would remain "Eli Who?" to All Things Media Big and Small despite the fact that he became the first war resister resisting publicly while stationed in Iraq. The Kamunen brothers? In These Times could find them when no one else in independent media could or would. The mainstream media showed some interest because three brothers -- Leo, Leif and Luke -- all electing to self-checkout over the same Christmas 2006 holiday was news . . . to some.

Watada is big Iraq news today and yet, at The Nation, the main page features nothing. No articles (even 'online exclusives'), nothing (except a screen cap that underscores why some people shouldn't part their hair in the middle). Forget the magazine's campaign blog, look at The Notion where conventional 'wisdoms' are dispensed in the best Kooky Cokie Roberts fashion. Today's posts? Karl Rove and a right-wing event, a week long event . . . that started October 21st. Three weeks old and served up as 'fresh' 'news' today on the rag's 'real time' blog: "Rapid reaction to breaking news and unfiltered takes on politics, ethics and culture from Nation editors and contributors." Rapid reaction to breaking news? Not a word on Watada but a three week old right wing action is worth posting on today? That Karl Rove doesn't care for left blogs is 'news,' but Watada isn't? Never forget that since assuming control, Our Lady of Peace Resistance has ensured that The Nation ignores Iraq, employs her friend and exists as a promotion tool for herself (hence all those bad e-mails sent out whenever she's booked anywhere and hence the 'notion' that a screen cap of her, with bad middle part, has more 'credibility' than one of Jeremy Scahill being interviewed by Bill Moyers for his PBS show -- give her time, she'll turn it into the 'political' equivalent of Martha Stewart's Living yet.). Why does the war drag on? Look no further than the non-leadership at The Nation.

Those waking up this morning might have been caught by surprise with the news but as the day wore on, the only excuse for refusal to cover it was not caring. (We did note it early this morning.) Aaron Glantz wasn't wasting his time covering three week old news or GOP poster boy endowed by the left with super-human powers. Reporting at IPS, Glantz notes Watada supporters are calling today's news "a huge victory." What's that? It's what should be one of the biggest stories of the day: US District Judge Benjamin Settle has provided a road block to the military's attempt to court-martial Watada for a second time. The issue that concerned Judge Settle was the same one Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, immediately noted when the first court-martial was ruled a mistrial over defense objection: double-jeopardy.

Christian Hill (The Olympian) reports, "Settle ruled that the civilian court's review of Watada's double-jeopardy claim is appropriate, rejecting claims by the Army that the court can only step in after the conclusion of the second court-martial and likely appeals within the military court system. He also found that the granting of a preliminary injunction is necessary in part because Watada will 'probably prevail on the merits' of his case, his ruling said. Settle reached that conclusion largely because of what he said was the abuse of discretion by Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge who presided in Watada's first court-martial, in rejecting a so-called stipulation of fact agreed upon by the government and defense that led to the mistrial, the ruling shows." John Head, better known as Judge Toilet, nuff said. Hal Bernton (Seattle Times) quotes Judge Settle's ruling: "The same Fifth Amendment protections are in place for military service members as are afforded to civilians. There is a strong public interest in maintaining these rights inviolate." Bernton also notes Kenneth Kagan's caution that the case is still not over. Kagan and Jim Lobsenz are Watada's civilian attorneys. Glantz observes that the military is already stating they will file additional briefs to argue for a second court-martial and that, "Judge Settle's ruling does not provide a complete victory for Watada, however. The injunction only temporarily blocks Army prosecutors from proceeding." It is the news of the day and it is a deserved victory for Watada. If, as Judge Settle feels, the Constitutional provision on double-jeopardy prevail throughout the process, this is a major victory not just for war resistance but for the Constitution -- especially a heartfelt moment at a time when the current administration has launched one attack on the Constitution after another -- usually without little more than a peep from Democrats in Congress. Double-jeopardy, in the simplest of terms, means that the government does not get a 'do-over.' They have to argue their case and if turns out they did so badly or if it turns out that they have wasted the government's time (and tax payer monies), that's the end of it. They do not get to audition in front of a judge and/or jury to find out which parts of their argument resonate and which parts do not. The provision against double-jeopardy exists to protect citizens from witch hunts by governmental prosecutors. It is a right embedded in the nation from it's founding. In terms of Watada, the prosecution was losing the court-martial -- possibly they should have vetted their list of witnesses better -- and Judge Toilet thought he could call a mistrial to allow them a second attempt at court-martialing Watada. They don't get to reset the clock and start over. That's not how it is supposed to work in the United States. Judge Settle's ruling is a victory for Watada and it is also a victory for the Constitution. It is one of the big stories of the day.Hawaii's KMGB (video and text report) quotes Watada's father, Bob Watada, "For Ehren, hopefully the army will do the right thing and discharge him immediately. That would allow him to get his life going. Because it's been on hold now for over a year." Get on with his life? Aaron Glantz notes that Watada has reported for duty for the last nine months as the appeals process has continued. Equally worth noting is the fact that Watada's service contract expired in December and the military has extended it while the court proceedings continue.


There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, 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.

Turning to Iraq, Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) pierces through the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk to report on reality, "Despite claims by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Bush administration officials that violence in Iraq is decreasing, residents in the captial tell a different story." Fadhily notes the increased air war, the increased arrests of Iraqis, and an increase in attacks in al-Anbar Province and Baghdad while quoting teacher Salman Hameed explaining, "Sectarian killings are less because all the Sunnis have been evicted from mixed areas in Baghdad. All my relatives and Sunni neighbours who survived the killing campaign led by the militias under the eyes of American and Iraqi forces have fled to either Syria or to other Sunni cities." Muhammad Younis explains to al-Fadhily that the violence continues "but media coverage has almost disappeared." That is the reality. In a really bad puff piece in this morning's New York Times, even Cara Buckley notes that the US military held 16,000 Iraqi prisoners in February of this year and now holds 25,800. While Buckley works overtime to attribute powers to puppet of the occupation al-Maliki (he had no say in the decision by the US military to release 500 prisoners today) but the reality is that the releases happen because there's a lack of space. Innocence or guilt? The US criminal justice system and the US imposed Iraqi criminal justice system is built around the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Iraqi prisoners rarely get trials. They're imprisoned willy nilly, held for months at a time and then released never having received justice but they are supposed to be grateful that the same extra-judicial process that kept them imprisoned went on to release them when they needed to add a new influx of prisoners.

It's among the many reasons Iraqis want all foreign forces -- including the US -- out of their country. But Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland (writing at CounterPunch) report that efforts are underweigh to strip Iraqis say in the matter, "The United Nations Security Council, with support from the British and American delegations, is poised to cut the Iraqi parliament out of one of the most significant decisions the young government will make: when foreign troops will depart. It's an ugly and unconstitutional move, designed solely to avoid asking an Iraqi legislature for a blank check for an endless military occupation that it's in no mood to give, and it will make a mockery of Iraq's nascent democracy (which needs all the legitmacy it can get." The Iraqi parliament is the only central government that can be considered to have been, in any form, elected by the people. The parliament has repeatedly favored the expulsion of foreign forces -- a position favored by the majority of Iraqis. However, past renewals of the United Nations mandate have taken place without their input. Most recently, al-Maliki (who was not elected by the Iraqi people to the post of prime minister) ignored the country's constitution and decided by himself (with pressure from the US) that the mandate would be extended. When that took place, the Iraqi parliament vowed that was the last time they would be double-crossed or caught unaware. Jarrar and Holland note, "The Iraqi executive branch -- the cabinet and the presidency -- are completely controlled by separatists (including Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and sexuclar politicans.) But the parliament is controlled by nationalist -- nationalists from every major ethnic and sectarian group in the country -- who enjoy a small but crucially important majority in the only elected body in the Iraqi government." The reporters inform that after al-Maliki extra-constitutionally renewed the mandate (that power rests with the Iraqi parliament), they "passed a binding reolution that would force Maliki to go to the parliament and give Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the mandate." The Iraqi parliament notified the United Nations of that June 2007 binding law. However, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the law a "non-binding resolution" in an October 15th report that's only now surfaced. The law wasn't needed, the Iraqi constitution gives the parliament and not the prime minister the power to renew or cancel the mandate. But the law was passed in addition to the Constitution and now the UN Secretary General wants to waive it off as some symbolic action when it is now the law of Iraq.

Meanwhile, Iraq's president, Jalal al-Tabani, insists that the key legislation will be passed before the end of the year while the reality, as Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) reported, that al-Maliki has given up on wooing the Sunni bloc that walked out in August. His cabinet is missing five ministers (had he met their demands, that wouldn't be the case). This is the same al-Maliki that missed the deadline, after being installed as prime minister, to appoint a full cabinet. Meanwhile the World Health Organization found -- date covers through last week -- disturbing news, "The most important development this week is the steep increase in the number of cholera cases reported from Baghdad compared to last week. The number of laboratory confirmed cases jumped from 11 to 24 cholera cases representing an increase of 227% in the cumulative cases." How did the MSM miss that?

"If you know some history that is outside the establishing view of history, you will not be fooled by the things you hear from the White House, or from members of Congress, or from leaders of political parties." Vivian Ho (The Daily Free Press via Common Dreams) quotes historian Howard Zinn explaining that in a speech to Boston area students and activists.
From November 10 through December 16th, Rebel Voices will be perfomred at Culture Project -- based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. Along with war resister Camilo Mejia, the voices of Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Zinn will take part in the November 18th presentation (opening night). Tickets are on sale now. Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) explored the timing of the play with Zinn today:

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the importance of these voices of resistance at a time when -- of resurrecting them at a time when so much accommodation is occurring to what the United States is involved in around the world, even among many right here in our own country?

HOWARD ZINN: The word "accommodation" brings to mind the Democratic Party, which was voted into power in Congress in 2006 and which has shown us a pitiful example of what an opposition party should be, accommodating itself basically to the Bush and Republican agenda, accommodating itself to the sort of orthodox political notion that you must be timid and quiet and not speak the truth. And the advantage of bringing back these historical figures is that these people give us an example. They spoke the truth no matter what. They took chances, they took risks. And so, we need to listen to them and to be inspired by them and to have us realize that wherever we are, whatever walk of life we are, our job is to speak loudly, to speak boldly, to tell the truth, and with the idea that the truth has a power which is very special, and if people keep uttering the truth, the idea will spread and a power will be created that even those who hold the reins in Washington, whether the Democrats or Republicans, will have to listen.

AMY GOODMAN: Howard Zinn, we began today's show with Congressmember Dennis Kucinich, who has been trying to force the issue of impeachment, wanting to start with the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. The Democratic leadership is fighting hard to stop it from coming to the House. Your thoughts on that issue as an historian and an American?

HOWARD ZINN: I believe that impeachment is an issue that should be raised all over the country. If Congress and the Democrats are too timid to raise it, then it should be done in grassroots meetings all over the country. I understand at least thirty or forty town meetings in Vermont have called for impeachment, that local groups in various parts of the country have called for it. It's the kind of situation that we faced on the eve of the revolution against England, where the colonial officials were not going to lead a fight against England, and so people gathered in various towns in the colonies, and they formed committees of correspondence, and they brought up the issue of independence. We need to bring up the issue of impeachment, because when you bring up the issue of impeachment, whether it succeeds or not -- I mean, the idea of counting votes to see whether you're going to win an impeachment misses the point. To bring up impeachment would excite the country, because it would force a discussion on all the most fundamental issues on the war, on civil liberties, on the stealing of the people's money to pay for the war and to enrich the rich. Impeachment would excite the country. And if the people in the leadership of the Democratic Party don't realize it, then the rest of us should try to make them realize it. I applaud Dennis Kucinich for bringing it up. I hope that John Conyers, who is head of the Judiciary Committee and who at one time showed signs of being a true progressive and a leader of and person of courage, I wish that John Conyers would stop playing with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic policy of conciliation and caution. And John Conyers, as head of the Judiciary Committee, could hold hearings and start the ball rolling on impeachment. I think everybody who is listening to this broadcast, everybody should write, talk, email their congressman, email John Conyers, and demand that they begin the impeachment process against Cheney, against Bush. I think it would galvanize the energy of the country in a good direction.

We'll return to the topic of impeachment shortly. But let's zoom in on the latest con-game coming out of Congress and then go into violence because the shell game will allow more bloodshed to continue. US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is once again pushing another symoblic, non-binding kind-of end the illegal war proposal. As with the earlier bits of nonsense, it doesn't call for any troops to come home because the (non-binding) measure allows for classification of troops. Who exactly will be classifying them? Pelosi? No, the Bully Boy. So when they propose X combat troops out of Iraq or even all combat troops out of Iraq but leave troops behind for "counter-terrorism" (counter-insurgency, let's get real) and "police" they allow Bully Boy to follow anything they might pass (if he's in the mood to follow anything -- binding or not) simply by reclassifying the categories for the troops. For example, should he declare that all US service members in Iraq are "counter-terrorism" troops, no one could really act surprised by that because he's been allowed to lie about 'terrorism' in Iraq for years now. What these symoblic actions actually do is allow the Democratically-controlled Congress to continue to fund the illegal war while pretending that is not the case and acting as though they are really working to end the illegal war. The House of Representatives wants to give Bully Boy $50 billion more for the illegal war while he wants $70 billion. Pelosi pretends that she's accomplishing something with her non-binding measure that follows the House approval of a $471 billion defense budget. On Thursday's
Free Speech Radio News, Leigh Ann Caldwell reported that the $471 billion defense budget does allow Bully Boy some wiggle room on taking a little here and there to apply it to the illegal war --"but a provision was included in the bill to allow the president to borrow money" if his blood lust is not satisfied. So Pelosi's once again backing a 'symoblic' and toothless measure and trying to convince the public that she's doing something when the reality is the House has already given Bully Boy the means to continue the illegal war and the $50 billion -- which will be approved, Congress has no backbone -- is just going to be the cherry on top.

The con games are disgraceful and they have allowed the illegal war to continue and so many to die and be wounded. Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Kirkuk car bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi police officer and wounded another as well as two civilians, a Kirkuk roadside bombing wounded one civilian, another Kirkuk roadside bombing claimed the life of Captain Hassan Khalaf and left three other Iraqi soldiers wounded while yesterday a Khaniqeen bombing claimed the lives of 3 police officers with three more wounded and another three were wounded in an Al Saidyah roadside bombing. In the continued targeting of officials in Iraq, Reuters notes that, today, 5 "Sunni Arab tribal leaders" were killed in Dojemah bombing (in which the bomber also died), while a Bagdad roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 people with two more injured, a Balad Ruz mortar attack that claimed the lives of 3 children (five people were injured), and a bombing outside Baquba claimed the life of 1 child and left six other members of the family, including five children, injured. On the targeting of officials, Reuters notes the five "were members of the Diyala Salvation Council, a body set up to oppose al Qaeda in Iraq" and that Sheikh Faeiz Lefta al-Obaidi was among the five killed.

Shootings?

Reuters notes 3 people were shot dead (and two wounded) outside Bauba and that "four gunmen" were then killed by residents.

Kidnappings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a "citizen in Toz Khirmato" was kidnapped yesterday.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Reuters ups the count by 1 to make four corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Returning to the topic of the US Congress, Dennis Kucinich moved this week towards the impeachment of Dick Cheney. "Impeachment," Nancy Pelosi pompously declared in an October 2006 interview with CBS' 60 Minutes, was "off the table." Steny Hoyer repeated that nonsense this week. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "An American Research Group poll in July found 54% of Americans support beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney. 74% of Democrats were also in favor." From today's DN! broadcast:

AMY GOODMAN: Explain exactly what you did this week.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: The articles of impeachment that were introduced under a privileged resolution cite the Vice President's persistent lies relating to Iraq. He claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that necessitated the US response. He claimed that Iraq somehow was connected to al-Qaeda's role in 9/11. He has been beating the drums for war against Iran. Those are the elements of the articles of impeachment that were introduced into the House this week.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And why introduce your resolution in regards to Vice President Cheney and not to President Bush?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, certainly President Bush also has to be held accountable. However, I think that any constitutional process that begins for the removal of an official, when you have the Vice President, who led the effort to deceive this country with respect to a war against Iraq, it's appropriate that he be dealt with first, so that you don't create a condition where you remove the President first and then Mr. Cheney becomes his successor, and then you have to have an impeachment of two presidents consecutively.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain the leadership's position and why you chose to do what you did this week.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I think it's very difficult to explain their position, because I don't think their position is defensible. I think when you consider that our whole nation is at risk, our constitutional form of government has been undermined by lies, by illegal war, by massive debt, how can you explain the position of Democratic leaders?

Blackwater was also addressed today on Democracy Now! with the Washington Post's Steve Fainru and we'll grab that on Monday. This is a dictated entry and there is a K-limit in terms of size -- too many K, over 54K, and it will not hit the website when e-mailed. Quickly, as Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) notes, Bully Boy is indifferent to the suffering of Iraqis (it's not just Dem leadership) having declared that Iraqis should be saying, "God, I love freedom!" The Independent of London's Patrick Cockburn (at CounterPunch) continues his reporting on the PKK and the conflict between northern Iraq and Turkey which has not ceased -- just the MSM coverage of it -- and examines the historical roots of the PKK as well as the possible reasons why and why not Turkey may soon take action.


iraq
ehren watadahal berntonchristian hillthe olympianaaron glantzkpfa
mcclatchy newspapershoward zinn
anthony arnovedemocracy nowamy goodmansteve fainaruthe washington post
raed jarrarthe new york times
blackwater usa
jeremy scahill
matthew rothschild
leigh ann caldwellfree speech radio