Economic melt in the Kitchen

The economy. First up, we know how to make rice, we've gone over that. We know how to make beans. We've gone over that.

I mention it because a number of you are really stretched.

So what I want to do today is not offer a recipe. I want you to think about what you know how to make and e-mail me your recipe for next week.

I'm turning the power to you because that's what matters.

I say that mainly due to Heidi's e-mails. At the end of our exchange, she wrote, "Why didn't I think of that?" (And she said I could note her e-mails.)

Things are so tough for her family (as they are for many families) that long ago the kids sack lunches started being peanut butter but last week it was time to serve peanut butter sandwiches with dinner. She was very upset and, when people are, they need to talk.

This is not, "Heidi, I had other things to do!" I was glad to help. But Heidi needed someone to talk to more than she needed advice. (She came up with, all on her own, buying some bananas and cutting those up to put with dinner sandwiches and with cutting up the sandwiches so it wasn't just two slabs of bread on a plate.) But there are many more who will not write going through what Heidi did. I've never written about peanut butter sandwiches here. (I honestly don't eat peanut butter sandwiches. I buy crunchy peanut butter for myself and will have a few spoonfuls of it plain, no bread. Peanut butter -- and peanut butter brittle -- are two of my weaknesses.)

Heidi had the answers that would work for her all along and just needed someone to bounce ideas off and some encouragement. But she wrote. And I know some others must be feeling the same and didn't. So I'm giving an assignment here: Come up with something to serve from what you already know how to cook. It might be adding tuna to mac & cheese and calling it a casserole or something similar. But think of an idea because if Heidi needed one, a lot more probably do.

I was about to move deeper into the economy but I am looking at my e-mails and see that Heidi's friend Robyn is on the same wavelength. She just wrote in to suggest a mac & cheese recipe. Use a box of mac & cheese, add one small can of tomato sauce and one small can of mushrooms and call it "pasta and cheese." That's what I'm talking about.

This isn't a bakeoff. No one needs to be highly creative. I'm talking about basic ways to dress up things you already make so that they are fresh if you're eating them repeatedly.

And with the current economy, we'll probably all be eating dishes repeatedly.

Call it the left over economy.

So last week I noted that the country didn't need to rush to a bailout and, no surprise, Congress felt otherwise. First the House briefly stood up at the start of the week -- due to phone calls from constituents. Then the Senate caved with all three senators on presidential tickets caving (Joe Biden, John McCain and Barack Obama). And Friday afternoon, the House caved.

If you've read what the House or Senate passed (or read of it), you know it is filled with pork and has little to do with helping the people. They made sure they got what they wanted and we the people apparently weren't on their lists of concern.

The bailout was never needed. It was never needed that it be rushed through.

I think, my opinion, Monday's revolt by citizens scared them that we might actually grow more informed so they rushed through a bill in both houses.

So while we got no checks and we got no protections, an industry that violated the laws got 'saved.' It lives to destroy another day and, be sure, it will.

With McCain, I'm less disappointed. That's because I don't expect a lot of 'change' from Republicans. (Though, in fairness, Republicans in the House voted against it in large numbers on Monday and on Friday.) But what about the so-called 'change' ticket?

This is the 'change' Barack and Joe plan to take us to? More corporate socialism while the people live under a ruthless capitalist system? We're preyed upon but corporations get special protection?

Who knew that corporations constituted a special class of people?

I kind of thought, with all their money and not being actual living human beings, they took the backseat to we the people. But what do I know? I'm not in Congress.

Barack danced the dance his corporate donors commanded. Big surprise. If elected, he would do the same every day for four years.

That's why I am supporting Ralph Nader.

There is no Democrat at the top of the ticket. Only another War Hawk whose loyalties are to corporations.

Might I also add that Democratic 'leaders' are idiots?

The only reason Barack finally saw a bounce in the polls was this problem. It was to the Democratic ticket's benefit to postpone passage of a law. That would have kept the anger on and driven people to the voting booths on election day.

But 'leaders' aren't very smart and the bulk of them, like Barack, are bought and paid for by corporations.

With the crisis 'resolved' (that's how it will be played by the press), look for Barack to fall back down in the polls and, at some point, Pelosi will smack her forehead -- in her best "I could have had a V8!" fashion -- and grasp that she took an issue that could have driven the election and set it aside.

Things are not going to get better. Yes, that is a prediction but it's based on awareness.

You need to think about what time of year it is.

Reading various stories not on the bailout recently, economic stories (some of which C.I. sent me, thank you, C.I.), it really drove home how much trouble the economy is in. Take for example an article I read (Monday, I think) in The New York Times about the music industry. The last quarter needs to have huge sales in order to make up for a lackluster year. It is true that, regardless of sales in any year, the music industry sells recorded product best as people begin buying their holiday presents.

There will be no great sales in music this last quarter (my prediction) because most people do not have the money.

So the music industry will post a lousy quarter that reflects a lousy year.

And that should have you thinking about the way sales are flat across the board. With the economy tanking, holiday presents will not be bought in their usual numbers. And last year saw a big drop off in spending for the holidays.

So this crisis is not over, the economy is actually worse than most are admitting. The final quater (due to a number of holidays) regularly offers all industries the chance to make up for a sluggish year. But this year, there is just not money in the consumer sector to assist with that last minute push.

We will get the usual propaganda of "Christmas buying off the charts!" They run those stories every year. A few weeks after the retail season is over, we tend to get more honest assessments. Those original stories are nothing but sales pitches where the corporate press attempts to make you think everyone else is buying so why aren't you? Don't you love your family? Don't you want to give presents? Are you a Scrooge?

This year spending is going to be way down and the brief drop in oil prices (at a time when we also have less need for air conditioning) will quickly be wiped away as home heating costs dig into our pockets (as it does every year at this time).

I kept listening to radio programs and reading newspapers all this past week in search of one person who would make that point. No one did.

And they're the economists.

Under the Bully Boy, we've had several years where, if it weren't for the last quarter profits, the economy would have been much worse. Now we're going to be heading into the holiday buying season with Americans nervous (with good reason) about the economy and with few having disposable cash. (A second relief check from Congress at the start of December could avert what I'm talking about. I'm not advocating for that -- though I wouldn't refuse to cash such a check -- I'm just saying.)

Then there was the other issue (personal) last week. Mid-week, our third oldest daughter (or second youngest) phoned. She'd been let go. Her company let go twenty employees because they're nervous about the economy and about making the payroll. My youngest son (Mike) moved out recently so we have his room and we suggested she immediately move back in. That allowed her to pay for breaking her lease but not be stuck with even more housing bills. She's paying down on a car, she needs to watch her money. (Should she not be able to find a job -- wouldn't surprise me in this market -- her unemployment check should make the car payment. And we're certainly not going to charge her rent. We wouldn't do that in a good ecoonomy.)

Back in April, she had an evaluation that was glowing and she received the maximum raise. Now she's been laid off. It has nothing to do with her and I explained that over and over as did my husband but she can't be blamed for thinking it must be her fault.

It's not but that is what goes through your head.

I think we'll be seeing more layoffs and I think that will also impact spending. You will have those who cannot spend due to layoffs and those who will cutback on spending due to fear of layoss. The last quarter is going to be a very bad one for retail and for companies who sell anything other than fuel most likely.

We imposed a rule, my husband and I. We do not need gifts. If our children can afford gifts, our rule is that they buy for those brothers and sisters who are not working, not us. I'm going to be so guilt ridden on Christmas morning, it's not going to cheer me up to unwrap presents. I will be cheered to see my daughter (or my two children in college) opening gifts.

Guilt ridden? I cannot help taking this economy personally. I dropped other topics some time ago to focus on this and we know from your stories that the situation was so much worse than what the press was portraying. I can't help but think I should have hit even harder on the economy. And done so much sooner.

I open the e-mails now and am always nervous afraid that a reader just lost a job or their spouse did. Afraid that a house payment is so much and they're about to go into foreclosure.

My husband and I paid off our house long ago. We did save for a rainy day so -- unless the banks collapse -- we should be able to weather a brief bad spell. (I do worry it won't be brief.) But there are so many families and individuals who can't. I was reading an e-mail from a reader whose best friend just left.

He lost his job. She offered for him to move in with her family but he didn't want to be a burden and he has no family. (He's not married but I mean his parents are dead and he's got no one.) She has no idea where he is. He lost his job, he doesn't live in his apartment and no one knows where he is.

And I really feel for those who are alone because that must make it even more frightening. I'm one of eight children and I gave birth to eight children. I have no idea what it's like to be alone. I have to picture it. Visualize it. And I imagine it must be very, very scary. I also think about young women who have been the victims of physical abuse and/or incest in their families and how, if they lose their jobs, where do they go?

We have been a society living from pay-check to pay-check for so long that we think it is normal and we think the destroyed social net is normal. We may very well be on the verge of grasping why the New Deal was so very necessary all those years ago.

I'm not trying to depress anyone. And maybe you have a large, loving family like I do and you can find some happiness during this bad period in that? If so, great.

I was talking to C.I. about that and she said, "Trina, you know that you or anyone in your family can come live out here." And I do know that and we're all very lucky if we have friends we can count on.

But I keep thinking about that young man who just up and disappeared. I have to wonder what will become of him? And others like that. And it's not just young women who were the victims of incest and physical abuse. There are a large number of people -- living pay check to pay check -- who, if the rug is pulled out from under them, have no where to go.

We will know the economy is completely in the toilet when the press begins telling those stories.


Betty's "Robin Morgan, kiss my Black ass." is the something thing I want to talk about. (The period in Betty's title is intended.) I was making coffee and going around the kitchen trying to wake up when the phone rang and it was Betty. She was about to post that and wanted to read it to me because C.I. listened and offered some input. But Betty was surprised (and worried) because the input didn't include trying to alter what she was saying. (C.I.'s input was along the lines of, "If you're making that point, you should reference . . .") Betty was worried about it. So I said, "Coffee's done, let me pour a cup, I'll sit down at the table and you'll have my full attention."

Then she read it and it's wonderful. C.I.'s not going to have a problem with it and if Betty and C.I. weren't so close, Betty wouldn't have worried. C.I. never cares if we disagree or take a point C.I.'s made futher or whatever. Yes, C.I. likes Robin Morgan but C.I. also likes Betty. Betty's opinions are as valid as Robin Morgan's and her response is to Morgan's nonsense is needed.

So first I told her how great I thought her writing was and then I went over that. Since Betty and I are on the one week posters, I thought I'd note it here.

And C.I. is not upset (as Betty worried). Please. Betty wrote honestly and shared her thoughts, C.I. will have no problem with that. I'll prove it: Robin Morgan's an idiot.

That's my opinion of her and has been since she wrote that Ms. cover story in the 90s that fell apart. Robin Morgan saw sexual victimization everywhere but one place she saw it, that she chose to emphasize? Not reality. It was a trend story and she looked like the biggest fool in the feminist movement as a result. So sorry, Morgan, I'll never take you seriously as a result. I know C.I. likes her but C.I. knows (and understands) my opinion and it's never been a problem when I've expressed it privately and it won't be a problem that I've expressed it publicly. There are some online sites that have group-think. For this community, we're just on the left. C.I. created the community and she has always been the first to say that it's okay to disagree. She's encouraged it anytime any of us have disagreed, encouraged us not to worry about it and that disagreements and differences of opinions can be healthy (which they can) and we can all learn from them. So I can (and will) say Robin Morgan is a joke in my book and it is not going to upset C.I. or lead to a phone call or e-mail. The community agrees on principles, it doesn't have to agree on individuals.

Due to the fact that C.I. gets blamed for everything, we all try to note it when we're disagreeing. That's been a constant in the online world since 2005. It's because C.I. and The Common Ills are the most widely known online. But Rebecca writes something and there's FAIR rushing to e-mail C.I. to complain. It's not really C.I.'s business (as she would be the first to admit) what Rebecca writes at her site. But there's FAIR whining in an e-mail to C.I. about how mean Rebecca is. It's nonsense.

And more recently we all saw the attack on C.I. My father didn't get that. Not just the attack period but why it was i.d.ed with C.I. C.I. never wrote that crazy woman. Dona, Jess and Jim are part of The Third Estate Sunday Review. But putting Third in the title wouldn't get the LYING COWARD any 'hits' so she uses C.I.'s name to try to build one for herself.

Or The Nation is peaved with Third so they e-mail C.I. about what is at Third's site.

No matter what any of us do or say (and this isn't a gripe at C.I.), online, anyone with a beef always turns it into "The Common Ills."

Equally true is that C.I. tells it like it is. C.I. does it in a nicer manner than the rest of us. But C.I. tells it like it is and that really ticks off a number people.

They are always lying in wait for anything any of us write that they can grab and run with. Not to attack us because we're not 'important' enough. (I would've thought Rebecca's sizeable audience would have qualified her as important enough. Third and my son Mike also have big audiences. Not as big as The Common Ills but that's a huge number of readers.) My father saw an attack on something I'd written last fall and said that they referred me to as "a Common Ills blogger." (I didn't read it. Attack at will, I honestly do not give a damn.)

I was reminded of that when Riverdaughter was specifically attacked by a woman who seeks male approval so desperately that, while claiming to be a feminist, she hopes and prays that no woman ever notices that not only can she not stop praising Bob Somerby, she never praises a woman.

I was tempted to write Riverdaughter (who I don't know) and tell her, "She attacked you because you have importance." That's what it really comes down. And I would not be at all surprised if the attack wasn't egged on. That's what happened with the most recent attack on C.I. A little bitty baby got his little feelings hurt and he's a Barack supporter so he egged on the attack. He seemed to think C.I. wouldn't know about it but C.I. knew about it within four days of finding out about the attack. If there's information to be found, C.I. will get ahold of it.

So Anglachel, or whatever the pompous blowhard's name is, attacked Riverdaughter, all the posters at Riverdaughter's site and PUMA as racists. Uh, Anglachel, some of your writing on affirmative-action struck me as borderline racist and that's why I marked you off my reading list.

Riverdaughter and her friends at The Confluence are not racists. It's a baseless charge and it's made to silence. You really shouldn't even try to defend yourself from it. If you've got to note it, say you aren't and move on. But what they're really hoping (as with attempting to attack C.I. for being against the illegal war) is that they can distract you. If you're focusing on the charge (denying it), you're not writing about what has them so ticked off.

Anglachel is a pompous blowhard who can't take a stand. She also really needs the 'linky goodness' from males.

Hey, Anglachel, I understand that. I don't agree, but I do understand it. I've gotten several e-mails about a list online of 500+ female bloggers. People keep writing that they've tried to have me added but their comments don't even make it out of moderation.

So I know what assholes are online, Anglachel. And I certainly know that women are the first ignored.

But that's no excuse for your yelling "racism" falsely. And that's what it looks like, that to get in good with the men, she decided to attack Riverdaughter. Riverdaughter and the others at that site are not racists. They are people outraged over the undemocratic nature of this year's selection, over the homophobia and sexism, over the lack of standards (Barack can cave on anything and not be called out or held accountable). They are writing from the heart as they attempt to make sense of the world around them. And that's why they are a threat and people like Anglachel attempt to silence and discredit them.

The only one who has anything to be ashamed of is priss-pot Anglachel.

I mentioned the following:

Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,

And I also need to note Elaine's "Thoughs on Robin Morgan" on the same theme Betty's written about. And let me just steal from C.I. Friday morning and include this:

On the debate last night, Kat weighed in with "My focus group scores Palin the winner," Marcia with "My grandparents say Palin won (I agree)," Mike with "Why I think Palin won the debate" and Cedric's "Biden gets a big topic wrong" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! PRECONDITIONS THROWS JOE!" (joint-post). Rebecca focused on the independent presidential candidate last night with ''ralph nader, the lenny bruce of politics" while Ruth focused on the latest nonsense from Naomi Wolf, "Naomi Wolf needs to get medical help."

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

Friday, October 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Rosa Clement (Green Party) and Matt Gonzalez (independent) take part in a vice presidential debate this morning, Sarah Palin (Republican) and Joe Biden (Democrat) took part in a vice presidential debate last night, what got signed in Iraq today?, and more.

Megan Feldman (Dallas Observer) notes the suicides of war veterans Andrew Valez, Ted Westhusing, Nils Aron Andersson, Jeff Lucey, Derek Henderson and Chad Barrett and explains:

A series of recent reports reveals that record numbers of active-duty troops are committing suicide, raising concerns about the military's ability to adequately screen, diagnose and treat soldiers with mental health problems.
An Army report released in May showed that at least 115 soldiers killed themselves in 2007, the highest rate since the Army began keeping records in 1980. One of the officials to present the study cited extended and multiple deployments, frequent exposure to "horrifying" experiences and easy access to loaded weapons.
This year's suicide tally among active-duty troops -- 62 confirmed and 31 other deaths still under investigation -- is on pace t surpass last year's and push the rate of suicides per 100,000 service members above that of the civilian population for the first time ever, Army officials announced in early September.
The reports follow the controversy that enveloped the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs earlier this year when the agency was caught deliberately hiding high suicide rates among veterans. An e-mail to colleagues from Ira Katz, the VA's head of mental health, began "Shh!" and estimated the unreleased number of suicide attempts at 1,000 per month. "Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles on it?" he wrote. That was after the agency told CBS there were just 790 suicide attempts in all of 2007. After a three-month investigation, the network reported "a hidden epidemic" of suicides among veterans, especially the youngest ones who had served most recently.

In November of last year, CBS News aired a story entitled 'Suicide Epidemic Among Veterans.' On April 21, 2008, CBS News aired a story 'VA Hid Suicide Risk, Internal E-mails Show.' The reports (Armen Keteyian reported and Pia Malbran was the producer of the reports) were noted in an May 6th hearing of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee entitled "The Truth About Veterans' Suicides." The chair of the committee is US House Rep Bob Filner who pointed to these reports in his opening states and reminded Dr. Ira Katz (one of the witnesses appearing before the hearing) that not only had CBS News reported on this after being misled by the VA in November, but that Katz had told Congress in December 2007 that "from the beginning of the war through the end of 2005 there were 144 known suicides among these new veterans." Katz' e-mail that Feldman refers to in her report was replied to by Ev Chasen (VA's chief communication director) who declared, "I think this is something we should discuss ourselves, before issuing a release. Is the fact that we're stopping them good news, or is the sheer number bad news? And is this more than we've ever seen before? It might be something we drop into a general release about suicide prevention efforts, which (as you know far better than I) prominently include training employees to recognize the warning signs of suicide."

In July, the VA was stated that their suicide hotiline had received calls from more than 22,000 veterans (the number is 1-800-873-TALK). And, apparently keeping Ev Chasen's words in mind ("Is the fact that we're stopping them good news, or is the sheer number bad news?") declared that their work had prevented 1,221 suicides.

The May 6th hearing would include testimony from Dr. Roger Maris (University of South Carolina) where he would note that "the vast majority of VA facilities, in fact, do not have suicide coordinators." Monday Mike Mount (CNN) reported, "The U.S. Army is establishing a suicide prevention board to examine the mental health of its recruiters around the country after the fourth suicide in three years by Houston, Texas-based recruiters, according to Army officials. The board will look at how to handle the high-stress climate facing recruiters who may be both under pressure from their job and victims of post-combat deployment stress, according to Douglas Smith, a spokesman from the U.S. Army Recruiting command." CNN refers to a recent suicide in the article and states they've chosen not to name the victim. AP reports there were two recent ones (Staff Sgt. Larry G. Flores Jr in August and Sgt 1st Class Patrick G. Henderson in September) "from the same Houston-based battalion" for a total of five from that battalion. Linsay Wise (Houston Chronicle) quotes Texas Tech's psychology chair David Rudd stating, "Clearly, there's a problem. Somebody needs to look and see if there's a broader national problem outside of this one battalion. Is it a problem placing these combat veterans in recruiting positions?" Wise also notes that US Senator John Cornyn has asked the Secretary of the Army "for a briefing on the ongoing investigation and on the policy of returning soldiers from combat and reassigning them to a recruiting office."

Today Kathlyn Stone (Twin Cities Daily Planet) reports on the work of Penny Coleman who runs PTSD workshops (and states, "It's not a disorder, it's an injury") including one in August at the Veterans For Peace conference and notes, "The VA is in denial about PTSD contributing to the high suicide rate of combat veterans, she says, adding that official counts aren't accurate. Speaking of Vietnam vets, Coleman said, 'There are more suicides than names on the [Vietnam Memorial] wall.' Veterans For Peace members agree that the United States must be better prepared to provide not only care for physical wounds but also better mental health support for soldiers now serving or just returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Coleman cited figures released by CBS News documenting over 6,256 military suicides in 2005." At the start of the week John C. Bersia (McClatchy-Tribune) observed, "Most Americans are familiar with the official Iraq toll -- as of last week, 4,169 U.S. dead, along with a several hundred from allied nations. Missing from that list, though, are Americans who fulfilled their duties and returned home unable to cope with the complexities of life after Iraq, often compounded by post-traumatic stress disorder. One such person died last week; his name was Dominic D.H. Pritchard, a resident of Ovideo, Fla. He was a U.S. Marine, a student, a citizen-soldier who volunteered with the Florida Army National Guard because of his desire to serve his community in times of clamity, and an emerging writer with a particular passion for history, military affairs and art."

Meanwhile retired Army Col and retired US State Dept Ann Wright pens a column for The Fayetteville Observer:

As a former army officer who once served proudly at Fort Bragg, I'll be returning here Wednesday. I'm going to join in a commemoration of the deaths of three military women, and the suffering of the many other victims of military-related domestic violence and sexual assault.
The commemoration will start with a vigil at the Yadkin Road gate of Fort Bragg at 11 a.m. The vigil will be followed by a luncheon-discussion at 12:30 p.m. at the Quaker House and conclude with a wreath-laying at the grave of another victim of military spousal homicide.
We invite the military and civilian communities of Fayetteville and Jacksonville to join us.
We'll be especially mindful of the three women soldiers who were murdered in this area in the first six months of this year, allegedly by male GIs: Army Spc. Megan Touma, who was seven months pregnant; Fort Bragg nurse 2nd Lt. Holley Wimunc; and Marine Lance Corp. Maria Lauterbach, who had been raped and also was pregnant.

And AP is reporting that arrrests have been made in the death of Sgt Christina E. Smith ("the third off-post killing of a Fort Bragg servicewoman in four months") -- her husband, Sgt. Richard Smith, is "charged with first-degree and conspiracy to commit murder" and "Pfc. Matthew Kvapil, 18, faces the same charges, and [Theresa] Chance [spokesperson for Fayetteville police] said he was hired by Smith to kill the wife as the couple walked together Tuesday evening."

In Iraq today . . . confusion. Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the presidency council "has agreed to approve a long-delayed law that will allow most of the country to hold provincial elections early next year, officials said Friday." However, China's Xinhua reports that the "presidential council had not approved the provincial election law passed by the parliament, local media reported Friday." Al Jazeera does not say that they have agreed to pass it, Al Jaezeera states that it is passed. AP also states it has passed and, in fact, signed into law by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani: "Firyad Rawndouzi, a Kurdish lawmaker, told The Associated Press that the three-member panel led by President Jalal Talabani had signed the law Friday and asked the parliament 'to solve the minorities problem'." Article 50 issue was never addressed. It is the one that has been called out by everyone from Iraqi Christians to Moqtada al-Sadr and puts minority representation at risk. Nouri al-Maliki did express some public statements and there is said to have been concern on the part of the presidency council. But if it's signed, it's the law. The Parliament can try to fix it but the law is what was signed by Talabani.

Erica Goode and Mohammed Hussein (New York Times) report on Samarra and among the details provided by the reporters is that the reconstruction of Askairya Shrine (after the 2007 bombing) is not only expensive (expected to cost $8 million), the reconstruction is being done "without blueprints." Samara, like everywhere in Iraq, suffers from the same problems: "few jobs available, that the water is not potable, that the electricity is intermittent at best, that they have not received their pensions and that there are shortages of medicine." At Baghdad Bureau Blog (the paper's blog) Mohammed Hussein has written of the journey taken to report that story and notes, "The Awakening and National Police and Iraqi army all manned different checkpoints. It took one and a half hours to drive only 70 miles. There was some risk along the whole journey, but during the 90-minute drive I was really worried for only five minutes, near Meshahda. Five minutes can be a big deal." Hussein shares impressions of all the areas they traveled through, by the way.

Wednesday, the US 'handed over' the "Awakening" Councils to the puppet government in Baghdad. Scott Peterson (Christian Science Monitor) reports today: "Fresh concern is washing over Iraq of a new wave of insurgent violence as the bands of mainly Sunni Muslim Iraqis, trained, armed and paid by the US military to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq are now coming under the control of a skeptical Shiite-led government. While the group called the Sons of Iraq (SOI) has been critically imporant in improving security, the US military and many leaders within the SOI worry that their foot soldiers -- many of them ex-insurgents -- will simply return to their old ways if they are not paid or brought into Iraq's official security forces." The Charleston Post and Courier editorializes on the same topic, expresses similar concerns and notes: "Doubts about the ability of the two sides to quickly develop a satisfactory relationship is a major reason why the Pentagon on Wednesday announced plans for sending additional forces to Iraq next year. The reinforcements, if needed, would maintain U.S. troop strength in Iraq at the present level of about 152,000 through 2009." Meanwhile UPI reports on the female branch of "Awakening" (also called Daughters of Iraq) and states that "is taking on a new role under U.S. financing as part of the counterinsurgency strategy there, officials said." They are paid 20% less than males and that wage discrimination was put in place by the White House. On the issue of counter-insurgency, Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus (Washington Post) report on the US Defense Department's latest contracts ("up to $300 million") which will "produce news stories, entertainment programs and public service advertisements" in Iraq aimed at Iraqis in a program called "information/psychological operations" that is part of the counter-insurgency strategies. The US has a lengthy history of attempting to use the media within Iraq to propagandize to the Iraqi people. For an earlier effort, you can refer to Borzou Daragahi and Mark Mazzetti (Los Angeles Times) explaining the process in 2005 which noted the US military penned articles and that many were then "presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounced insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country."

It's Friday so little violence gets reported but some of today's violence includes:.

Bombings?

Reuters notes a Sulaiman Pek roadside bombing which resulted in two people being injured.

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Center Soldier was killed when an improvised explosive device exploded near his vehicle south of Amarah Oct. 2." That is the first announced death for the month and brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq to 4177 since the start of the illegal war.


On Democracy Now! today, a vice presidential debate took place between Matt Gonzales (Ralph Nader's running mate) and Rosa Clemente (Cynthia McKinney's running mate). During their debate, they were shown clips of GOP v.p. nominee Governor Sarah Palin and Democratic v.p. nominee Joe Biden weighing in on various topics from last night's debate.
From the transcript (and remember, it is watch, listen or read at DN!):

JUAN GONZALEZ: Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Biden, talking about the war in last night's debate. Rosa Clemente, Green Party vice-presidential nominee, what's your viewpoint on the war?

ROSA CLEMENTE: Well, the Green Party's viewpoint -- and Cynthia has been very clear, and the party has been very clear -- an immediate end to the war, an immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan. And, you know, one thing Cynthia agrees with a former colleague of hers, Dennis Kucinich, is that we now have to talk about creating departments of peace. And we have to also talk about withdrawing troops wherever they reside in other people's homelands. I always found it interesting -- or, you know, the fact that we, as the United States government, and we, as the people in this country, allow our military to be placed in other people's homelands. And being from Puerto Rico, I'm very clear on why the military does what it does. But we would never allow another country to have a military base there. And that might be a little simplistic kind of thing to throw out there, but I also think it speaks to the way we want to move forward in the future. And I don't think that either party is planning on ending the war. I think that the Democrats are more about transferring troops to Afghanistan and potentially preparing for a war in Pakistan. And even yesterday, Joe Biden talked about the possibility of putting troops in in Darfur. And I think that's something that we have to say immediately is unacceptable and that the majority of young people in this country have been clear for the last five years that we want an end to the war right now.

AMY GOODMAN: Independent vice-presidential candidate Matt Gonzalez?

MATT GONZALEZ: Well, I certainly -- and Ralph Nader supports getting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. I think the problem with a lot of the rhetoric that we're hearing is that if you concede that the surge is working, which we do not concede--but the moment you do that, you are going to run into a problem with the so-called timetable. Are the Democrats going to stick to a timetable if, as they start to draw down troops, there's increased sectarian violence? And I think the answer to that is really unclear, and probably no. I think the only way that we can successfully get out of this country is if, at the outset, we make it clear we're going to -- we're going to work quickly to get our troops out of the region, that we're part of the reason why the region remains unstable.

And we'll also note this section of the debate:

AMY GOODMAN: Matt Gonzalez, I know you have to leave, so I'm going to give you the first stab at this, as you catch a plane. And also, a correction: in 2004, yes, Ralph Nader was an Independent candidate, as well. He was, 2000, the Green Party candidate. Your comment on same-sex marriage?

MATT GONZALEZ: Well, obviously, Nader and I support marriage rights for all. I think it's insulting to hear these candidates want it both ways. They're essentially trying to appeal to both conservative voters who are opposed to gay marriage and somehow also appeal to progressive voters who want to see equality. You know, I think Ralph Nader, you know, when you step back and look at his history, he is somebody who is an enormously important voice against the growing corporate greed in this society and what concentrated capital does when it's left alone. And I think he's not somebody who has decided to fight against the two parties. You know, he has, his entire life, been fighting against these parties -- it's not a recent conversion -- on a host of issues. And I think he should have been in this debate. I think he has a legislative record that's stronger than the candidates that we saw in that debate. I mean, Joe Biden should have been asked about his support of credit card companies in Delaware, of the federal sentencing guidelines that he helped pass in the 1980s that, you know, has disproportionately hurt people of color. These were things that were absent. And I think if Rosa and I had been in that debate, it would have been a better debate.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Rosa Clemente, your perspective on gay marriage?

ROSA CLEMENTE: I mean, full 100 percent equal rights for everybody. I also take it a step further for it being about human rights. LGBT people are human beings, and they have a right, like anyone else, to get married, to get divorced, to not get married. But if I could just quickly just say, yes, Cynthia did leave the Democratic Party after twelve years, but while she was in there, it was Cynthia McKinney that had a hearing on the issue of political prisoners, the first-ever congressional hearing on that. It was Cynthia that pushed the envelope about what happened on 9/11. It was Cynthia that wrote the articles of impeachment. And I think that speaks highly to someone who will leave a party, finally, based on principles and values and then pick someone that truly represents what the majority of this country is going to look like. I think if me and Matt were on there, and if Cynthia, Bob Barr, [Chuck] Baldwin, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader were allowed to debate, the presidency on November 4th would look radically different and would represent the majority of American people.

Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney took the "super pledge" Thursday:
I, Cynthia McKinney, pledge to use my candidacy, whenever feasible, to advance the preservation of democracy. I will officially challenge the results of the election as provided by law if the combination of election conditions, incident reports and announced election results calls into question the reliability of the official vote count. I will wait until all valid votes are counted and all serious challenges resolved before declaring victory or conceding defeat. I will involve my campaign volunteers in actions to enhance the accuracy and verifiability of the election in which I am a candidate. I will speak out publicly during the pre-election period about the importance of fair, accurate and transparent elections and about this pledge. I will designate a liaison between my campaign and "Standing For Voters" so that "Standing For Voters" can alert me to any red flags they are aware of regarding my election.

Meanwhile independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader weighs in on the economic bailout. Click here for his post before the House voted today (it passed) and here were his thoughts prior to vote:

People often ask me -- what forces shaped you, Ralph? I reply simply: "A lucky choice of parents." Among other things, my parents passed down many traditions. Traditions that were handed down from generations before them. Traditions that served as a counterweight to the addictions. And fads. And technologies.

Of modern life. Traditions such as: The tradition of listening. The tradition of scarcity. The tradition of discipline. And the tradition of civics. A couple of years ago, I sat down at my manual Underwood typewriter and wrote a book titled The Seventeen Traditions (Harper Collins, 2007). It's about growing up in my hometown of Winsted, Connecticut (above is a picture of me standing next to my mother Rose). And it details the seventeen traditions of my youth. It's the only book that I've written that everybody loves. When you get a copy, you'll know why. Flipping through a copy of the book the other day, I asked myself -- If the majority in this Congress was governed by the traditions that we grew up with in the New England of my youth -- wouldn't they have acted to prevent Wall Street's "sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior" -- as Richard Fisher, the president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank put it last week?
Surely they wouldn't then turn around and reward that behavior with a $750 billion bailout? By now you know that McCain, Obama and Bush all support the bailout. And Nader/Gonzalez are opposed. And we again urge all members of the House to vote against the bailout today.

But no matter how the House votes today, Nader/Gonzalez will be barnstorming the country in October. Putting front and center our platform of shifting the power from the corporations back into the hands of the American people. We're on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia. We've deployed a contingent to each state to coordinate our get out the vote drive. And we're raising money to drive the campaign home to election day. But we need to raise $1,000,000 in October to get it done. Our first October goal is to raise $250,000 by October 12. Yes, that's a heavy lift. But it's been heavy before, and you've come through every time. So, here's the idea:If you donate $17, or $170, or $10, or $50 -- whatever you can afford to donate -- by midnight tonight, we'll e-mail to you tomorrow a signed one pager listing the 17 traditions.

You can share it with your friends and family.Or just stick it in your drawer for posterity's sake.If you donate $100 now, we will send you a copy of the 150-page hard cover edition of The Seventeen Traditions -- my favorite book. And I'll autograph it.In my humble opinion, this book makes a wonderful present -- for the upcoming holidays, as a wedding present, birthday present, Mother's Day present, or for a baby shower. (This Seventeen Traditions book offer expires on October 12, 2008 at 11:59 p.m.)So, stock up now.The more the merrier. The proceeds will power our campaign during this momentous October.Thank you again for your generous support.Together, we are making a difference.
Onward to November

Thursday night, Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Joe Biden debated. The John McCain - Sarah Palin campaign issued this statement regarding the debate:

Statement From Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker
ARLINGTON, VA -- McCain-Palin 2008 Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker issued the following statement on tonight's Vice Presidential Debate: "Tonight, Governor Palin proved beyond any doubt that she is ready to lead as Vice President of the United States. She won this debate, putting Joe Biden on defense on energy, foreign policy, taxes and the definition of change. Governor Palin laid bare Barack Obama's record of voting to raise taxes, opposing the surge in Iraq, and proposing to meet unconditionally with the leaders of state sponsors of terror. The differences between the Obama-Biden ticket and the McCain-Palin ticket could not have been clearer. The American people saw stark contrasts in style and worldview. They saw Joe Biden, a Washington insider and a 36-year Senator, and Governor Palin, a Washington outsider and a maverick reformer. Governor Palin was direct, forceful and a breath of fresh air."

The McCain - Palin campaign also quotes Geraldine Ferraro, the first women to make the ticket of one of the country's two major parties (1984, the Democratic ticket of Mondale - Ferraro). Ferraro stated on NBC: "I really wanted her to get up there and do a good job, and I think she did. . . . I think it was a good evening for -- certainly for Governor Palin. . . . . I think she showed she is certainly capable of going toe to toe with a man who is more than qualified to be vice president, if not president of the United States."

Quickly, TV notes, NOW on PBS offers a look at New Mexico which is seen as a battleground state in the 2008 election and speak to various voting groups as well as to Governor Bill Richardson. Washington Week finds Gwen sitting around the table with four journalists including the AP's Charles Babington. (And for others, 'journalists' is being generous.) In a book note, independent journalist David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which came out last month. The Oakland Institute notes: "Since NAFTA's passage in 1993, the U.S. Congress has debated and passed several new trade agreements - with Peru, Jordan, Chile, and the Central American Free Trade Agreement. At the same time it has debated immigration policy as though those trade agreements bore no relationship to the waves of displaced people migrating to the U.S., looking for work. Meanwhile, a rising tide of anti-immigrant hysteria has increasingly demonized those migrants, leading to measures that deny them jobs, rights, or any pretense of equality with people living in the communities around them. To resolve any of these dilemmas, from adopting rational and humane immigration policies to reducing the fear and hostility towards migrants, Uprooted: The Impact of Free Market on Migrants, a new Backgrounder from the Oakland Institute, suggests the starting point has be an examination of the way U.S. policies have both produced migration and criminalized migrants."

iraq
the new york timeserica goode
armen keteyianpia malbran
democracy now
karen deyoungwalter pincusthe washington postthe los angeles timesborzou daragahimark mazzetti
scott peterson
david bacon
now on pbspbswashington week

Saucy potato-tomato-casserole recipe in the Kitchen

Melanie e-mailed with a problem this week. She found a recipe online that she thought would be tasty but it required a sauce beyond her. I didn't believe that and we went over the sauce. Melanie was correct, it was beyond her. That's not making fun of her. We all have something we can't do. C.I. will tell you upfront, "I can't fry." Betty makes wonderful fried chicken but she once said to me, "It's not that great." She couldn't understand why C.I. beyond loved it when Betty would make a point to fix it for dinner when she stayed for a week or two. I explained to her that C.I. can't fry. She must have thought I was pulling her leg because she went to C.I. who said, "Nope." C.I. can fry an egg. I'm referring to meat here. C.I. also can't make gravy in a skillet. With a sauce pan, no problem. Now there's not a great deal of difference between the two (though C.I.'s gravy is more creamy) so it's usually a mental block. I'm that way with a dessert that calls for alcohol. I can never get it to taste right. I can be walked through it and still screw it up.

So the point is we will all have an area that's just not going to work for us. I thought (wrongly) that Melanie was being hard on herself. She wasn't being hard on herself, she was just aware of one of her own cooking blocks. Which is a good thing to be aware of because, otherwise, you're going to have a lot of cooking mishaps.

So for the original recipe, with creamy cheese sauce, click here to go Essortment.

"Saucy potato tomato casserole recipe"
6 med. potatoes, peeled and quartered
1 16-oz can tomatoes
1 small onion, thinly sliced
1/4 c green pepper
1/4 tsp cayenne pepper
1/2 tsp salt
1/2 tsp pepper
1/4 tsp granulated garlic
1 tbsp butter or margarine
1/2 c buttered cracker crumbs
1/2 c shredded cheddar cheese

Cook potatoes in boiling salted water until tender. Drain. Drain tomatoes, reserving juice. Combine tomatoes, juice, potatoes, onion, green pepper and seasonings in large bowl. Spoon into a greased 2 qt casserole. Top with cheese. Sprinkle top with cracker crumbs and butter. Cover and bake at 350 degrees for 25 minutes. Remove cover. Bake for 5 minutes more.

We're going to be brief on the economy tonight. This is from Larry Eichel's "Nader: Limit bailout to 3 months" (Philadelphia Inquirer):


Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader said yesterday that any federal bailout package for Wall Street should be limited to three months in duration.
Speaking to the Inquirer Editorial Board before giving an address at the University of Pennsylvania, Nader said that Congress was being stampeded into action by the Bush administration just the way it was stampeded into the Iraq war.
Putting an expiration date on the plan, he said, would allow for a full set of congressional hearings looking at such issues as executive compensation, shareholder power, and taxpayer equity, as well as the need for a bailout.
Nader did not say that he opposed federal action. But he did say he saw no reason for Congress to rush.

A lot of e-mails came in this week over the proposed bailout and the gist of them was that it didn't feel right and you were wondering if that was enough to go on?

Would you buy a pair of pants that didn't feel right when you put them on? No. Most of you would know that if they didn't feel right from the start, they were not going to get better. A few people would delude themselves. They'd say, "Well I'll lose ten pounds and they'll be perfect." That never happens.

You don't have to hold a degree in economics to grasp when something is fair or not. It is unfair to expect us (the American people) to bail out these companies. I hear talk (weak talk) that maybe the CEOS shouldn't be able to get big payoffs/golden parachutes now. Now?

If you were in charge of a company and it failed not because of something that happened instantly but for longterm actions the company took, you should be held liable. They should have to return the money.

A calculation should be done to find out what the lowest employee of the company (one that had worked there for a full year) made. That figure should be what the CEO took home in 2007. (And that's being generous.) Any deal should require that anything over that figure (and you know it was hundreds of thousands over) should be returned. This was criminal activity.

It wasn't due to a market roller coaster ride. It wasn't due to unknown. This was planned criminal behavior and now the tax payers will have to pay for the bail out. Now I don't care for that at all but I especially do not feel it is propper to expect me to fork over taxes when CEOS and board members are not being asked to return their huge salaries. They mismanaged and they should be held liable.

Will it absorb the total cost? Not at all. It won't even make a dent. But it will go to accountability and it will serve as a deterrent for anyone else gaming the system.

The deal is completely wrong and Congress shouldn't be rushing to a bailout. They should be telling the Bully Boy to shut up about the economy. His speech this week was not at all helpful to the economy. He shouldn't have been allowed to make it. My own guess is that he was hoping to impact the market (negatively) with that speech and thinking it would force Congress into action.

No action needs to be taken. The local news said John McCain was advocating for any proposal to be posted online in full so the American people could review it. And the news reader found that amusing.

I'm supporting Ralph Nader but I think McCain had a sound suggestion there. We're the ones expected to pay for it so we should know what we're being asked to pay for and what the deal involves.

If I need to buy a car, I have a right to know the amount I'm paying and to see an itemized list of the costs. That's before I buy the car. You can't show me that, I'm not going to buy a car from you.

There is no need to rush to a quick fix. There is every need to find out all the details of the crimes and to ensure accountability and, yes, punishment before proceeding.

I agree with everything Ralph's said about the bailout but I most strongly agree with a time limit. Three months seems ample time to me. Whatever Congress cooks up/agrees to should have a 'withdrawal' that is clearly defined. I also think Chris Dodd needs to step down from his Senate committee and so do all others serving on it. They have failed. They should move on to other committees and the Senate should put together a new body. (Dodd should also step down because he's personally benefitted from the same ones who caused the meltdown.)

But the sense in the e-mails was, "It doesn't feel right. Am I wrong?" No, you're not wrong. It is not our job to foot the bill for something that was bled dry and run into the ground while those who 'oversaw' the actions keep the big dough they 'earned' leading the crisis.

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

Friday, September 26, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announced another death, did the Obama-Biden plan for Iraq slip out accidentally, and more.

Starting in Iraq. The Parliament passed a bill for provincial elections that now awaits approval (or rejection) by the presidency council. This afternoon, the New York Times' Eric Owles posted at Baghdad Bureau an audio conversation between the paper's Iraq-based correspondents Alissa J. Rubin and Stephen Farrell discussing the bill. Excerpt:

Alissa J. Rubin: Well they were under pressure to pass a law actually three or four months ago. The idea had originally been -- and the requirement was that they would hold provincial elections by Oct. 1st. That was in one of the previous laws they passed and I'm not, I cannot remember in which one. And that, obviously, that deadline was missed when they were unable to agree pretty much in May to an election law. And then as the summer wore on it became clear that they may not even be able to have them this year. But there was a gathering upset, some anger, frustration from political groups that were not represented or are not represented now in the provincial councils and there was a strong feeling that if they wanted to maintain stability they needed to give those people a place at the table -- at least, although perhaps not the size place that they wanted but at least they have to include them in some way.

Stephen Farrell: So it's not just a technical question, it actually matters for the future stability of the country is that what you're --

Alissa J. Rubin: Yes, it matters a great deal. And there are two levels on which it matters. First, it matters because in some areas, notably Anbar Province to some extent and in Salahuddin and in several of the other northen provinces where there are large numbers of Sunnis there is this new movement, the "Awakening" Councils which are more tribal, local people, which are beginning to really represent a lot of the interests of the people living in those areas but the provincial councils which are the centers of power in these largely Sunni provinces are dominated by one political party -- the Iraqi Islamic Party -- and a few other smaller parties but that is the dominant one and those people don't necessarily represent or don't, in some cases, don't at all represent the people in the region. And so the "Awakeing" Councils and the "Awakening" leaders would like to have a chance to be elected and to weild power there. So that's very important and if they don't weild power they will -- or if they aren't allowed to weild power, there's a real risk that they will return to violence. Many of them were insurgents, not all, but certainly some of them. And it would not be a very representative situation. The same to some extent is true in the south as well which is predominately Shia. You have a large numbers of people loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shi'ite cleric, and they're very much -- in some provinces they are absolutely the majority and they don't have any place on the provincial councils or they have just one or two seats and the council? Say thirty, thirty-five members . So they are not able to influence how the council is governed. So it's important for stability to have those people also have their voices heard and be able to sort of plot the course of events.

Stephen Farrell: The provincial election laws sounds incredibly technical but what it seemed to me when I was thinking about it is that we hear all the time out on the street out in the provinces that it's a bit like a game of musical chairs. That the last time the music stopped four years ago some people weren't sitting on a chair, some people weren't in the room, some people weren't even in the country -- in those blunt terms. Broadly speaking, is that roughly what we're talking about? People demanding that the new reality on the ground be recognized.

Alissa J. Rubin: Absolutely that's what's happening and it's very important not just for the provincial elections. But these provincial elections are going to be something of a dress rehearsal for the national elections -- the Parliamentary elections that will be held at the end of 2009. And so it's quite important that more people be included before those elections are held so that those elections also, or that body, Parliament, begins to represent a bit better the country as a whole. At the moment, there's still quite a few people left out. Many of them didn't vote in the last election because they didn't want to vote in the country that they viewed as an occupied nation -- occupied by the Americans. So they abstained but the result is that they didn't end up with any power and yet they are here and there more and more influential for a variety of reasons depending upon which part of the country you're in.

Stephen Farrell: So boiling it down, what we have is that the Sunnis would argue the Kurds are very over represented in areas such as Mosul where the Sunnis did not take part in the last round of elections and I think that certain Sunni parties in Anbar who didn't even exist four years ago would now be saying, "Well we are the Awakening. We are the ones who brought peace to Anbar. It's time for the old guard to move aside and for our contribution to the country to be recognized." I mean, in effect, people crying out for recognition of realities of achievements made over the last four years.

Before moving on further with the various factions in Iraq, last Friday's snapshot mentioned an article by Leila Fadel. As noted Saturday, "U.S. strike kills civilians, Iraqis say" was written by Leila Fadel and Laith Hammoudi. That was my mistake. My apologies. This is in the Friday snapshot because Trina and Betty post that one and it saves them having to copy and paste from another snapshot during the week.

Back to factions. Kurdish friend Peter W. Galbraith makes a series of hypothesis in "Is This a 'Victory'?" (New York Review of Books) but what should raise eye brows is a declaration he makes. (Someone get Tom Hayden a chair. He'll need to sit down. We'll get to it.) Galbraith sketches out a scenario where all the factions are in direct competition and opposition. That's in part to his own desire to represent the desires of the Kurdish region by advocating that Iraq not be a nation but a federation. Tom-Tom's long had a problem with Senator Joe Biden's support for a fedeartion. The popular term for that, which Biden rejects, is "partition." Galbraith has long favored a partition. This is not the Iraqis making that decision but it being imposed upon them. (The Kurds have long favored partition.) Near the end of the article, Galbraith -- an Obama inner-circle accolade of many years -- makse some critiques of Sentator John McCain including: "He has denounced the Obama-Biden plan for a decentralized state but has said nothing about how he would protect Iraq's Kurds, the only committed American allies in the country."

What?

The Obama-Biden plan? That was once Biden's proposal, long before he was on the Democratic Party's presidential ticket in the v.p. slot. But Obama supports partitioning Iraq? Again, Galbraith is part of Barack's inner circle. It's not fair to call him an "advisor" because he goes so very far back. (He is the one who, in fact, introduced Barack to Samantha Power in a kind of War Hawk mixer. Power, who, for the record, also supports partition.) What was once the Biden plan, Galbraith inadvertantly alerts, is now the Obama-Biden plan.

Tuesday's snapshot noted the Defense Dept press briefing by Lt Gen Lloyd Austin III where he attempted to sell the October 1st 'inclusion' of (some of) the "Awakening" Councils into the central government. NPR's JJ Sutherland attempted to figure out what the 54,000 members being moved over means and what their duties will be in Baghdad since, at present, they run checkpoints. Repeatedly, Austin demonstrated no awareness of what Sutherland was asking:

JJ Sutherland: Sir, I understand that but I'[m saying, "What happens in October? I understand eventually you want to have them be plumbers or electricians. But in October, there are a lot of checkpoints that have been manned by the Sons of Iraq. Are those checkpoints all going to go away? Are they only going to be staffed by Iraqi police now? That's my question. It's not eventually, it's next month.

Lt Gen Lloyd Austin: Yeah. Next month the Iraqi government will begin to work their way through this. And there's no question that some of them, some of the checkpoints, many of the checkpoints, will be -- will be manned by Iraqi security forces. In some cases, there may be Sons of Iraq that will be taksed to help with that work. But in most cases, I think the Iraqi government will be looking to transition people into different types of jobs.

Tim Cocks (Reuters) quotes Maj Gen Jeffrey Hammond declaring in Baghdad today, "This cannot be something that's allowed to fail. If the programme were to fail, obviously these guys would be back out on the street, angry, al Qaeda out recruiting them ... We don't need that." An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy raises the issue of the checkpoints noting, "The Iraqi people and especially Baghdad is fed up with promises by officials and security commanders of the improving of the security situation. Millions of students in schools and universities started their new studying year this week which will add more traffic in Baghdad and more targets for the car bombs. If the check points lessen the car bombs, we are happy with them. Instead, we have soldiers and policemen who wave for the cars to move like traffic policemen who are useless." Meanwhile Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reports on a new questionnaire being distributed by Iraqi soldiers which asks a home's occupant for the a copy of their house deed, the names of their children and the name of the family's tribe "which identifies his religion and ethnicity. In Iraq, such a request has often been the first step toward death."


Back to the topic of elections, Iraqi elections, Alsumaria's "What's after approving Iraq elections law?" offers an overview of the steps for approval as well as the basics on the legislation: "The law stipulates to use an open list electoral system where voters can choose specific candidates while the old law refers to a closed list system where they could only select political parties. The new law does not cover the three provinces of Kurdistand. Polls there will be conducted according to a separate law that the region's parliament needs to write and pass." Tom A. Peter (Christian Science Monitor) observes that if the provisional elections are scheduled, they "will stir debate over the lack of central services, such as electricity and water. Many suspect that incumbents will have a hard time getting voter support because of an ongoing lack of basic utilities" and quotes Baghdad Univeristy poli sci professor Abdul Jabbar Ahmad stating, "Democracy does not only mean having an election or passing a law in the legislature. A real government provides services." And a government that doesn't puts the citizens in jeopardy. From yesterday's snapshot: "Meanwhile AP reports 327 case -- confirmed cases -- of cholera in Iraq." Leila Fadel (McClatchy's Baghdad Observer) notes the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction most recent report which found "only 20 percent of families outside of Baghdad province have access to sewage facitlities. Driving through Iraq's province is all the proof one needs. In many southern provinces the sewage runs like rivers through the towns while children play nearby and young kids swim through the dirty river water." Remember what professor Abdul Jabbar Ahmad stated? "A real government provides services"? Cholera's outbreak in Iraq is now an annual summer event. It is completely expected and little is done to prevent it. The UN's WHO pushes societal obligations off as individual ones as if individuals are the ones at fault for the lack of electricity nad the lack of potatable water? There has been no improvement in providing potable water, electricity continues to falter in Iraq and purchasing fuel to heat water (and make it safe) is problematic as fuel prices continue to rise. But the 'answer' is to repeat what they repeat every year and pretend that the central government in Iraq is not failing and that Nouri al-Maliki isn't sitting on billions that should have long ago been used for reconstruction. The UN is working on one water project in Iraq. Jiro Sakaki (The Daily Yomiuri) reports that the UN's Environment Program's International Enivornmental Technology Center is attempting to save the marshlands.

In diplomatic news, Xinhua reports today a reception took place in China "to mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of China-Iraq diplomatic relations." In other diplomatic news, at the end of this year, the UN mandate that the US has been operating under in Iraq (a mandate put in place after the start of the illegal war) expires December 31st. Puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has twice extended it (circumventing Parliament). The White House is attempting to push through treaties (and, to circumvent the Senate, is calling them SOFAs). Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports that US Ambassador Ryan Crocker is stating Iran is attempting to prevent the puppet and the White House from reaching an agreement and that "Crocker also speculated that Iran may be tightening its ties to Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq and co-opting them from anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada Sadr, who for the last year has ordered his followers to largely refrain from violence. He said Iran has a history of using members of political or other opposition groups in other countries to its advantage." Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) adds, "Iran has condemned leaked drafts of the bilateral agreement to replace the mandate. Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, replaced professional diplomats on the negotiating team with members of his private office in August, a development that has pro-Iranian politicians at the heart of the negotiations. Baghdad maintains that US efforts to secure immunity from prosecution in Iraq for troops and contractors is an unacceptible demand. David Satterfield, the top US negotiator, travelled to Baghdad with a counter proposal but Mr Crocker admitted Mr Maliki was unwilling to concede the principle when popular opinion in Iraq was overwhelmingly opposed." Yesterday Michel Ghandour (Al-Hurra) interviewed US Secretary of State Condi Rice at the Women Leaders Working Group in NYC:

Michel Ghandour: Madame Secretary, why do you think there's no agreement yet with the Iraqis regarding the American presence in Iraq, and what role do you think Iran is playing in this regard?

Condi Rice: Well, I don't know what role Iran is playing, but it's not for Iran to determine. It's for the Iraqi Government and the represenatives of the Iraqi people to determine. And it's a negotiation that's continuing that I think has actually got a good spirit of cooperation. People do understand that without an agreement -- American forces can only operate on a legal basis, and so we need a legal basis. But we're working very well with the Iraqis on this. They're not easy issues, and so it takes time. But we are working very well and we're working toward agreement.

The take-away is a question: If the US Ambassador to Iraq is telling the truth, why didn't Rice also grab the talking point yesterday? (The question offered it to her.)

In a readily established conflict between Iraq and another country, Hurriyet reports that Turkish military planes bombed northern Iraq Thursday night "and hit 16 locations" thought to belong to the PKK. Al Jazeera states 10 military planes were used in the bombing. BBC quotes an unnamded PKK spokesperson saying three people were wounded in the bombings.
It's a Friday. Very little violence gets reported on Fridays.

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Anbar Province (four more wounded) and 1 police officer shot dead in Anbar province (one more wounded). Reuters notes 2 "Awakening" Council members shot dead outside Samarra and 1 person killed in Mosul.


Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Center Soldier was killed Sep. 25 when a roadside bomb struck a vehicle that was part of a combat patrol near Iskandariyah. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and official release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq to 4173 since the start of the illegal war with 22 for the month thus far.

Turning to TV, check your local listings. NOW on PBS explores the bailout and attempts to answer for "Americans: How will this affect me? This week, NOW on PBS goes inside the round-the-clock efforts in Washington to craft a bailout plan of monumental proportions." Meanwhile, tonight's debate is on -- for both of the corporatist candidates at any rate. PBS' Washington Week is going to do two live broadcasts on Friday. One before the debate and one after. Gwen's guests will include Michele Norris (NPR), Michael Duffy (Time), David Wessel (Wall St. Journal) Dan Balz (Washington Post), and a scribe for the New York Times.

Four presidential candidates are shut out of tonight's debate. Two are Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. The other two? Cynthia McKinney is the Green presidential candidate and she notes on the economic meltdown:

Last week, I posted ten points (that were by no means exhaustive) for Congressional action immediately in the wake of the financial crisis now gripping our country. At that time, the Democratic leadership of Congress was prepared to adjourn the current legislative Session to campaign, without taking any action at all to put policies in place that protect U.S. taxpayers and the global community that has accepted U.S. financial leadership. Those ten points, to be taken in conjunction with the Power to the People Committee's platform available on the campaign website at (http://votetruth08.com/index.php/resources/campaignplatform), are as follows:1. Enactment of a foreclosure moratorium now before the next phase of ARM interest rate increases take effect;2. elimination of all ARM mortgages and their renegotiation into 30- or 40-year loans;3. establishment of new mortgage lending practices to end predatory and discriminatory practices;4. establishment of criteria and construction goals for affordable housing;5. redefinition of credit and regulation of the credit industry so that discriminatory practices are completely eliminated;6. full funding for initiatives that eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in home ownership;7. recognition of shelter as a right according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to which the U.S. is a signatory so that no one sleeps on U.S. streets;8. full funding of a fund designed to cushion the job loss and provide for retraining of those at the bottom of the income scale as the economy transitions;9. close all tax loopholes and repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of income earners; and10. fairly tax corporations, denying federal subsidies to those who relocate jobs overseas repeal NAFTA.In addition to these ten points, I now add four more:11. Appointment of former Comptroller General David Walker to fully audit all recipients of taxpayer cash infusions, including JP Morgan, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, and to monitor their trading activities into the future;12. elimination of all derivatives trading;13. nationalization of the Federal Reserve and the establishment of a federally-owned, public banking system that makes credit available for small businesses, homeowners, manufacturing operations, renewable energy and infrastructure investments; and14. criminal prosecution of any activities that violated the law, including conflicts of interest that led to the current crisis.Ellen Brown, author of "The Web of Debt" writes at http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/, "Such a public bank today could solve not only the housing crisis but a number of other pressing problems, including the infrastructure crisis and the energy crisis. Once bankrupt businesses have been restored to solvency, the usual practice is to return them to private hands; but a better plan for Fannie and Freddie might be to simply keep them as public institutions."Too many times politicians have told us to support the "free market." The unfolding news informs us in a most costly manner that free markets don't work. This is a financial system of their making. It's now past time for the people to have an economic system of their own. A reading of the full text on the Congressional "Agreement on Principles" for the proposed $700 billion bailout reveals the sham that this so-called agreement truly is. Today our country faces an economic 9/11. The problem that is unfolding is truly systemic and no stop-gap measures that maintain the current bankrupt structure will be sufficient to resolve this crisis of the U.S. economic engine.Today is my son's birthday. What a gift to the young people of this country if we were to present to them a clean break from the policies that produced this economic disaster, the "financial tsunami" that former Comptroller General David Walker warned us of so many months ago and instead offered them a U.S. economic superstructure that truly was their own. Power to the People!

McKinney's running mate Rosa Clemente will be speaking at the International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement (InPDUM) Saturday, September 27th. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and he is also shut out of tonight's debate. Nader notes that, more than any cash infusion, the country needs leadership with spine:


Congress needs to show some backbone before the federal government pours more money on the financial bonfire started by the arsonists on Wall Street.
1.Congress should hold a series of hearings and invite broad public comment on any proposed bailout. Congress is supposed to be a co-equal branch of our federal government. It needs to stop the stampede to give Bush a $700 billion check. Public hearings should be held to determine what alternatives might exist to the four-page proposal advanced by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson.
2.Whatever is ultimately done, the bailout plan should not be insulated from judicial review. Remember there is a third co-equal branch of government: the judiciary. The judiciary does not need to review each buy-and-sell decision by the Treasury Department, but there should be some boundaries established to the Treasury Department's discretion. Judicial review is needed to ensure that unbridled discretion is not abused.
3.Sunlight is a good disinfectant. The bailout that is ultimately approved must provide for full and timely disclosure of all bailout details. This will discourage conflicts of interest and limit the potential of sweetheart deals.
4.Firms that accept government bailout monies must agree to disclose their transactions and be more honest in their accounting. They should agree to end off-the-books accounting maneuvers, for example.
5.Taxpayers must be protected by having a stake in any recovery. The bailout plan should provide opportunities for taxpayers to recoup funds that are made available to problem financial institutions, or to benefit from the financial institutions' rising stock price and increased profitability after being bailed out.
6.The current so-called "regulators" cannot be trusted. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog," must regularly review the bailout. We cannot trust the financial "regulators," who allowed the slide into financial disaster, to manage the bailout without outside monitoring.
7.It is time to put the federal cop back on the financial services beat. Strong financial regulations and independent regulators are necessary to rebuild trust in our financial institutions and to prevent further squandering of our tax dollars. The Justice Department and the SEC also need to scrutinize the expanding mess with an eye to uncovering corporate crime and misdeeds. Major news outlets are reporting that the FBI is investigating American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers.
8.Cap executive compensation and stop giving the Wall Street gamblers golden parachutes. The CEOs who have created the financial disaster should not be allowed to leave with millions in hand when so many pensioners and small shareholders are seeing their investments evaporate. The taxpayers are bailing out Wall Street so that the financial system continues to function, not to further enrich the CEOs and executives who created this mess.
9.Congress should pass the Financial Consumers' Information and Representation Act, to permit citizens to form a federally-chartered nonprofit membership organization to strengthen consumer representation in government proceedings that concern the financial services industry. As the savings and loan disasters of the 1980s and the Wall Street debacles of the last few years have demonstrated, there is an overriding need for consumers and taxpayers to have the organized means to enhance their influence on financial issues.
10.The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, separating traditional banks from investment banks, helped pave the way for the current disaster. It is time to re-regulate the financial sector. The current crisis is also leading to even further conglomeration and concentration in the financial sector. We must revive and apply antitrust principles, so that banking consumers can benefit from competition and taxpayers are less vulnerable to too-big-to-fail institutions, which merge with each other to further concentration.
11.Congress should impose a securities and derivatives speculation tax. A tax on financial trading would slow down the churning of stocks and financial instruments, and could raise substantial monies to pay for the bailout.
12.Regulators should impose greater margin requirements, making speculators use more of their own money and diminishing reckless casino capitalism.
Ask your representative a few questions: "What should be done to limit banking institutions from investing in high-risk activities?" "What should be done to ensure banks are meeting proper capital standards given the financial quicksand that has spread as a result of the former Senator Phil Gramm's deregulation efforts?" And, "What is being done to protect small investors?"
P.S. Shareholders also have some work to do. They should have listened when Warren Buffett called securities derivatives a "time bomb" and "financial weapons of mass destruction." The Wall Street crooks and unscrupulous speculators use and draining of "other people's money" out of pension funds and mutual funds should motivate painfully passive shareholders to organize to gain greater authority to control the companies they own. Where is the shareholder uprising?

We've highlighted some of Jo Freeman's outstanding reporting on the 1976 political conventions recently. Freeman also covered this year's Democratic and Republican convention for Senior Women Web and you can find her articles here. We'll note this from her "Sarah Palin: A Risky Move and A Gift to the Women's Movement" (Senior Women Web):

Like Hillary's 2008 run for President, Ferraro's 1984 run for the second spot brought all sorts of sexism out of the closet. It was an eye-opener for everyone. In the end, this bold, risky choice didn't seem to affect the outcome. The exit polls showed that having a woman on the ticket was a prime concern for only a few. These voters about equally divided between those who told pollsters that they voted for a woman and those who said they voted against one. Ferraro's candidacy had a bigger effect on those who answered the annual polling question (in a different poll): Would you vote for "a well-qualified woman of your own party for President"? After Ferraro a party gap appeared. Republicans were 50 percent more likely than Democrats to answer "No." Republicans have continued to say they would not vote for a well-qualified (but unnamed) woman for President at a much higher rate than Democrats. Wonder what they will tell the pollsters this year?

Governor Sarah Palin is the v.p. nominee on the Republican ticket. Yesterday The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric aired the second part of Couric's interview with Palin. Excerpt:

Katie Couric: As we stand before this august building and institution, what do you see as the role of the United States in the world?
Sarah Palin: I see the United States as being a force for good in the world. And as Ronald Reagan used to talk about, America being the beacon of light and hope for those who are seeking democratic values and tolerance and freedom. I see our country being able to represent those things that can be looked to … as that leadership, that light needed across the world.
Couric: In preparing for this conversation, a lot of our viewers … and Internet users wanted to know why you did not get a passport until last year. And they wondered if that indicated a lack of interest and curiosity in the world.
Palin: I'm not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world. No, I've worked all my life. In fact, I usually had two jobs all my life until I had kids. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I have understood the world is through education, through books, through mediums that have provided me a lot of perspective on the world.

Part one aired Wednesday evening and both links have text and video. As Jo Freeman noted, Palin is following in Ferraro's footsteps (Palin has publicly acknowledged that and that she follows in Hillary Clinton's footsteps as well). Genevieve Roth (Glamour) spoke with Ferraro to get her tips for Palin and Ferraro offers many worthwhile reflections and suggestions but probably sums it up the best with this: "The bottom line is, Sarah Palin doesn't need advice from me or anyone. She wouldn't be in the position she's in if she wasn't able to deal with the campaign."


iraq
alissa j. rubin
the new york timesstephen farrell
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadellaith hammoudi
the los angeles timestina susmanthe washington postjoby warrick
derek kravitznow on pbspbswashington weekmichele norrisdan balzdavid wesseldamien mcelroy
katie couricthe cbs evening news
jo freeman
thomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchen