Saturday, September 29, 2007
Headzup: Why Republicans Skip Minority Debates
Clicking on the link will take you directly to the YouTube Video.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Yup, it turns out we don't do that 'peace' thing well
By D. PARVAZ
P-I COLUMNIST
If you were uncertain as to how our awesome engine for spreading peace and democracy throughout the world is doing, wonder no more: We suck worse than a Sanjaya-Connie Chung duet.
Yup, turns out we don't do that "peace" thing too well.
According to the Economist, the U.S. placed 96th in the British magazine's first Global Peace Index of 121 nations. If the sucking thing bothers you, you can always look at it another way: We're really, really good at shooting at people, destroying their homes and creating an ever-growing army of enemies, thereby ensuring wars for generations to come. Hey, I'm trying to emphasize the positive.
To put the results into context, they are presented under an umbrella project called Visions of Humanity. A heady title, heady concept (see complete list of rankings here www.visionofhumanity.com/rankings/) -- one that the U.S. fails to grasp, as a monkey would a greased football. Consider that Libya (58), Cuba (59) and Syria (77) are considered more peaceful that the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Better yet? China, where political dissidents are either jailed or put to death, ranked at 60. But, just how did those hoity-toity Economist editors come up with this ranking? Surprisingly, they didn't just make it up.
Several factors contribute to a country's position on the list - how much its citizens trust one another, the percentage of the population that is incarcerated, potential for terrorist acts, access to heavy weaponry, crime rates, so on and so forth. These indicators, plus drivers such as the population's level of education, together determine a nation's level of peacefulness.
Guess who we just managed to beat? Iran (97). Whew. It would have been embarrassing if a government we've failed to strong-arm into giving us their oil, er, following our lead in um, freedom and diplomacy, had beaten us on the peace list. This close call, though, shows the list's obvious anti-American bias.
For starters, we should get some credit for restraint. That's right, restraint. Of our 2006 taxes, 41 percent went to military spending, while 5 percent went to social programs. And research by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute -- clearly some Nordic hippie think thank -- tells us that global military spending in 2004 surpassed $1 trillion, with our military expenditures accounting for roughly 47 percent of that total. And then there's our belief in how to achieve peace, best explained by President Bush, who said, "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
You might ask: Aside from outright declarations of war, what else is the U.S. doing to export peace to the rest of the world? Two words: Arms sales. A 2005 report by the World Policy Institute found the bulk of U.S. arms sales to developing countries go to governments defined by the U.S. State Department as undemocratic and with serious human rights issue. Think Pakistan (115 on the Global Peace Index), Angola, (112) and Saudi Arabia (90).
For you anti-patriotic pinkos who care, the top-10 most peaceful countries in the world are: Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, Finland, Sweden, Canada, Portugal and Austria. So if you want to move to some dull place where they don't believe in fighting an actual (not ideological) war for peace, now you now where to go.
Speaking of detonating the bejezus out of heaven and earth in the name of peace, justice and democracy...Iraq placed last on the peace list. Personally, I think Iraqis are getting a raw deal here. Their country would have ranked much higher were it not for our invasion, overthrowing its government and flushing its security forces down the toilet. But, hey, they need to be patient over there. When Bush says, "We have an opportunity to lay the foundation of peace for generations to come," the peace to which he's referring will come way, way later -- like, decades after we're done blowing things up there, and the remaining warring factions in Iraq are done killing one another off. Then, they'll have peace. No need to thank us.
D. Parvaz is an editorial writer and member of the P-I Editorial Board. E-mail: dparvaz@seattlepi.com.
P-I COLUMNIST
If you were uncertain as to how our awesome engine for spreading peace and democracy throughout the world is doing, wonder no more: We suck worse than a Sanjaya-Connie Chung duet.
Yup, turns out we don't do that "peace" thing too well.
According to the Economist, the U.S. placed 96th in the British magazine's first Global Peace Index of 121 nations. If the sucking thing bothers you, you can always look at it another way: We're really, really good at shooting at people, destroying their homes and creating an ever-growing army of enemies, thereby ensuring wars for generations to come. Hey, I'm trying to emphasize the positive.
To put the results into context, they are presented under an umbrella project called Visions of Humanity. A heady title, heady concept (see complete list of rankings here www.visionofhumanity.com/rankings/) -- one that the U.S. fails to grasp, as a monkey would a greased football. Consider that Libya (58), Cuba (59) and Syria (77) are considered more peaceful that the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Better yet? China, where political dissidents are either jailed or put to death, ranked at 60. But, just how did those hoity-toity Economist editors come up with this ranking? Surprisingly, they didn't just make it up.
Several factors contribute to a country's position on the list - how much its citizens trust one another, the percentage of the population that is incarcerated, potential for terrorist acts, access to heavy weaponry, crime rates, so on and so forth. These indicators, plus drivers such as the population's level of education, together determine a nation's level of peacefulness.
Guess who we just managed to beat? Iran (97). Whew. It would have been embarrassing if a government we've failed to strong-arm into giving us their oil, er, following our lead in um, freedom and diplomacy, had beaten us on the peace list. This close call, though, shows the list's obvious anti-American bias.
For starters, we should get some credit for restraint. That's right, restraint. Of our 2006 taxes, 41 percent went to military spending, while 5 percent went to social programs. And research by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute -- clearly some Nordic hippie think thank -- tells us that global military spending in 2004 surpassed $1 trillion, with our military expenditures accounting for roughly 47 percent of that total. And then there's our belief in how to achieve peace, best explained by President Bush, who said, "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
You might ask: Aside from outright declarations of war, what else is the U.S. doing to export peace to the rest of the world? Two words: Arms sales. A 2005 report by the World Policy Institute found the bulk of U.S. arms sales to developing countries go to governments defined by the U.S. State Department as undemocratic and with serious human rights issue. Think Pakistan (115 on the Global Peace Index), Angola, (112) and Saudi Arabia (90).
For you anti-patriotic pinkos who care, the top-10 most peaceful countries in the world are: Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, Finland, Sweden, Canada, Portugal and Austria. So if you want to move to some dull place where they don't believe in fighting an actual (not ideological) war for peace, now you now where to go.
Speaking of detonating the bejezus out of heaven and earth in the name of peace, justice and democracy...Iraq placed last on the peace list. Personally, I think Iraqis are getting a raw deal here. Their country would have ranked much higher were it not for our invasion, overthrowing its government and flushing its security forces down the toilet. But, hey, they need to be patient over there. When Bush says, "We have an opportunity to lay the foundation of peace for generations to come," the peace to which he's referring will come way, way later -- like, decades after we're done blowing things up there, and the remaining warring factions in Iraq are done killing one another off. Then, they'll have peace. No need to thank us.
D. Parvaz is an editorial writer and member of the P-I Editorial Board. E-mail: dparvaz@seattlepi.com.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
It's official...I suck at this mom stuff
It's day three of chasing after the puppy and the boy. I'm officially exhausted and ready to go back to my 60+ hour work week.
My mother stopped by today and suggested I check out a Co-op preschool, I almost chased her out of the house with a pitch fork! Today I can't imagine staying home all summer let alone taking care of other people's children!
What I do know is I totally suck at this.
How do other moms make this look so easy!?
My mother stopped by today and suggested I check out a Co-op preschool, I almost chased her out of the house with a pitch fork! Today I can't imagine staying home all summer let alone taking care of other people's children!
What I do know is I totally suck at this.
How do other moms make this look so easy!?
Network censors dissenting general
AMY GOODMAN
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
Listening to retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, you sense his intense loyalty to the military. He commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, capping a 31-year Army career. So why did CBS News fire him as a paid news consultant? A straight answer from CBS seems as elusive as those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The short answer: Batiste appeared in a television advertisement sponsored by VoteVets.org, a non-partisan group that advocates for veterans. In the 30-second spot, he said, in part: "Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril."
Batiste is one of the six retired generals who called for the resignation of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the spring of 2006. Of those generals, he alone both served at a high level in the Pentagon and commanded 22,000 troops in Iraq. Despite a promised promotion to three-star general, which would have made him the second-highest-ranking officer in Iraq, Batiste made the difficult decision to retire and speak out.
In his book and documentary "War Made Easy," media critic Norman Solomon explains the impact those retired TV generals have on the national debate:
"In the run-up to the war in Iraq, the failure of mainstream news organizations to raise legitimate questions about the government's rush to war was compounded by the networks' deliberate decision to stress military perspectives before any fighting had even begun. CNN's use of retired generals as supposedly independent experts reinforced the decidedly military mind-set even as serious questions remained about the wisdom and necessity about going to war."
In 1999, when the U.S. was bombing Yugoslavia, I asked Frank Sesno, vice president of CNN: "Why pay these generals? And have you ever considered putting peace activists on the payroll? Or inviting them into the studio to respond to the drumbeat for war?" He replied: "We've talked about this. But no, we wouldn't do that. Because generals are analysts, and peace activists are advocates."
That's not far from the reason given by CBS for firing Batiste. According to a blog on cbsnews.com, CBS News Vice President Linda Mason explained, "We ask that people not be involved in advocacy." Generals, it seems, are analysts when they agree with the war plan, and advocates when they oppose it. Political blog the Horse's Mouth reported that CBS News consultant Michael O'Hanlon clearly advocated for President Bush's troop surge but didn't get tossed. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, told the Horse's Mouth he "would be personally gratified to see Batiste back on CBS."
CBS is not alone in icing out perspectives critical of the Iraq war, especially when it mattered. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a media watchdog group, did a study analyzing the major nightly newscasts for the two weeks surrounding then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech for war before the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003. On the major evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS, FAIR found 393 interviews on the issue of war, of which only three were with anti-war leaders. This, when a majority in the U.S. either opposed war or supported more time for inspections. This is not a mainstream media, but an extreme media, beating the drums for war.
When I spoke with Batiste, he shied away from political commentary. He was focused on the issues: the safety of the troops, the situation in Iraq. He says we need "a comprehensive national strategy," including "the tough diplomatic, political and economic measures." Instead, he says, the U.S. is "depending on our military almost entirely to accomplish this ill-fated mission in Iraq."
Batiste is a lifelong Republican. His father and both his grandfathers were in the military. "You see, we got this war terribly wrong. I'm not anti-war at all." Moveon.orgcirculated an online petition demanding CBS restore Batiste, which more than 230,000 people signed.
Batiste's crime is obvious: He dared to dissent, directly contradicting the endlessly repeated assurances reported by the network news that Bush takes his military advice from his generals on the ground, not from Congress or public-opinion polls.
CBS News has reached a new low when it censors even a pro-war Republican retired general merely for criticizing the president. The power that the broadcasters have amassed, their craven servility to the Bush administration and its failed wars, and their refusal to offer airtime to dissenters all amount to a direct threat to our democracy, a far greater threat than Saddam's imagined WMD.
Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour.
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
Listening to retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, you sense his intense loyalty to the military. He commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, capping a 31-year Army career. So why did CBS News fire him as a paid news consultant? A straight answer from CBS seems as elusive as those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The short answer: Batiste appeared in a television advertisement sponsored by VoteVets.org, a non-partisan group that advocates for veterans. In the 30-second spot, he said, in part: "Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril."
Batiste is one of the six retired generals who called for the resignation of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the spring of 2006. Of those generals, he alone both served at a high level in the Pentagon and commanded 22,000 troops in Iraq. Despite a promised promotion to three-star general, which would have made him the second-highest-ranking officer in Iraq, Batiste made the difficult decision to retire and speak out.
In his book and documentary "War Made Easy," media critic Norman Solomon explains the impact those retired TV generals have on the national debate:
"In the run-up to the war in Iraq, the failure of mainstream news organizations to raise legitimate questions about the government's rush to war was compounded by the networks' deliberate decision to stress military perspectives before any fighting had even begun. CNN's use of retired generals as supposedly independent experts reinforced the decidedly military mind-set even as serious questions remained about the wisdom and necessity about going to war."
In 1999, when the U.S. was bombing Yugoslavia, I asked Frank Sesno, vice president of CNN: "Why pay these generals? And have you ever considered putting peace activists on the payroll? Or inviting them into the studio to respond to the drumbeat for war?" He replied: "We've talked about this. But no, we wouldn't do that. Because generals are analysts, and peace activists are advocates."
That's not far from the reason given by CBS for firing Batiste. According to a blog on cbsnews.com, CBS News Vice President Linda Mason explained, "We ask that people not be involved in advocacy." Generals, it seems, are analysts when they agree with the war plan, and advocates when they oppose it. Political blog the Horse's Mouth reported that CBS News consultant Michael O'Hanlon clearly advocated for President Bush's troop surge but didn't get tossed. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, told the Horse's Mouth he "would be personally gratified to see Batiste back on CBS."
CBS is not alone in icing out perspectives critical of the Iraq war, especially when it mattered. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a media watchdog group, did a study analyzing the major nightly newscasts for the two weeks surrounding then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech for war before the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003. On the major evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS, FAIR found 393 interviews on the issue of war, of which only three were with anti-war leaders. This, when a majority in the U.S. either opposed war or supported more time for inspections. This is not a mainstream media, but an extreme media, beating the drums for war.
When I spoke with Batiste, he shied away from political commentary. He was focused on the issues: the safety of the troops, the situation in Iraq. He says we need "a comprehensive national strategy," including "the tough diplomatic, political and economic measures." Instead, he says, the U.S. is "depending on our military almost entirely to accomplish this ill-fated mission in Iraq."
Batiste is a lifelong Republican. His father and both his grandfathers were in the military. "You see, we got this war terribly wrong. I'm not anti-war at all." Moveon.orgcirculated an online petition demanding CBS restore Batiste, which more than 230,000 people signed.
Batiste's crime is obvious: He dared to dissent, directly contradicting the endlessly repeated assurances reported by the network news that Bush takes his military advice from his generals on the ground, not from Congress or public-opinion polls.
CBS News has reached a new low when it censors even a pro-war Republican retired general merely for criticizing the president. The power that the broadcasters have amassed, their craven servility to the Bush administration and its failed wars, and their refusal to offer airtime to dissenters all amount to a direct threat to our democracy, a far greater threat than Saddam's imagined WMD.
Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Ft. Lewis to consolidate memorials
By KOMO Staff & News Services
FORT LEWIS, Wash. - So many Fort Lewis soldiers are being killed in Iraq the Army base will no longer hold individual memorial services.
Starting next month Fort Lewis says it will hold one memorial a month for all the dead soldiers.
Sixteen Fort Lewis soldiers have been killed this month -- the most of the war, so far.
Fort Lewis acting commander Brigadier General William Troy told staff last week that the number of soldiers in harm's way will preclude individual services.
About 10,000 Fort Lewis troops, including two Stryker brigades, are now in Iraq, the most since the 2003 invasion.
Some other Army posts have already consolidated services.
A memorial service planned for Thursday for one soldier will go on as scheduled at Fort Lewis, and the first consolidated service for four soldiers will be held on June 5.
On Wednesday the Department of Defense announced the deaths of three more Fort Lewis soldiers in Iraq.
Staff Sgt. Thomas M. McFall, 36, and Pfc. Junior Cedeno Sanchez, 20, were killed when a bomb exploded while they were patrolling on foot in Baghdad on May 28.
Both soldiers were members of the 1st Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.
Pfc. Charles B. Hester, 23, was killed May 26 when an improvised explosive device detonated next to his vehicle. Hester was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.
FORT LEWIS, Wash. - So many Fort Lewis soldiers are being killed in Iraq the Army base will no longer hold individual memorial services.
Starting next month Fort Lewis says it will hold one memorial a month for all the dead soldiers.
Sixteen Fort Lewis soldiers have been killed this month -- the most of the war, so far.
Fort Lewis acting commander Brigadier General William Troy told staff last week that the number of soldiers in harm's way will preclude individual services.
About 10,000 Fort Lewis troops, including two Stryker brigades, are now in Iraq, the most since the 2003 invasion.
Some other Army posts have already consolidated services.
A memorial service planned for Thursday for one soldier will go on as scheduled at Fort Lewis, and the first consolidated service for four soldiers will be held on June 5.
On Wednesday the Department of Defense announced the deaths of three more Fort Lewis soldiers in Iraq.
Staff Sgt. Thomas M. McFall, 36, and Pfc. Junior Cedeno Sanchez, 20, were killed when a bomb exploded while they were patrolling on foot in Baghdad on May 28.
Both soldiers were members of the 1st Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.
Pfc. Charles B. Hester, 23, was killed May 26 when an improvised explosive device detonated next to his vehicle. Hester was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.
Profiles in candor: Carter, Gore dare to speak out
Floyd J. McKay / Guest columnist to the Seattle Times
Printed Wed. May 30, 2007
Some presidents or vice presidents have a lot of time after their departure to shape their legacy, and those with a literary bent are particularly prone to the temptation. While most have adhered to a type of gentlemen's agreement not to harshly criticize their successors, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are finally fed up and speaking out.
Carter left office at 56 and has never stopped producing books as well as humanitarian accomplishments; he is certainly the model of a former president. But in his 80s, his impatience and finally his anger and disgust at the administration of George W. Bush have spilled over, the latest in an interview in which he stated, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." Carter later made a partial apology, but the gist of his remarks was clear.
When he campaigned for office in 1976, Carter promised he would never lie to the American people. Certainly, this comment is no lie. America's importance in international affairs began as the 20th century began, and without doubt the Bush presidency has done more to damage our relations abroad than any other. No other president even comes close.
A spokesman for the White House reckoned that Carter was "becoming increasingly irrelevant." They wish. Carter is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and his work with Habitat for Humanity, fighting disease in Africa and campaigning for honest elections and human rights is beyond reproach. George W. Bush is none of the above.
Carter had his own foreign-policy blunder, of course: He continued the policy of his predecessors and blindly supported the shah of Iran, which continues to plague us in our relations with Iran. But his historic role in the Israeli-Egyptian peace accord was the best thing America did for Israel since President Harry S. Truman helped launch the Jewish state.
His accomplishments give him license to speak out, and he has not been timid. His 2005 book, "Our Endangered Values," lends his moral standing to the American political debate, particularly in regard to separation of church and state. A year later, in "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid," Carter boldly criticized Israelis and Americans as well as Palestinians for their roles in allowing the Middle East to drift in desperation, taking stands no American politician dares to take.
For using the term "apartheid," Carter was pilloried by Zionists, the fate of any commentator who dares to criticize Israel. But media and peace groups within Israel itself have used the term for at least 25 years, to describe their fear of drifting into a state with two separate classes of citizenship. Carter was right in suggesting that Bush has done nothing to advance his "road map," and in fact stood aside while Israel pushed additional settlements into the West Bank.
Jimmy Carter is now 82 and, like many seniors who care about the country their grandchildren will inherit, he is increasingly frustrated by a White House locked down in stubborn mode, at home and abroad. I've been fortunate to spend time with Carter on several occasions over the years, and nothing impressed me more than the steely intensity of his eyes and his impatience with foolish people and foolish policies. This Southerner is no good old boy.
Neither is Al Gore, who would have been president in 2000 if everyone's vote counted the same as Supreme Court justices'. His new book, "The Assault on Reason," goes beyond foreign policy and a searing criticism of the Iraq invasion, and into domestic policy on several fronts. These include climate change, as expected, but also the current president's willful disdain for science, his domestic eavesdropping plan and the Katrina failures. Gore is also searing in his view of the media in general and television in particular, for failing their responsibilities in democratic government.
Carter and Gore were good soldiers in the wake of their defeats, which was particularly hard in Gore's case, but their patience has expired. Gore, unlike Carter, is still young enough for another campaign if Democrats deadlock in those early primaries.
If America under a new president in 2009 begins the long road to reversing global warming, Al Gore, the almost-president, will have a lasting legacy in his favor. Jimmy Carter already has such a legacy in the Camp David peace agreement and in his post-presidential endeavors.
The contrast with George W. Bush — on whose watch an entire nation was dismantled and tens of thousands killed or maimed, while at home the gap widened between the rich and American workers — could not be clearer.
Floyd J. McKay, a journalism professor emeritus at Western Washington University, is a regular contributor to Times editorial pages.
Printed Wed. May 30, 2007
Some presidents or vice presidents have a lot of time after their departure to shape their legacy, and those with a literary bent are particularly prone to the temptation. While most have adhered to a type of gentlemen's agreement not to harshly criticize their successors, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are finally fed up and speaking out.
Carter left office at 56 and has never stopped producing books as well as humanitarian accomplishments; he is certainly the model of a former president. But in his 80s, his impatience and finally his anger and disgust at the administration of George W. Bush have spilled over, the latest in an interview in which he stated, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." Carter later made a partial apology, but the gist of his remarks was clear.
When he campaigned for office in 1976, Carter promised he would never lie to the American people. Certainly, this comment is no lie. America's importance in international affairs began as the 20th century began, and without doubt the Bush presidency has done more to damage our relations abroad than any other. No other president even comes close.
A spokesman for the White House reckoned that Carter was "becoming increasingly irrelevant." They wish. Carter is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and his work with Habitat for Humanity, fighting disease in Africa and campaigning for honest elections and human rights is beyond reproach. George W. Bush is none of the above.
Carter had his own foreign-policy blunder, of course: He continued the policy of his predecessors and blindly supported the shah of Iran, which continues to plague us in our relations with Iran. But his historic role in the Israeli-Egyptian peace accord was the best thing America did for Israel since President Harry S. Truman helped launch the Jewish state.
His accomplishments give him license to speak out, and he has not been timid. His 2005 book, "Our Endangered Values," lends his moral standing to the American political debate, particularly in regard to separation of church and state. A year later, in "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid," Carter boldly criticized Israelis and Americans as well as Palestinians for their roles in allowing the Middle East to drift in desperation, taking stands no American politician dares to take.
For using the term "apartheid," Carter was pilloried by Zionists, the fate of any commentator who dares to criticize Israel. But media and peace groups within Israel itself have used the term for at least 25 years, to describe their fear of drifting into a state with two separate classes of citizenship. Carter was right in suggesting that Bush has done nothing to advance his "road map," and in fact stood aside while Israel pushed additional settlements into the West Bank.
Jimmy Carter is now 82 and, like many seniors who care about the country their grandchildren will inherit, he is increasingly frustrated by a White House locked down in stubborn mode, at home and abroad. I've been fortunate to spend time with Carter on several occasions over the years, and nothing impressed me more than the steely intensity of his eyes and his impatience with foolish people and foolish policies. This Southerner is no good old boy.
Neither is Al Gore, who would have been president in 2000 if everyone's vote counted the same as Supreme Court justices'. His new book, "The Assault on Reason," goes beyond foreign policy and a searing criticism of the Iraq invasion, and into domestic policy on several fronts. These include climate change, as expected, but also the current president's willful disdain for science, his domestic eavesdropping plan and the Katrina failures. Gore is also searing in his view of the media in general and television in particular, for failing their responsibilities in democratic government.
Carter and Gore were good soldiers in the wake of their defeats, which was particularly hard in Gore's case, but their patience has expired. Gore, unlike Carter, is still young enough for another campaign if Democrats deadlock in those early primaries.
If America under a new president in 2009 begins the long road to reversing global warming, Al Gore, the almost-president, will have a lasting legacy in his favor. Jimmy Carter already has such a legacy in the Camp David peace agreement and in his post-presidential endeavors.
The contrast with George W. Bush — on whose watch an entire nation was dismantled and tens of thousands killed or maimed, while at home the gap widened between the rich and American workers — could not be clearer.
Floyd J. McKay, a journalism professor emeritus at Western Washington University, is a regular contributor to Times editorial pages.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
1st Official Day as a Stay at Home Mom
Ok, so technically the day isn't done as my husband hasn't walked in the door for the official toddler pass off, but it's getting close and I can always amend my post if it suits me.
Today started at 4:00 a.m. today when the clock radio/alarm started bellowing. Somehow that darn thing is still on my side table. I think my husband secretly resents that I don't have to get up. Okay, the resentment really isn't that big of a secret right now. What started out as a great plan for me to stay home is starting to sour with him, but honestly I digress.
Thankfully, Noah didn't wake up until 6:30 am so that gave me two very glorious hours with the news, too bad it all seems to be ugly. He started the day out beautifully, very excited that we will be having a 'home day'. It only took three short hours for me to wonder if I had my head on straight when I made this decision.
A short trip to the store, that was all it was suppose to be, but Noah had other plans. He has decided that he is a big boy now and does not want to sit in his 'baby' car seat. Thirty minutes of discussion and a final promise that we will look for a big boy car seat if he will just get into his seat and let us get our errands started. No, I'm not above bribing him!
Finally, the store...the plan is to run in grab the few things we need and circle back past the crayons. First obstacle, Noah would not get into the cart and he took off running towards the crayon aisle. Ok, I figured I could handle this, he would pick out something quickly and I could bribe him to get into the cart so he could look at his new treasure. I did mention my full belief in bribes didn't I?
Ah, the wants of a four year old are many..."I want clay...I want chalk...I want finger paints...I DON'T want crayons!" I should have recognized the warning signs of a full on temper tantrum. What was I thinking taking him to the store two hours before his nap! Of course, I forgot that I am no super mom; I am not faster than a speeding toddler! Three aisles away from the art supplies and it hit...World War Noah! It was that first smack across my face that shook me out of my denial that my child would make it through the store like the sweet little prince we glimpse when he is sound to sleep. Now, of course the negotiations begin again and I started to hear the chuckles of all the retired folks wandering aimlessly through their mall walk.
I did what any good working mother would do, I left the cart right where it sat, scooped him up like a sack of potatoes, and took off straight for the car. Screw the crayons! I can pretend to know what I'm doing another day!
There was a recent story about a group of moms that get their kids together for play dates and while the kids play the moms down a bottle or two of wine. At first my holier than thou working mother attitude thought 'how irresponsible'...after today I know realize that the wine is the fountain of sanity for stay at home moms!
Today started at 4:00 a.m. today when the clock radio/alarm started bellowing. Somehow that darn thing is still on my side table. I think my husband secretly resents that I don't have to get up. Okay, the resentment really isn't that big of a secret right now. What started out as a great plan for me to stay home is starting to sour with him, but honestly I digress.
Thankfully, Noah didn't wake up until 6:30 am so that gave me two very glorious hours with the news, too bad it all seems to be ugly. He started the day out beautifully, very excited that we will be having a 'home day'. It only took three short hours for me to wonder if I had my head on straight when I made this decision.
A short trip to the store, that was all it was suppose to be, but Noah had other plans. He has decided that he is a big boy now and does not want to sit in his 'baby' car seat. Thirty minutes of discussion and a final promise that we will look for a big boy car seat if he will just get into his seat and let us get our errands started. No, I'm not above bribing him!
Finally, the store...the plan is to run in grab the few things we need and circle back past the crayons. First obstacle, Noah would not get into the cart and he took off running towards the crayon aisle. Ok, I figured I could handle this, he would pick out something quickly and I could bribe him to get into the cart so he could look at his new treasure. I did mention my full belief in bribes didn't I?
Ah, the wants of a four year old are many..."I want clay...I want chalk...I want finger paints...I DON'T want crayons!" I should have recognized the warning signs of a full on temper tantrum. What was I thinking taking him to the store two hours before his nap! Of course, I forgot that I am no super mom; I am not faster than a speeding toddler! Three aisles away from the art supplies and it hit...World War Noah! It was that first smack across my face that shook me out of my denial that my child would make it through the store like the sweet little prince we glimpse when he is sound to sleep. Now, of course the negotiations begin again and I started to hear the chuckles of all the retired folks wandering aimlessly through their mall walk.
I did what any good working mother would do, I left the cart right where it sat, scooped him up like a sack of potatoes, and took off straight for the car. Screw the crayons! I can pretend to know what I'm doing another day!
There was a recent story about a group of moms that get their kids together for play dates and while the kids play the moms down a bottle or two of wine. At first my holier than thou working mother attitude thought 'how irresponsible'...after today I know realize that the wine is the fountain of sanity for stay at home moms!
Monday, May 21, 2007
Racism goes on trial again in America's Deep South
Tom Mangold in Jena, Louisiana
Sunday May 20, 2007
The Observer
In the cool and beflagged small courtroom in Jena, Louisiana, three black schoolboys - Robert Bailey, Theodore Shaw and Mychal Bell - are about to go on trial for a playground fight that could see them jailed for between 30 and 50 years.
Jena, about 220 miles north of New Orleans, is a small town of 3,000 people, 85 per cent of whom are white. Tomorrow it will be the focus for a race trial which could put it on the map alongside the bad old names of the Mississippi Burning Sixties such as Selma or Montgomery, Alabama.
Jena is gaining national notoriety as an example of the new 'stealth' racism, showing how lightly sleep the demons of racial prejudice in America's Deep South, even in the year that a black man, Barak Obama, is a serious candidate for the White House.
It began in Jena's high school last August when Kenneth Purvis asked the headteacher if black students could break with a long-held tradition and join the whites who sit under the tree in the school courtyard during breaks. The boy was told that he and his friends could sit where they liked.
The following morning white students had hung three nooses there. 'Bad taste, silly, but just a prank,' was the response of most of Jena's whites.
'To us those nooses meant the KKK [Ku Klux Klan], they meant, "Niggers, we're going to kill you, we're going to hang you till you die,"' says Caseptla Bailey, a black community leader and mother of one of the accused. The three white perpetrators of what was seen as a race hate crime were given 'in-school' suspensions (sent to another school for a few days before returning).
Jena's major industry is growing and marketing junk pine. Walk down the usually deserted main street and you will not find many black employees. Bailey, 56, is a former air force officer and holder of a business management degree. 'I couldn't even get a job in Jena as a bank teller,' she said. 'Look at the banks and the best white-collar jobs and you'll see only white and red necks in those collars.'
Billy Doughty, the local barber, has never cut black men's hair. 'They just don't come here,' he mumbled. 'Anyway, their hair is different and difficult to cut.'
The majority of blacks live in an area known as Ward 10. Many homes are trailers, or wooden shacks. Rubbish lies in the streets. On 'Snob Hill', where the whites live, the spacious gardens and lawns are trimmed, the gravelled drives boast SUVs and nice new saloons. Only two black families live there. A teacher from Jena High had enough money to buy his way in. But when he arrived local estate agents refused to show him a 'white' property even though several were advertised in the local paper ('they're all under contract,' the agents lied). The teacher eventually went to see one white owner and offered him cash. 'The guy preferred green [dollars] to black, so I got the property,' laughed the teacher, 'but since we moved in three years ago we haven't been invited by a single neighbour.'
On 30 November, someone tried to burn Jena High to the ground. The crime remains unsolved. That same weekend race fights between teenagers broke out downtown, and on 4 December racial tension boiled over once more in the school. A white student, Justin Barker, was attacked, allegedly by six black students.
The expected charges of assault and battery were not laid, and the six were charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder. They now face a lifetime in jail.
Barker spent the evening of the assault at the local Baptist church, where he was seen by friends to be 'his usual smiling self'.
Nine days later, with the case technically sub judice, the District Attorney made the following public statement to the local paper: 'I will not tolerate this type of behaviour. To those who act in this manner I tell you that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and with the harshest crimes that the facts justify. When you are convicted I will seek the maximum penalty allowed by law. I will see to it that you never again menace the students at any school in this parish.'
Bail for the impoverished students was set absurdly high, and most have been held in custody. The town's mind seems to be made up.
But now the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union - 'damned outsiders' - have become involved and have begun to recruit, enthuse and empower the local black population. Reporters from the BBC and the New York Times have been drawn to the story. Jena does not like this publicity and shifts uncomfortably in the glare. It is 42 years since President Lyndon Johnson closed the loopholes that allowed southern states to discriminate against blacks. When the accused shuffle into court tomorrow, it's Jena that will be on trial.
· Tom Mangold reports 'Race Hate In Louisiana' for 'This World', BBC2, Thursday, 7pm.
Sunday May 20, 2007
The Observer
In the cool and beflagged small courtroom in Jena, Louisiana, three black schoolboys - Robert Bailey, Theodore Shaw and Mychal Bell - are about to go on trial for a playground fight that could see them jailed for between 30 and 50 years.
Jena, about 220 miles north of New Orleans, is a small town of 3,000 people, 85 per cent of whom are white. Tomorrow it will be the focus for a race trial which could put it on the map alongside the bad old names of the Mississippi Burning Sixties such as Selma or Montgomery, Alabama.
Jena is gaining national notoriety as an example of the new 'stealth' racism, showing how lightly sleep the demons of racial prejudice in America's Deep South, even in the year that a black man, Barak Obama, is a serious candidate for the White House.
It began in Jena's high school last August when Kenneth Purvis asked the headteacher if black students could break with a long-held tradition and join the whites who sit under the tree in the school courtyard during breaks. The boy was told that he and his friends could sit where they liked.
The following morning white students had hung three nooses there. 'Bad taste, silly, but just a prank,' was the response of most of Jena's whites.
'To us those nooses meant the KKK [Ku Klux Klan], they meant, "Niggers, we're going to kill you, we're going to hang you till you die,"' says Caseptla Bailey, a black community leader and mother of one of the accused. The three white perpetrators of what was seen as a race hate crime were given 'in-school' suspensions (sent to another school for a few days before returning).
Jena's major industry is growing and marketing junk pine. Walk down the usually deserted main street and you will not find many black employees. Bailey, 56, is a former air force officer and holder of a business management degree. 'I couldn't even get a job in Jena as a bank teller,' she said. 'Look at the banks and the best white-collar jobs and you'll see only white and red necks in those collars.'
Billy Doughty, the local barber, has never cut black men's hair. 'They just don't come here,' he mumbled. 'Anyway, their hair is different and difficult to cut.'
The majority of blacks live in an area known as Ward 10. Many homes are trailers, or wooden shacks. Rubbish lies in the streets. On 'Snob Hill', where the whites live, the spacious gardens and lawns are trimmed, the gravelled drives boast SUVs and nice new saloons. Only two black families live there. A teacher from Jena High had enough money to buy his way in. But when he arrived local estate agents refused to show him a 'white' property even though several were advertised in the local paper ('they're all under contract,' the agents lied). The teacher eventually went to see one white owner and offered him cash. 'The guy preferred green [dollars] to black, so I got the property,' laughed the teacher, 'but since we moved in three years ago we haven't been invited by a single neighbour.'
On 30 November, someone tried to burn Jena High to the ground. The crime remains unsolved. That same weekend race fights between teenagers broke out downtown, and on 4 December racial tension boiled over once more in the school. A white student, Justin Barker, was attacked, allegedly by six black students.
The expected charges of assault and battery were not laid, and the six were charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder. They now face a lifetime in jail.
Barker spent the evening of the assault at the local Baptist church, where he was seen by friends to be 'his usual smiling self'.
Nine days later, with the case technically sub judice, the District Attorney made the following public statement to the local paper: 'I will not tolerate this type of behaviour. To those who act in this manner I tell you that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and with the harshest crimes that the facts justify. When you are convicted I will seek the maximum penalty allowed by law. I will see to it that you never again menace the students at any school in this parish.'
Bail for the impoverished students was set absurdly high, and most have been held in custody. The town's mind seems to be made up.
But now the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union - 'damned outsiders' - have become involved and have begun to recruit, enthuse and empower the local black population. Reporters from the BBC and the New York Times have been drawn to the story. Jena does not like this publicity and shifts uncomfortably in the glare. It is 42 years since President Lyndon Johnson closed the loopholes that allowed southern states to discriminate against blacks. When the accused shuffle into court tomorrow, it's Jena that will be on trial.
· Tom Mangold reports 'Race Hate In Louisiana' for 'This World', BBC2, Thursday, 7pm.
Bush presidency worst in history, says Carter
Ed Pilkington in New York
Monday May 21, 2007
The Guardian
Former US president Jimmy Carter unleashed a torrent of criticism against George Bush and Tony Blair over the weekend, in which he accused the Bush presidency of being the "worst in history" and said Mr Blair's support had been abominable and subservient.
Even for a former politician with a reputation for plain talking, Mr Carter's blazing criticism took observers by surprise and had the Republican leadership responding in equally harsh measure. The White House spokesman yesterday called Mr Carter "increasingly irrelevant", adding that his "reckless personal criticism is out there".
In a newspaper interview, Mr Carter said of the Bush years: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." And speaking on BBC Radio 4, Mr Carter criticised Mr Blair, who leaves office next month, for his close relations with Mr Bush, particularly concerning the Iraq war.
"Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient," Mr Carter said when asked how he would characterise the British prime minister's relationship with Mr Bush. "I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world."
He told the BBC that if Mr Blair had opposed the invasion he could have made it tougher for Washington to shrug off critics. "One of the defences of the Bush administration in America and worldwide ... has been, 'OK, we must be more correct in our actions than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us'."
The White House is waiting to see whether the change in British leadership will bring a policy shift, particularly on Iraq. But yesterday, a spokesman for Gordon Brown said the chancellor did not plan to change tack, taking into account an existing commitment to reduce the number of troops in the country.
Mr Carter, who was president from 1977 to 1981 before being ousted by Ronald Reagan, was an outspoken opponent of the invasion of Iraq before it began in 2003.
He told one newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, over the weekend that Mr Bush had taken a "radical departure from all previous administration policies" with the war. "We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," Mr Carter said.
He also accused Mr Bush of breaking with the time-honoured policy of maintaining a separation between church and state by funding faith-based initiatives with federal money. "I've always believed in separation of church and state and honoured that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."
Monday May 21, 2007
The Guardian
Former US president Jimmy Carter unleashed a torrent of criticism against George Bush and Tony Blair over the weekend, in which he accused the Bush presidency of being the "worst in history" and said Mr Blair's support had been abominable and subservient.
Even for a former politician with a reputation for plain talking, Mr Carter's blazing criticism took observers by surprise and had the Republican leadership responding in equally harsh measure. The White House spokesman yesterday called Mr Carter "increasingly irrelevant", adding that his "reckless personal criticism is out there".
In a newspaper interview, Mr Carter said of the Bush years: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." And speaking on BBC Radio 4, Mr Carter criticised Mr Blair, who leaves office next month, for his close relations with Mr Bush, particularly concerning the Iraq war.
"Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient," Mr Carter said when asked how he would characterise the British prime minister's relationship with Mr Bush. "I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world."
He told the BBC that if Mr Blair had opposed the invasion he could have made it tougher for Washington to shrug off critics. "One of the defences of the Bush administration in America and worldwide ... has been, 'OK, we must be more correct in our actions than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us'."
The White House is waiting to see whether the change in British leadership will bring a policy shift, particularly on Iraq. But yesterday, a spokesman for Gordon Brown said the chancellor did not plan to change tack, taking into account an existing commitment to reduce the number of troops in the country.
Mr Carter, who was president from 1977 to 1981 before being ousted by Ronald Reagan, was an outspoken opponent of the invasion of Iraq before it began in 2003.
He told one newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, over the weekend that Mr Bush had taken a "radical departure from all previous administration policies" with the war. "We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," Mr Carter said.
He also accused Mr Bush of breaking with the time-honoured policy of maintaining a separation between church and state by funding faith-based initiatives with federal money. "I've always believed in separation of church and state and honoured that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."
The New Adventures of Anti-Security Mom
Last week I made a giant leap into the unknown and quit my job. Yes, I know what in the world was I thinking to just up and quit without a safety net?! We moms have far more to think about than our personal happiness and how in the world did I think quitting was really an option?!
Well the short and sweet answer is 'because I said so'!
Right now I'm struggling with the internal battle of how can I make such a selfish choice to cut our income so drastically and the reality that I was giving far more to people that never appreciated an ounce of my effort than I was to my family. After sitting in a meeting and being told that 60+ hours a week was a reasonable amount of time to give to the company and there was absolutely no need to work on the work/life balance and then the next day pulling my 4 year old into daycare at 5:30 am with him kicking, screaming and pleading with me to stay home I realized that management was either smoking some heavy drugs or I was for agreeing to sacrifice the entire reason I took the job in the first place.
I have decided to stay home for the summer with the kids and we will re-evaluate the plan once school starts and my oldest returns to Las Vegas.
The real test is am I cut out to be a stay at home mom? I'm definitely not one of those miracle moms that always manages to keep that sing-song tone in her voice even when the kids are swinging from the ceiling of the local department store.
Stay tuned for updates. I'm sure I'll have plenty of new stories to share, but hopefully my kids will also have more to say about their summer than 'mommy took me to daycare'.
Well the short and sweet answer is 'because I said so'!
Right now I'm struggling with the internal battle of how can I make such a selfish choice to cut our income so drastically and the reality that I was giving far more to people that never appreciated an ounce of my effort than I was to my family. After sitting in a meeting and being told that 60+ hours a week was a reasonable amount of time to give to the company and there was absolutely no need to work on the work/life balance and then the next day pulling my 4 year old into daycare at 5:30 am with him kicking, screaming and pleading with me to stay home I realized that management was either smoking some heavy drugs or I was for agreeing to sacrifice the entire reason I took the job in the first place.
I have decided to stay home for the summer with the kids and we will re-evaluate the plan once school starts and my oldest returns to Las Vegas.
The real test is am I cut out to be a stay at home mom? I'm definitely not one of those miracle moms that always manages to keep that sing-song tone in her voice even when the kids are swinging from the ceiling of the local department store.
Stay tuned for updates. I'm sure I'll have plenty of new stories to share, but hopefully my kids will also have more to say about their summer than 'mommy took me to daycare'.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Don't forget it's truly all about the money
Two days ago Americans were locked onto their tv screens watching and rewatching the devastating news of another school shooting. As the 24/7 news crews found new and interesting ways to spin the same 10 minutes of horror, they quickly dubbed it the worst school 'massacre' in US history.
We are constantly bombarded by the question 'why?!' It seems we refuse to understand that ultimately the answer to this question is not going to make us feel better or even make sense. I mean honestly when was the last time you thought to yourself "I totally get why that wacko killed those people'?
Last night, the news was almost giddy with their latest coup. The extremely mentally disturbed mass murderer had taken a few minutes out of his attack to send a package off to NBC, knowing full well that NBC's desire to tantalize and out report their competitors would drive them to air this disgusting video and pictures that were included.
Instead of asking why this man went out and shot up the campus, which like the answer or not it's quite simple he was mentally imbalanced, and the warning signs were there and ignored, the real question is why has our news become little more than a technocolor tabloid.
I heard Brian Williams preface the airing of the tape with the fact that it was sent to further 'victimize' the victims and yet they aired the tape. So in the end NBC became a willing accomplice to Cho Seung-hui, by adding further injury to the greiving families. The tape revealed nothing we didn't already suspect about the man; but it spoke volumes about our media.
There was other terrible news yesterday of mass bombings in Iraq, but of course the 32 people killed at home took over the news. Is it because asking the question of 'why' to the man responsible for the carnage in Iraq is too difficult for our media or do they realize that George W. Bush will never fully explain his motives for sending all those lives in to harms way.
Chris Shaw with the BBC asks the question, and I would love to know your opinion.
Should killers be given airtime?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2061176,00.html
We are constantly bombarded by the question 'why?!' It seems we refuse to understand that ultimately the answer to this question is not going to make us feel better or even make sense. I mean honestly when was the last time you thought to yourself "I totally get why that wacko killed those people'?
Last night, the news was almost giddy with their latest coup. The extremely mentally disturbed mass murderer had taken a few minutes out of his attack to send a package off to NBC, knowing full well that NBC's desire to tantalize and out report their competitors would drive them to air this disgusting video and pictures that were included.
Instead of asking why this man went out and shot up the campus, which like the answer or not it's quite simple he was mentally imbalanced, and the warning signs were there and ignored, the real question is why has our news become little more than a technocolor tabloid.
I heard Brian Williams preface the airing of the tape with the fact that it was sent to further 'victimize' the victims and yet they aired the tape. So in the end NBC became a willing accomplice to Cho Seung-hui, by adding further injury to the greiving families. The tape revealed nothing we didn't already suspect about the man; but it spoke volumes about our media.
There was other terrible news yesterday of mass bombings in Iraq, but of course the 32 people killed at home took over the news. Is it because asking the question of 'why' to the man responsible for the carnage in Iraq is too difficult for our media or do they realize that George W. Bush will never fully explain his motives for sending all those lives in to harms way.
Chris Shaw with the BBC asks the question, and I would love to know your opinion.
Should killers be given airtime?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2061176,00.html
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Red Cross details 'unbearable suffering' of Iraqi civilians
Regardless of John McCain's assertion while walking through the heavily fortified neighborhood, flanked by a massive detail of soldiers and wearing a heavy flack jacket, that Iraq is not that bad we really need to not buy into that massive lie.
I'm posting the Red Cross story from the Guardian because we can't seem to get any of the US MSM to run these types of stories and we should be demanding change from them as well as the leadership of this country.
Ian Black,
Middle East editor
Thursday April 12, 2007
The Guardian
Iraqi civilians are experiencing "immense suffering" because of a "disastrous" security situation, deepening poverty and a worsening humanitarian crisis, according to a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The ICRC also sees no sign that the American-led security "surge" in Baghdad is bringing relief to the capital, while hospitals struggle to cope with mass casualties as malnutrition as well as power and water shortages become more frequent across the country.
"The suffering Iraqi men, women and children are enduring today is unbearable and unacceptable," Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of operations for the organisation, said at the group's Geneva headquarters.
The report, Civilians without Protection, provides a grim snapshot of the situation in Iraq but will carry special weight thanks to the ICRC's reputation as the scrupulously neutral "silent service" of international humanitarian work. It maintains a presence in Baghdad despite the bombing of its offices in 2003, and works closely with the Iraqi Red Crescent.
The report says that more than 100,000 families have been forced to leave their homes in the past year because of the shootings, bombings, abductions, murders and military operations.
"Every day dozens of people are killed and many more wounded," it says. "The plight of Iraqi civilians is a daily reminder of the fact that there has long been a failure to respect their lives and dignity."
Saad, a humanitarian worker, is quoted as recalling the scene after a bomb blast: "I saw a four-year-old boy sitting beside his mother's body, which had been decapitated by the explosion. He was talking to her, asking her what had happened."
The report quotes a woman as saying: "If there's anything anybody could do that would really help us, it would be to help collect the bodies that line the streets in front of our homes every morning and that we find nobody dares touch or remove." It was "simply unbearable" to face them every morning on the way to school.
Medical services are in dire straits, with many health workers fleeing the country after the deaths or abductions of colleagues. At Baghdad's al-Kindi hospital only 40 of the 208 surgeons who used to work there are now still on duty.
I'm posting the Red Cross story from the Guardian because we can't seem to get any of the US MSM to run these types of stories and we should be demanding change from them as well as the leadership of this country.
Ian Black,
Middle East editor
Thursday April 12, 2007
The Guardian
Iraqi civilians are experiencing "immense suffering" because of a "disastrous" security situation, deepening poverty and a worsening humanitarian crisis, according to a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The ICRC also sees no sign that the American-led security "surge" in Baghdad is bringing relief to the capital, while hospitals struggle to cope with mass casualties as malnutrition as well as power and water shortages become more frequent across the country.
"The suffering Iraqi men, women and children are enduring today is unbearable and unacceptable," Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of operations for the organisation, said at the group's Geneva headquarters.
The report, Civilians without Protection, provides a grim snapshot of the situation in Iraq but will carry special weight thanks to the ICRC's reputation as the scrupulously neutral "silent service" of international humanitarian work. It maintains a presence in Baghdad despite the bombing of its offices in 2003, and works closely with the Iraqi Red Crescent.
The report says that more than 100,000 families have been forced to leave their homes in the past year because of the shootings, bombings, abductions, murders and military operations.
"Every day dozens of people are killed and many more wounded," it says. "The plight of Iraqi civilians is a daily reminder of the fact that there has long been a failure to respect their lives and dignity."
Saad, a humanitarian worker, is quoted as recalling the scene after a bomb blast: "I saw a four-year-old boy sitting beside his mother's body, which had been decapitated by the explosion. He was talking to her, asking her what had happened."
The report quotes a woman as saying: "If there's anything anybody could do that would really help us, it would be to help collect the bodies that line the streets in front of our homes every morning and that we find nobody dares touch or remove." It was "simply unbearable" to face them every morning on the way to school.
Medical services are in dire straits, with many health workers fleeing the country after the deaths or abductions of colleagues. At Baghdad's al-Kindi hospital only 40 of the 208 surgeons who used to work there are now still on duty.
US compensation payments to Iraqi civilians made public
How much value does the US Government assign to Iraqi civilians killed because of our deliberate actions in their country? According to the article posted today in the Guardian as well as the recently release report on the ACLU website, those killed at the hands of Americans are worth $7500.
According the the released report, "an Iraqi civilian said US forces opened fire with more than 100 rounds on his sleeping family, killing his mother, father and brother. Such was the firepower that 32 of the family's sheep were also killed. The army acknowledged responsibility and made two payments: a compensation payment of $11,200 and a $2,500 condolence payment."
Obviously among it's countless failings they also find it hard to say their sorry in a very meaningful way. It is beyond time we bring our soldiers home. The lives of Iraqi civilians depend on it.
According the the released report, "an Iraqi civilian said US forces opened fire with more than 100 rounds on his sleeping family, killing his mother, father and brother. Such was the firepower that 32 of the family's sheep were also killed. The army acknowledged responsibility and made two payments: a compensation payment of $11,200 and a $2,500 condolence payment."
Obviously among it's countless failings they also find it hard to say their sorry in a very meaningful way. It is beyond time we bring our soldiers home. The lives of Iraqi civilians depend on it.
Monday, April 09, 2007
The Gamble of Domestic Violence
Last week a woman was murdered at her work place, The University of Washington, by a man that had been stalking her for months. She did everything she was suppose to do to protect herself. Of course the restraining order is such a silly piece of paper as most police precincts in Washington state do little to enforce these orders. She notified her workplace of the problem, officials at the University of Washington were even aware of multiple threats made against her by this man and yet they turned a blind eye and never reported the threats to the police. Instead, they all stood stunned the day they found her and her stalker dead in one of the buildings on campus with much handwringing of how could this have happened.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. This state has a terrible track record of protecting women from domestic violence. It is so easy to blame the victim saying 'well she just went back'. It turns out that 9 out of 10 women that seek help from domestic violence shelters in Seattle are turned away. With 90% of the women left to figure out how to keep a roof over their heads and protect their children is it any wonder they stay put? Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the one you know
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/310640_focusdv.html
By MARCIA HELME guest columnist to the Seattle PI, published Monday, April 9, 2006
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. This state has a terrible track record of protecting women from domestic violence. It is so easy to blame the victim saying 'well she just went back'. It turns out that 9 out of 10 women that seek help from domestic violence shelters in Seattle are turned away. With 90% of the women left to figure out how to keep a roof over their heads and protect their children is it any wonder they stay put? Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the one you know
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/310640_focusdv.html
By MARCIA HELME guest columnist to the Seattle PI, published Monday, April 9, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)