Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "Tina Fey: America's Sour-Heart." Grabbing herself, Tina Fey explains, "Even when I push my breasts up and out like this no one watches. I lost 200,000 more viewers last week. That's 1.2 million who've fled after seeing this season. NBC says I'm being beat in the ratings by the Emergency Broadcasting System. I am America's Sour-Heart. I am."

The overexposed Fey was the topic for a planned three-part series. It started with
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Bitchy Tina Fey", it continued with Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Ghosts of Network Bombs Past and Present" and this is supposed to be the wrap-up; however, Isaiah is aware of how popular the other two installments have been and there may be a fourth at some point in the near future.


the world today just nuts
comic
bitchy tina fey
tina fey
tina fey americas sour-heart
ghosts of network bombs past and present
the common ills

In today's New York Times, Campbell Robertson and Katherine Zoepf offer up "Iraq Needs Security Pact For Order, Officials Say" and it's really sad that a tree died for this nonsense. The agreement is not needed "for order" or any other purpose. The paper damn well knows a UN mandate can pass the Security Council (Russia's publicly stated it would not veto a proposal). An extension of the UN mandate (set to expire December 31st) could go through much easier than the treaty the White House and its puppet goverment are currently attempting to push through.

A UN extension could go through easily because Nouri al-Maliki's already ignored Parliament's role in that twice now. Twice he's renewed it over Parliament's objection. Parliament is the stumbling bloc for the treaty currently and going after a mandate (of six months or one year) knocks them out of the picture. The mandate has always been the easiest avenue to pursue and the paper damn well knows that. Why they think they can get away with LYING to their readers probably goes to how Michael Gordon remains with the paper even though no reader trusts Gordo.

A UN mandate could be presented, voted on and concluded in one-day. Instead, the White House has publicly been working on this treaty since November 2007. Who's wasting time?

The reporters include this lie: "the security officials on Saturday reiterated that, under the terms of the agreement, all American troops would leave the country by the end of 2011."

Lie!

First off, the US is closing their embassy in Iraq?

I hadn't heard that from friends at the State Dept, in fact, I've heard about how they're planning new drives in an attempt to actually fully staff the US Embassy in Baghdad.

If the embassy remains open then US troops remain on the ground in Iraq. That's reality and lying doesn't change that fact.

They need to stop lying and they need to stop real soon.

Second, the treaty is a one year agreement that either side can break for calendar year 2010 or 2011. In addition, if they extend it to 2010 or 2011, they can modify the terms. There is nothing in writing regarding 2011 that is enforceable. Quit trying to PIMP it off what it could do and focus on what the hell it does do. That would be reporting and it's so damn difficult for the New York Times to ever report. They're like a lying studio head promising "real profit" but you read the contract and they're offering you a slice of the net, not the gross. And they're getting away with it because there is so damn little attention to Iraq and forget your so-called 'independent' media in the US. Pru, however, notes Simon Assaf's "Iraq deal does not end the war" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):

It is being hailed as an honourable end to a disreputable war, the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Iraqi cabinet last weekend sets out a timetable for the withdrawal of US combat troops from cities by June 2009, and the whole country by December 2011.
But the deal, the full text of which is yet to be published, will not end the occupation.
By signing the accord the Iraqi government is agreeing to a ten-year mandate for US troops to "guarantee the security of Iraq" against war, coup, rebellion or revolution.
The US will have the right to maintain 50 military bases, store military equipment, control Iraqi airspace, sail warships in its waters and continue its "supervision" of the interior and defence ministries. The military will also have the right to seize any Iraqi "working against US interests". The US has made small concessions over the prosecution of US soliders or citizens who break Iraqi law while not on operation duty -- but this can only be done in agreement with a US military panel.
The deadline for the withdrawal of troops can also be changed if the US or Iraqi government feels that the "situation on the ground" has changed.
Opposition to the agreement threatened to sink the deal. But after threats against the country, which included withdrawal of $50 billion in aid and the sequestration of its assets held in US banks, the Iraqi government caved in.
The powerful Shia religious establishment, headed by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, withdrew its opposition to the pact. All Iraqi parties that are allied to the occupation have also dropped their objections.
Britain hopes for a similar agreement guaranteeing its role in the south of the country.
The only voices of dissent to the accords are those of rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his supporters. Sadr has denounced the accords and called a protest on Friday of this week.
Far from ending the occupation, the Status of Forces Agreement would leave the US in almost total control of the country, and guarantee the future of the occupation.
The following should be read alongside this article: » Obama's new strategy as the US faces defeat in Afghanistan
» email article » comment on article » printable version
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.

The US has over thirty-times the amount of service members stationed in Iraq as does the UK; however, the UK press can pay more attention to Iraq than can the US? That is how it appears and file it under why the war drags on . . .


They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4,201. And tonight? 4204 is ICCC's count. Just Foreign Policy's counter estimates the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war to be 1,288,426 up from 1,284,105.

Reuters notes that today's violence included, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left six people injured, two more Baghdad bombings that left eight injured, a Mosul car bombing that injured seven people and two police officers wounded in a drive-by shooting outside Tirkrit.
Saturday's reported violence included the discovery of a mass grave in Iskandariya (10 corpses).

The puppet spoke to the press today. Reuters reports he said his country would not ask for an extension of the United Nations mandate. Really? Call his bluff. (His and the White House's bluff.)

The only thing keeping the puppet in power are US forces on the ground in Iraq and, once upon a time, Joe Biden was damn clear about the fact that it was not in the US' interest to be entering into agreements with al-Maliki or shoring up this puppet government.

al-Maliki's a puppet, he'll do whatever masters tell him to as long as he's allowed to continue to slice off his cut on every US dollar coming into the country and as long as he can hide behind US troops and pretend he is a legitimate leader (as opposed to the third choice of the White House and a grave disappointment since they installed him).We were told (by the same lying press) that Barack was the change ticket. We're not seeing any change. Anyone paying attention to Iraq has yet to see the president-elect step up and insist upon anything he said he would do regarding Iraq. That includes his 16-month withdrawal 'pledge' and it includes his insisting that the treaty must have Congressional approval.

AP reported that the Parliament vote on the treaty, scheduled for Monday, has been pushed back to Wednesday and they note:

Wednesday will likely be the last parliamentary session before the 275-seat legislature goes into recess for the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha, which falls in the first week of December. Some lawmakers will then travel to Saudi Arabia for the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, denying the house a quorum.

The delay provides additional time for those interested to heed this from the American Freedom Campaign:

Does this sound right to you? Next week, the Iraqi Parliament is expected to vote on whether to approve an agreement setting the terms of the ongoing military relationship between the United States and Iraq. So far, so good. A legislative body, representing the people of a nation, shall determine the extent to which that nation's future will be intertwined with that of another. Of course, one would expect that the United States Congress would be given the same opportunity. That, however, is not the case. Or at least it is not what the Bush administration is allowing to happen. Shockingly, the Bush administration is not even letting Congress read the full agreement before it is signed!
We need you to send a message immediately to U.S. House and Senate leaders, urging them to demand the constitutional input and approval to which they are entitled.
The administration has asserted that the agreement between the U.S. and Iraq is merely a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and therefore does not require congressional approval. Yet the agreement goes far beyond the traditional limits of a SOFA, which typically set the terms for bringing materials and equipment into a nation and outline the legal procedures that will apply to members of the military who are accused of crimes. Believe it or not, the current agreement contains terms that will actually give Iraq a measure of control over U.S. forces. No foreign nation or international entity has ever been given the authority to direct U.S. forces without prior congressional approval - either through a majority vote of both chambers or a two-thirds vote in the Senate in the case of treaties.
If this agreement goes into effect without congressional approval, it will establish a precedent under which future presidents can exercise broad unilateral control over the U.S. military -- and even give foreign nations control over our troops. Congress must take immediate action. Unfortunately, they are about to adjourn for at least a couple of weeks. But it is not too late for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a statement, signaling their strong belief that Congress will not be bound by and need not fund an agreement that has not been approved by Congress.
Please send an E-mail encouraging such action to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid immediately by clicking [here]
This is truly a dire situation and we hope that you will join us in calling for action. Thank you. Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign
Action Fund

New content at Third:

Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: What do you mean 'we'?
TV: Tina Fey to the lido deck, Tina Fey to . . .
10 Cover Classics
Bedtime stories for the Cult of Barack
Joan Didion on the Cult of the Christ-child
Yes, let's stop kidding ourselves (Ava and C.I.)
Music Access
Ike Skelton reminds Death Of Free TV Is Coming
The War Drags On
Highlights

Isaiah's latest goes up after this.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
the new york times
katherine zoepf
simon assaf
the socialist worker
the world today just nuts
the third estate sunday review

Earlier this week, I went to a sort of news conference at the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. For those back in the San Joaquin Valley, it looks a little like a fortified UC Merced with big, government buildings surrounded by blast walls and armed guards. (No photos allowed.)
Two senior U.S. government officials gave their take on the security pact approved by Iraq's Cabinet and setting a course for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by Dec. 31, 2011. A second, related agreement defines Iraqi and American interactions on a slate of issues, such as trade, technology and health care. It's up to Iraq's parliament to decide whether to accept it.
One of the officials said Americans would have no legal justification to be in the country past that date, meaning the pact would have to be renegotiated for foreign soldiers and contractors to stay.
"Its validity ends unless there is an extension," one of the officials said.

The above is from Adam Ashton's "Plans in Iraq call for flexibility" (The Modesto Bee) and, repeating, it is a one year contract with two pick-up options. But it's interesting that US officials declare to the press that the "validity" of the treaty "ends unless there is an extension" which, anyone with a slight grasp of the language grasps is not "And all the troops came home in 2011 and they all lived happily ever after." But we hear about that in The Modesto Bee and not via McClatchy (whom Ashton's been filing for).

The treaty is not and has never been about withdrawal. If it were, there would not be an effort to push the Congress to demand transparency. If the treaty actually dealt with withdrawal the US Congress would have to be involved because there would be no way for the treaty to be passed off as anything other than a treaty -- one requiring Congressional approval.

The treaty maintains the US presence in Iraq. That is why it is sought, that is why it was created. The UN mandate expires Dec. 31st. US troops cannot remain in Iraq without some legal framework (either a new agreement or a renewal of the mandate). Somehow the press has decided to sell the treaty as a promising withdrawal when it does no such thing. It outlines what will happen for one year -- 2009. After 2009, either party can cancel. That's not a three year treaty. It's a one year treaty with the option to exercise a renewal twice. Or the option not to exercise that renewal.

And when the US officials are explaining what could happen next and it involves "an extension," you'd think the press would front page that with banner headlines. But they're far too busy waving pom-poms in the air to do the jobs they were allegedly trained in.


The following community sites have updated since Friday morning:

Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty's Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
Ruth's Ruth's Report;
Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ;
and Stan's Oh Boy It Never Ends

For those who read the print copy of the New York Times, turn to C2 where the real news is. Yeah, 200,000 lost. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
adam ashton
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

Thousands of followers of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr demonstrated Friday against an agreement that would extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq, shouting "America out!" and burning an effigy of President Bush.
The rally was held in Baghdad's Firdaus Square, where U.S. soldiers toppled a statue of President Saddam Hussein in an iconic moment of the 2003 invasion. Friday's demonstration followed two days of boisterous protests by Sadr's loyalists in parliament, which is scheduled to vote next week on the agreement.
The Sadrists do not appear to have the strength to derail the bilateral accord, which would allow American troops to stay in Iraq for three more years. The group has only 30 seats in the 275-seat parliament. Friday's protest drew thousands of people but was smaller than a massive demonstration held by Sadr loyalists in the same central Baghdad plaza in 2005.

The above is from Mary Beth Sheridan's "Sadr Followers Rally Against U.S. Accord" (Washington Post) and Stephen Farrell's "Protests in Baghdad on U.S. Pact" covers it in the New York Times:

In Firdos Square, protesters sat in rows of 50 stretching back more than half a mile. They filled Sadoun Street, beside the Palestine Hotel and in front of the colonnaded traffic circle where five years ago American troops pulled down the dictator’s statue in scenes televised around the world.
While the rally was billed as a cross-community effort, to be attended by Shiite and Sunni clerics, the vast majority of those in attendance were Sadrists. Many had come from Mr. Sadr’s stronghold of Sadr City, and the chants the crowd took up were "Moktada, Moktada," "No, no to America," and "No, no to the agreement."
Sadrist officials said they opposed the security agreement because they did not believe assurances that the Americans would ever leave. They depicted the pact as a successor to colonial-era treaties with Western powers in the last century that, they said, had "sold the Arab and the Muslim lands into occupation."

A few people are noting Ralph Nader in the e-mails (some noting are members). It will not go up here. I'm not interested. It has nothing to do with Ralph's formula of "Clinton = Evil." It has everthing to do with shoddy work and shoddier work being cited. Jeremy Scahill? The punk ass who couldn't call out Samantha Power because she was feeing him things for his writing? Couldn't call out his own personal Deep Throat? He made a fool out of himself and everyone paying attention was laughing their ass off at him. That was then. The only rescue his failed name today is to come out hitting hard. And the piece of his Ralph cites is more hideous garbage. He probably he thinks he's brave for 'calling out' Sarah Sewall -- by hiding behind Tom Hayden. He can't call her out himself because he's too much of a punk ass coward (and because Sammy Power and Sarah Sewar are tight-tight-tight).

We're not highlighting garbage. Ralph citing that bad, bad article makes his own piece garbage. When Jeremy Scahill decides he's tired of cowering in appeasement, he may have something worth saying. He hasn't hit his rock bottom yet and he can muddle through in denial on his own.
It's past time that Sarah Sewar was loudly called out. The War Hawk pushed the illegal war and continues to push it. She publicly stated at the end of last year that the Iraq War couldn't be seen as a failure because it would hurt other wars. She oversaw the counter-insurgency manual. She's a bloody War Hawk and until people can call her out, they're nothing but cowards and appeasers. This crap that's being offered by our 'brave' left wouldn't have cut if John McCain had won the election and it certainly doesn't cut it under the faux 'anti-war' Barack. [For the stupid who still don't get it, Liar Barack is far more dangerous than John McCain because with McCain in the White House the left would have hit the ground running. Instead, too many of us are stuck in a 'holding pattern' afraid to criticize and a huge portion intends to get through four years without launching any serious criticism. And, as we've pointed out for nearly two years now, Barack means AFRICOM. What Bully Boy couldn't get, Barack will.]

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

the washington post
mary beth sheridan
the new york times
stephen farrelll

Jessie is a friend,
Yeah I know hes been a good friend of mine
But lately somethings changed
It ain't hard to define
Jessies got himself a girl
And I want to make her mine . . .

Some of you will already recognize the Rick Springfield written and performed number one hit "Jessie's Girl." It pertains to this entry. We're talking about the treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement that the White House wishes to put in place with their client state regime in Baghdad. It is a treaty, it is not a SOFA.

People in the press are going goo-goo-gaa-gaa like overgrown infants (some actually are overgrown infants) over how there will be withdrawal in 2011! The contract is not about 2011. As we pointed out Sunday and Monday, the contract is about 2009. December 31st of this year, the UN mandate authorizing the occupation ends. It is either renewed or else there needs to be some form of agreement worked out by individual countries with the puppet government in Baghdad.

The treaty exists to extend the occupation of Iraq. It does not exist for some noble, high-minded reason. But doesn't the press pretend otherwise? The same way they did when they sold the illegal war and pretended it was about something high-minded, about helping the Iraqi people or about WMDs or something really important!

It wasn't and neither is the treaty. Idiots in the press have pimped it hard -- far too many editorial boards to name in full (but best in show goes for the dog the Los Angeles Times offered up). Some are idiots, some are lying.

The treaty only officially runs one year. It is not a three year treaty unless both sides decide it will be. (It actually could be forced/played as a three-year treaty on Barack's administration by the puppet government but I don't think they have that skill or talent. I could be wrong and often am. But the current administration shares my belief or else they wouldn't keep writing al-Maliki's speeches for him, now would they?)

Rick Springfield. Yes, there is a way to relate the two. The US-Iraq treaty is a one year treaty with two pick-up options. They may or may not be picked up. The treaty is for 2009.

Rick Springfield was a recording artist back in the seventies. Many years later, he recorded what would become Working Class Dog (the highly talented Keith Olson worked on that project). Before it was released, he ended up on General Hospital playing Dr. Noah Drake. While playing the character, "Jessie's Girl" came out and was a huge hit. "I've Done Everything For You" would follow. (The best vocal was "Carried Away" for any Springfield fans out there.) As the follow up was being worked on, a friend at RCA was telling me the big rollout they had planned, the tour, the promotion and I asked, "Well how's he going to get time off for that?" He signed a one-year contract.

Well, yeah, but it's not that simple and I explained it. Did it register? Apparently not. Months later, the same friend's calling me as the tour dates are getting closer and I again ask what about the contract fpr GH? It's not an issue, I'm told. It's not an issue and TV Guide just did an article on Rick and they repeated he was leaving the show so it's true.

Excuse the ___ out of me? Since when does anyone in the entertainment industry ever believe that the reporters do their own work? TV Guide printed what RCA and Springfield told them. They certainly didn't talk to ABC. But fine, whatever, you can't tell some people anything.

But, uh-oh, Rick Springfield's gearing up to leave the daytime drama when he's informed (by ABC) he's not leaving.

He had a one-year contract, yes. With an option for a renewal. And Rick wrongly thought the option was his option. No, it doesn't work that way and it never did. ABC would never sign any actor and give them an option that would allow the actor to say "I think I will do another year." They'd never be able to let go half the losers they've hired. The option was on ABC's side, ABC could exercise it or not. And the network would do so if the performer was playing a popular character. Noah was a popular character.

Rick Springfield did not end up leaving General Hospital that year. ABC exercised the option and he continued to work on the series. He had to bust his ass on the weekends (which often started Thursday night) to try to the scheduled tour as best as possible (many dates were rescheduled since he couldn't perform mid-week). It was a headache for him, it was a headache for RCA.

Rick singed a one-year contract. It had an option. ABC picked up the option.

The treaty being passed off as a SOFA is a one-year contract with two pick-up options. If neither side elects to drop out in 2010 ro 2011, options could turn it into a three year contract. But it's really just a one-year contract. So all this talk of what happens in 2011? It's nonsense.
Imagine Springfield had flopped as Noah and Working Class Dog hadn't taken off. If he'd gone around thinking he had a two-year contract for General Hospital, he would have been very shocked if the soap had dropped him when the one-year contract ran out.

The treaty masquerading as a SOFA is a one-year contract. 2010 and 2011 are options. They are not set in stone. When either party can cancel out -- on one year's notice -- you can't point to what MIGHT happen in 2011 as guaranteed by a contract. That's insanity. The contract, if approved, only covers 2009. That's because the one-year notice doesn't allow either party's cancellation to make it end in 2009. (Example: If Barack wanted to cancel it the day he was sworn in as president, January 20, 2009, and immediately gave notice, the contract would still run until January 20, 2010.) Focusing on what might happen if both parties decide to pick up the option for 2010 and 2011 isn't focusing on what the contract, if approved, promises.

The press is counting the chickens before they're hatched and trying to sell the treaty to the American public on things that are not guaranteed.

The same WMD wasn't guaranteed but the illegal war was sold on them. The press needs to deal with the concrete. The concrete of the treaty is, if passed, 2009 is the only year that is a given and even then there are differences between the Arabic version and the White House version (which is probably why the White House refuses to release it to the American people).

Want to make a difference? Kendrick notes this from American Freedom Campaign:

Does this sound right to you?
Next week, the Iraqi Parliament is expected to vote on whether to approve an agreement setting the terms of the ongoing military relationship between the United States and Iraq. So far, so good. A legislative body, representing the people of a nation, shall determine the extent to which that nation's future will be intertwined with that of another.
Of course, one would expect that the United States Congress would be given the same opportunity. That, however, is not the case. Or at least it is not what the Bush administration is allowing to happen. Shockingly, the Bush administration is not even letting Congress read the full agreement before it is signed!
We need you to send a message immediately to U.S. House and Senate leaders, urging them to demand the constitutional input and approval to which they are entitled.
The administration has asserted that the agreement between the U.S. and Iraq is merely a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and therefore does not require congressional approval. Yet the agreement goes far beyond the traditional limits of a SOFA, which typically set the terms for bringing materials and equipment into a nation and outline the legal procedures that will apply to members of the military who are accused of crimes.
Believe it or not, the current agreement contains terms that will actually give Iraq a measure of control over U.S. forces. No foreign nation or international entity has ever been given the authority to direct U.S. forces without prior congressional approval - either through a majority vote of both chambers or a two-thirds vote in the Senate in the case of treaties.
If this agreement goes into effect without congressional approval, it will establish a precedent under which future presidents can exercise broad unilateral control over the U.S. military - and even give foreign nations control over our troops.
Congress must take immediate action. Unfortunately, they are about to adjourn for at least a couple of weeks. But it is not too late for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a statement, signaling their strong belief that Congress will not be bound by and need not fund an agreement that has not been approved by Congress.
Please send an E-mail encouraging such action to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid immediately by clicking on the following link:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26268
This is truly a dire situation and we hope that you will join us in calling for action.
Thank you.
Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

Rebecca's noted this and also commented so be sure to check out her post. And just to be clear, this entry is not to mak fun of Rick Springfield. I barely knew him but he was a nice person. He also was talented and if he hadn't worn himself out doing the soap and national tours (and existing on Vitamin B shots), his string of hits might have gone longer. I have no ill will towards Rick and am not including him in this entry to have a ha-ha at him. He had an agent, for example, and the agent's job was to explain to him the contract he signed. He had an attorney (ditto). RCA didn't understand acting contracts and that was their bad (including my friend who should have immediately picked up the phone and called RCA's legal dept which would have grapsed what Rick has signed). And it may have been a two-year contract with an option (for ABC) and not a one-year. That was a long, long time ago and my only involvement is documented above (warning my friend -- who wouldn't listen and just knew everything -- that the ABC contract's option was in the network's favor, not Rick's).

This was the issue we've talked about repeatedly re: the contract. A 'three-year' contract that allows either party to cancel out the second or third year is not a three year contract. It is a one-year contract with two pick-up options.

That was the point in the snapshot today: From American Friends Service Committee's translation of the Arabic version (which, remember, is different than the English version that the White House refuses to publicly release -- and this morning the State Dept's Sean McCormick referred questions of its release to the American people back to the White House, FYI):

Article Thirty
Contract Validity
1 - This agreement is valid for three years unless it is terminated earlier by either parties in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article.
[. . .]
3 - Cancellation of this agreement requires a written notice provided one year in advance.

That third section, does no one understand contract law? What you have is a one-year agreement with two options for renewal (it's automatically renewed if no one cancels). It's a one-year contract. Were a performer to sign it, he or she would be signing a one year contract with two pick-up options. This isn't a three-year contract at all. And since either side can cancel it at any point with only a year's heads up, what it says will happen in 2011 really doesn't matter. All that really matters is what it says for 2009 because that's the only period that both sides are bound to. This isn't some deep, obscure psuedo-science. It's basic contract law. It is a one-year contract covering only 2009. After 2009, it can be renewed for 2010 just by not announcing an intent to depart from the contract and, if it is renewed, it can run through 2011 in the same manner. But this is not a three-year contract.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4197. Tonight? 4201. That's incorrect. The death noted in the snapshot today (announced by MNF) is not included in the tally. So it's actually at least 4202 currently. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,288,426 as the number of Iraqis killed isnce the start of the illegal war, up from 1,284,105.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
rick springfield
american freedom campaign
sex and politics and screeds and attitude

Need to laugh at the pathetic? Check out Paul Richter's "Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet" in this morning's Los Angeles Times. Laugh at the pathetic and stupid.

I like Iraq Veterans Against the War but an IVAW contingent already embarrassed themselves publicly in Denver. They staged a protest at the Democratic Party convention. They were getting press attention inside the convention because -- as the press gas bagged -- wasn't Barack the alleged 'anti-war' candidate and here was IVAW protesting him. Phones were buzzing, it was going to be the big story. And Team Obama was being asked to comment. So Team Obama sent Tall Tales from Texas out to the protest to make a lot of meaningless remarks that sounded like promises but were nothing more than standard 'rap session' b.s. ("I know where you're coming from," said Barnes.) They bought into that crap hook, line and sinker. And gave interviews where they were excited about Barack (the War Hawk!) and he was going to do this or that and maybe they'd be onstage tonight during his big speech and . . . . It was all so thrilling people might pee their pants!

Reality check, they were punked and everyone knew it right away (including the press -- not always notorious for grasping reality immediately) except IVAW.

They stopped their protest and there was no story (certainly nothing that would embarrass Barack). Barack turned them into props for the 2008 election.

IVAW is an actual group against the illegal war. (If they were also as strongly against the Afghanistan War then they never would have been punked by Barack because his position on Afghanistan cannot be justified.) Win Without War is not an anti-war group. It is not a peace group. It's a p.r. group for electing Democrats. Tom Hayden has called them out before (usually gingerly but not always). So we're not even interested in their garbage. "Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy" is quoted and I've nothing to say of Sam but IPA is not a group against the war. It's Norman Solomon's group and he's made very clear that ending the illegal war takes the back seat to electing Democrats. IPA does not and has not organize marches or do anything. It's a think-tank/p.r. group. We'll note this section:

Kevin Martin, executive director of the group Peace Action, said that although Obama had campaigned as an agent of change, the president-elect is "a fairly centrist guy" who appears to be choosing from the Democratic foreign policy establishment -- "and nobody from outside it."
"So, in the short term, we're going to be disappointed," he said. "They may turn out to be all pro-war, or at least people who were pro-war in the beginning."
Martin said that his group was concerned about Gates and Clinton as well as Rahm Emanuel, Obama's choice for White House chief of staff. He also said his group was trying to mobilize its grass-roots supporters with e-mail alerts, but recognized that it must approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama's historic victory.

Oh listen to the big babies, all of them in the article. Whine, whine, whine. Can someone change their diapers? How very cute that they all are so willing to be used to bash the woman -- the only woman thus far -- who might be in the cabinet. Hillary Clinton was the incoming senator from New York. If their words -- any of their words -- meant a damn thing, they might be calling out Tom Daschle who repeatedly failed in his job. He was Senate Majority Leader when the 2002 vote took place and he supported the authorization and he forced and cajoled others into going along with it via threats and intimidation. He was also Senate Majority Leader when the Patriot Act passed and he is the feeble minded, feckless ____ who refused to force a real investigation into 9-11. The Jersey Girls would have to do that and though he did finally help them somewhat with that, he did so as Minority Leader because he waited so damn long he was no longer the Majority Leader (2002 mid-term elections that November meant he lost his Majority Leader status).

These so-called 'anti-war' groups (many of which aren't) better start asking themselves why they repeatedly are used to go after one woman (they were used the same way during the Democratic Party primary)? In the real world, Hillary Clinton was not Senate Majority Leader during the 2002 authorization vote. In the real world, she was responsible for her vote only and couldn't strong arm others into voting for the authorization. Democratic leadership in the Senate in 2002 cannot make the same claim and that certainly includes Tom Daschle but somehow he's a non-issue. It's a non-issue how he ensured the airline industry his wife once oversaw and then lobbied for got a huge bailout (and was not held accountable for grave breaches in policy, procedure and security) as a 'reward' for 9-11. See Mike, Cedric and Wally last night. Tom Daschle is a War Hawk. But by all means, 'peace' activists, play another round of Bash The Bitch. It doesn't accomplish anything (but then, neither do you) but doesn't it make you feel so gosh darn important and welcomed in a society that regularly tears apart women while letting men slide?

Proof's in their silence over Daschle. As for having to "approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama's historic victory," that's due to your own cowardice and situational ethics that prevented you from calling a War Hawk a War Hawk. And it's still evident by Kelly Dougherty (whom I like) stating for the article, "Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning." When did he do that, Kelly? When promising more war in Afghanistan? It takes a lot of blindness and denial for someone heading an organization calling for an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to make such a statement about Barack. Alleged 'anti-war' activist better get over their fears of how to "approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama's historic victory" because Iraqis are dying every day in the never-ending illegal war and your own little soft-cushy-comfort level really doesn't matter. Either you call out War Hawks, or you don't. And either you call them out equally, or you don't.

We've seen the alleged 'peace' movement is perfectly willing to play Bash The Bitch and "Kill Mommy" as they go after Hillary time and time again. They just lack the fortitude to go after anyone else apparently -- and apparently going after men is really scary to 'activists.' Some movement. The man in control of the Senate when the 2002 authorization vote took place, the man who strong-armed borderline senators into going along, is being brought into Barack's cabinet and all the 'peace' activists can do is whine yet again about Hillary. They really do love beating up on women and they're all too damn scared to take on the real criminals or power and that would now be Barack Obama. Keep hiding in the shadows, kiddies. You'll note that actual anti-war groups like World Can't Wait and A.N.S.W.E.R. aren't included in the article. Apparently if you can't be controlled by Jodie's dimes and purse strings, you're not in the movement in the eyes of the Los Angeles Times? Both groups can and have called out Barack. It's not that difficult, it just takes a minimal amount of maturity.

Brandy notes Chris Hedges' "America's Wars of Self-Destruction" (Information Clearing House):

Obama and those around him embrace the folly of the "war on terror." They may want to shift the emphasis of this war to Afghanistan rather than Iraq, but this is a difference in strategy, not policy. By clinging to Iraq and expanding the war in Afghanistan, the poison will continue in deadly doses. These wars of occupation are doomed to failure. We cannot afford them. The rash of home foreclosures, the mounting job losses, the collapse of banks and the financial services industry, the poverty that is ripping apart the working class, our crumbling infrastructure and the killing of hapless Afghans in wedding parties and Iraqis by our iron fragmentation bombs are neatly interwoven. These events form a perfect circle. The costly forms of death we dispense on one side of the globe are hollowing us out from the inside at home.
The "war on terror" is an absurd war against a tactic. It posits the idea of perpetual, or what is now called "generational," war. It has no discernable end. There is no way to define victory. It is, in metaphysical terms, a war against evil, and evil, as any good seminarian can tell you, will always be with us. The most destructive evils, however, are not those that are externalized. The most destructive are those that are internal. These hidden evils, often defined as virtues, are unleashed by our hubris, self-delusion and ignorance. Evil masquerading as good is evil in its deadliest form.
The decline of American empire began long before the current economic meltdown or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It began before the first Gulf War or Ronald Reagan. It began when we shifted, in the words of the historian Charles Maier, from an "empire of production" to an "empire of consumption." By the end of the Vietnam War, when the costs of the war ate away at Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and domestic oil production began its steady, inexorable decline, we saw our country transformed from one that primarily produced to one that primarily consumed. We started borrowing to maintain a lifestyle we could no longer afford. We began to use force, especially in the Middle East, to feed our insatiable demand for cheap oil. The years after World War II, when the United States accounted for one-third of world exports and half of the world’s manufacturing, gave way to huge trade imbalances, outsourced jobs, rusting hulks of abandoned factories, stagnant wages and personal and public debts that most of us cannot repay.
The bill is now due. America's most dangerous enemies are not Islamic radicals, but those who promote the perverted ideology of national security that, as Andrew Bacevich writes, is "our surrogate religion." If we continue to believe that we can expand our wars and go deeper into debt to maintain an unsustainable level of consumption, we will dynamite the foundations of our society.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
the los angeles times
paul richter
chris hedges
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it