Monday, October 03, 2022

Guess who was spying on Aretha Franklin

One of the saddest things this decade was watching some liberals begin celebrating the FBI and the CIA.  Here's a reminder of what you were embracing, from ROLLING STONE:


From 1967 to 2007, the Federal Bureau of Investigation methodically collected information about Aretha Franklin using false phone calls, surveillance, infiltration, and highly-placed sources, according to the documents obtained in September by Rolling Stone.

Franklin’s FBI file — first requested in via the Freedom of Information Act on Aug. 17, 2018 —  is 270 pages long, peppered with phrases like “Black extremists,” “pro-communist,” “hate America,” “radical,” “racial violence,” and “militant Black power” and overflowing with suspicion about the singer, her work, and the other activists and entertainers with whom she she spent time. Some documents are heavily redacted and others indicate that there may be additional materials in the FBI’s possession. Rolling Stone has requested the FBI make available any and all additional records.




Spying on the Queen of Soul.  Aretha was a citizen.  She broke no laws.  But the government followed her and spied on her.  That's disgusting.  And this wasn't just in the sixties, it went on to 2007.  And for all we know, it went on even longer.  Disgusting.

Now let me note this from PEOPLE magazine:




Dave Navarro on Friday announced he will not be attending Jane's Addiction and Smashing Pumpkin's "Spirits On Fire" tour due to his lingering COVID-19 symptoms.

"To all of the Jane's Addiction fans attending the Jane's/ Smashing Pumpkins 'Spirits On Fire' tour, I am sorry to have to say that I will not be attending due to my continued battle with Long Covid that I have been dealing with since last December," he wrote in a statement on Twitter.

"I had hoped for a full recovery by October, but I am still very fatigued and will not be able to join this leg. I am personally gutted as our original bass player has returned, Eric Avery. We wanted to bring you the original lineup, but that will have to wait until I am recovered. While the band is touring, I will be working on some new Jane's material in the studio here in LA."


There's only one Dave.  I wouldn't see Jane's Addiction if he wasn't performing. That said, who's pretending to be Smashing Pumpkins?  Didn't Billy fire all of the original group?  If it were really the band, I might see it.  But Billy and a bunch of pretenders?  Not interested.  I looked it up, his ego will allow two members to come back.  Apparently, he's not going to allow D'Arcy on the stage.  Checked.  She was supposed to be part of this tour.  Then Billy changed his mind.  He lied to the public that this wasn't true but D'Arcy provided the screenshots.  Billy's a liar and an ego maniac.


Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Monday, October 3, 2022.  We're being pushed to the brink of nuclear war, The October Revolution returns in Iraq, and much more.


Starting with Kevin Alexander Gray's column at COUNTERPUNCH:


Reverend Frank Watkins, a tremendous activist and a wonderful human being, died on September 16, one day shy of his 80th birthday.

Frank was one of those people whose names many don’t know but who had a profound impact on our politics. Most prominent as a political strategist and collaborator with the Rev. Jesse Jackson during the latter’s 1980s campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination, Frank was a son, servant, thinker, writer, strategist, mentor, teacher, organizer, commentator, athlete, friend, educational benefactor to countless folks who needed help‑ and a teetotaler.

I could list hundreds of famous and not so famous people and those just trying to get to another day that he gave support, advice and intellectual grounding to. But I’d still leave scores out.

Frank had a quiet, deliberate, thoughtful, unassuming manner. He never came across as a know-it-all or spoke down to people. When someone asked him a question that they were uncertain about the answer or felt they needed validation, Frank would often respond, “Well, you don’t need me to answer that question, you know the answer.” Or, “You should think that through.”

He was an avid Chicago Bulls fan and lifelong St. Louis Cardinals fan. If you visited his DC apartment, you were greeted by a life-sized cutout of Michael Jordan and a basketball signed by many players from the 1991 championship team. One of his favorite moments was getting his mom a Cardinals jersey with her name and the number 100 for her 100th birthday. He was disappointed that he couldn’t get Willard Scott to announce her 100th birthday on his Smucker’s Jam milestone birthday segment on the Today Show.

[. . .]

Before his death, Frank set up a fund to bolster a public education and lobby campaign to expand voter rights and push for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote, issues on which he had been working tirelessly.

Those wishing to advance these goals may send a donation to: The Trust of Frank E. Watkins,
P.O. Box 70925,
Washington, DC 20024.


We started with Kevin because if truth matters to you, Kevin matters to you.  The 2008 election was one where truth went out the window repeatedly.  Kevin was one of the few who never lost his core values or betrayed his beliefs.  So many others cannot say the same.


And truth matters.   As the editorial board of the WSWS observes:


Not since October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, has the world come so close to nuclear war as today. 

It is not necessary to glorify the Stalinist leader Nikita Khrushchev, let alone the imperialist president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, to note that there is a profound difference between the reaction to that crisis and the one gripping the world today.

In a recently published book on the Cuban Missile Crisis, Nuclear Folly, historian Serhii Plokhy wrote that, despite enormous miscalculations and misjudgments on both sides, “The crisis did not develop into a shooting war because Kennedy and Khrushchev both feared nuclear weapons and dreaded the very idea of their use.”

Plokhy adds that Kennedy and Khrushchev “did not step into the traps so masterfully created by themselves because they did not believe they could win a nuclear war, nor were they prepared to pay a price for such a victory. It is hard to imagine what the outcome of the Cuban crisis might have been if the two leaders had a more cavalier attitude toward the use of nuclear arms.”

In the midst of a new global nuclear crisis, the United States/NATO and Russia seem to be proceeding in a manner aimed at demonstrating what this outcome would be.

Having launched the invasion of Ukraine with the naïve and desperate assumption that he could compel his Western “partners” to negotiate, Russian President Vladimir Putin confronts the staggering failure of his bankrupt and reactionary strategy in Ukraine. The Russian military has suffered a series of defeats in recent weeks, including the debacle in Kharkiv followed by further advances of the Ukrainian military into territory that Russia now claims as its own.

Russia was goaded by the United States into a war for which it was unprepared, underestimating the agenda of the United States and NATO. Facing internal crisis and recriminations within the Russian oligarchy, the Putin regime is responding with unmistakable threats to use nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, the United States and NATO, determined to press their advantage in pursuit of their geopolitical objectives, are making statements that they will not be “deterred” by the threat of nuclear war. 

In American newspapers and on television programs, there is open discussion about the possibility of nuclear war. The New York Times, under the headline, “Putin’s threats stir growing alarm in Washington,” wrote on Sunday: “Officials in Washington are gaming out scenarios should President Vladimir V. Putin decide to use a tactical nuclear weapon to make up for the failings of Russian troops in Ukraine… A range of officials suggested that if Russia detonated a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukrainian soil, the options included … some kind of military response.”

Asked by ABC’s “Face the Nation” what the United States would do if Russia used a nuclear weapon, former CIA Director David Petraeus replied, “We would respond by leading a NATO, a collective effort, that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.”

The general seems to believe that the United States and NATO can wipe out Russian military forces, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, without retaliation. Would anyone believe that such an action would not put the populations of London, Berlin, Paris, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago in danger of nuclear annihilation? 


THE GLOBAL TIMES notes:

Nuclear weapons are the most lethal weapons. If an incontrollable nuclear war breaks out, it will bring human society into the abyss of destruction. A recently released study shows that a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would lead to deaths of more than 5 billion people worldwide. 

Now, a dangerous signal is emerging: Whether or not the parties are venting anger or talking big, the frequency of discussions on nuclear weapons is increasing. But nuclear weapons are by no means a grenade that can be tied up on the waist, and taken out to show off at one's whim to scare people. The spiral escalation of war is often unpredictable. On the issue of nuclear war, there is no pill for regret.

Therefore, it is imperative for relevant parties to cool down the situation as soon as possible and create conditions for promoting peace talks. It should be noted that the current "nuclear tension" stems from a strong sense of insecurity in geopolitical games. An important reason is that the possibility of conflict between major powers is on the rise, and global strategic stability is being swayed rapidly. And a simple truth is that the more peaceful and stable the environment is, the thicker the dust will be on nuclear weapons. But once the world is caught in the vicious circle of "seeking greater security - becoming less secure - wishing more for absolute security," nuclear weapons will be likely taken out and polished.


INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE offers Finian Cunnigham's interview of Helen Caldicott:


Helen Caldicott: Yes, we have never been closer to nuclear annihilation now since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. I knew Robert McNamara who was President Kennedy’s secretary of defense and was in the Oval Office at the time of the crisis, and he later said to me, “Helen, we came so close, to within three minutes of nuclear war.”

Question: What factors do you see as increasing the risk of a world war and nuclear conflagration?

Helen Caldicott: Well, for the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, the two nuclear powers, each armed with thousands of nuclear weapons, many on hair-trigger alert, are opposing each other on the battle field, and as the United States has refused to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin who asked that the Ukraine not join NATO and for the U.S. to remove the missiles placed in the NATO countries, targeted on Russia, Putin has his back to the wall, and at some point, as he has suggested, could use a small tactical nuclear bomb which would vaporize and burn hundreds and thousands of people with many more dying of acute radiation illness, and that action could well trigger a nuclear response from the U.S., which could then escalate into full-scale nuclear war.

However, I will add here that Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine and the dreadful killing that is going on makes my heart sick.

Question: Do you view the United States as having an onerous responsibility for undermining world peace given that it is the U.S. that has primarily abandoned key arms-control treaties, such as the ABM, INF, and Open Skies Treaty?

Helen Caldicott: Yes, I do. I do not understand their motivation except that if one examines the neocons who have always hated Russia even though it is now a capitalist country, including Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Antony Blinken and others whom Biden has elevated to his cabinet, we are in serious trouble. These people are well funded by the ever-powerful military-industrial complex which profits enormously from all wars including of course the Ukraine.

Question: More than 30 years after the supposed end of the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union – and high promises back then of historic “peace dividends” – the world seems to be polarizing under the U.S.-led NATO military bloc. What accounts for this seeming anachronism and lack of global peace dividend?

Helen Caldicott: Well, the end of the Cold War did not suit the American military-industrial complex at all, so Norman Augustine, head of Lockheed Martin, set off on a crusade to persuade the newly liberated countries to join NATO and to become “democracies”, and in so doing they each had to spend millions of dollars equipping themselves with weapons, purchased of course from Lockheed Martin et al. So the peace dividend disappeared. And NATO, which is actually the US, has surrounded the southern border of Russia with missiles targeting Russia. No wonder Putin is deeply concerned. Guess what the U.S. would do if the Warsaw Pact had set up a similar situation on its northern border in Canada. It probably would blow up the world as it came close to doing during the Cuban missile crisis.

Question: U.S. President Joe Biden recently made his first trip to the Asia-Pacific region, or what Washington now refers to as “Indo-Pacific”. Are you reassured by Biden’s declaration of the U.S. defending the “rules-based order”?

Helen Caldicott: I don’t even know what the so-called rules-based order is. Obviously, something dreamt up by the US. Somehow America thinks in its naivety, stupidity and arrogance that it needs to control the world militarily. It now has over 800 military bases in 80 countries and has metastasized like cancer throughout the world


At ANTIWAR.COM, Walt Zlotow notes some truths:

First, the US, NATO and Ukraine have been provoking this war for 14 years, beginning with the 2008 pledge to expand NATO into Ukraine up to Russia’s borders. That provocation dramatically expanded in 2014 when the US supported the coup that toppled democratically elected, Russian leaning Ukraine president Victor Yanukovych, setting off a civil war resulting in secession by Russian speaking Ukrainians in Ukraine’s Donbas region.

Second, DePetris also ignores how the West is choosing to prolong the war funneling over $60 billion in weaponry to Ukraine rather than promote negotiations to end it. Even worse is his suppression of US and UK emissaries’ direct demands to Ukraine president Zelensky to abort the potential peace agreement in the war’s first month.


Here's another truth: There's always money for war.  The United States is suffering, the people are suffering and instead of focusing resources here at home, Joe Biden keeps sending billions to Ukraine.  Patrick Martin (WSWS) reports, "The Democratic-controlled Congress completed voting on a bill to authorize federal spending through December 16 and President Joe Biden signed it into law. The measure provides an additional $12.3 billion for the war against Russia in Ukraine, but nothing for public health measures against an impending fall and winter surge of the coronavirus pandemic." We're getting close to 80 billion US tax dollars sent to Ukraine since February.  It's outrageous.




The government of the United States is great at starting wars, it just doesn't seem to know how to put an end to a war.  Look at Iraq.

Iraq, there, as Margaret Griffis (ANTIWAR.COM) notes:

During September at least 179 people were killed, and two bodies were found in an old mass grave. Another 294 people were wounded. At least 168 were killed, and 788 more were wounded across the country during August; much of that violence was due to protests.

Militant-related violence left at least 19 civilians, seven security personnel, and 62 militants dead. Another 36 civilians and 49 security personnel were wounded. Two people were found in an old mass grave.


Saturday, The October Revolution returned to Tahrir Square.



This was the return of The October Revolution.  Some wrongly tried to attribute the protest to Moqtada al-Sadr.  That happened back then too, remember?  No, this was not Moqtada's protest.  But in a sign of his ever weaking hold on his cult, some of his supporters did participate.


That was against Moqtada's orders.  For those who have forgotten, Moqtada does not believe women should protest with men.  He had a big hissy fit over that in 2020 as he tried to lecture The October Revolution and order them around.  Their response was to ridicule him at the next protest.


In October 2019, the October Revolution began their protesting and they toppled a sitting prime minister, forced his resignation.  They did so with most of the world ignoring them.  It doesn't matter, they don't require the world's approval to act or to make change.


AFP0 noted:


The latest protests in Baghdad come as Iraq has been mired in political paralysis since elections in October last year that have failed to bring in a new president, prime minister or government.

Protesters were heard chanting "the people demand the fall of the regime" as thousands gathered on Saturday in Baghdad’s iconic Tahrir Square, the epicentre of the protest movement, an AFP correspondent said.


They quote activist Ali al-Habib stating, "Today, it is essential to confront power.  All the bridges and roads are blocked because the authorities are afraid of the protesters."  We'll note this Tweet.


Our correspondent in #Iraq tells
@JURISTnews
that there was a large demonstration Saturday in #Baghdad marking the third anniversary of major unrest on this day in 2019. Today's protest was broken up by security forces using tear gas and rubber bullets. 5:30 PM local time:
Image




It was a real protest which means it didn't have anything to do with Moqtada al-Sadr or his cult so it will get far less press.  Or worse, it'll be credited to him -- like an idiot did not long ago did claiming Moqtada led the 2019 protests.  He didn't.  The October Revolution was initially by Moqtada, then he saw it was popular not just with young Shi'ites but with middle-aged and older Shi'ites.  Then he tried to jump on the bandwagon but the protesters made clear to him that he was not running anything.  He demanded that women not be allowed at the marches and they then carried signs mocking him.  Then he started his verbal attacks on the protesters.




And that's the other way you know it was a real protest: the attacks on them carried out by Iraqi security forces.


Remember when Moqtada's cult broke into the Green Zone and weren't stopped.  Remember how they then broke into the Parliament and weren't stopped.  Remember how they occupied for days and got away with it?


Yeah, that's because Mustafa al-Kahmini is a puppet for Moqtada.  When Moqtada's cult 'protests,' he orders a stand down so that Iraq's security forces won't harm a hair on the head of the zealots and let those men dry hump one another in the Parliament all night.  


DW notes:


Medical and security sources told the Reuters news agency that the scuffles left some 64 people wounded, 26 of whom belonging to the security forces. Thirty-eight of the hundreds of protesters who took to the streets were hit by rubber bullets. 

Some protests were also reported in the provinces of Basra and Nasiriyah. This year's protest anniversary comes at a turbulent time in Iraq, with tension between its rival Shiite blocs bringing the state to the brink of a civil war on more than one occasion.


Iraq: Injuries as protesters mark mass protests anniversary amid Shiite tensions dlvr.it/SZLZkv
Image


I don't have time for too much on this, I'm trying to finish the snapshot, but THE NEW YORK TIMES is stating BROS failed at the box office.


Did it?


I believe the theaters failed BROS.  That's what I was saying -- and warning about -- before the film was released.


No City, USA has 7 theaters.  All carry SMILE and BROS for opening weekend.  But they show SMILES repeatedly -- eight to nine times -- a day while only showing BROS three times.  Due to the lack of showings, BROS is, in fact, in what is known as limited release.


I wrote about this in the gina & krista round-robin and Stan posted about our conversation on this topic in "BROS will get screwed due to poor metrics" which went up Thursday.


I'm not at all surprised that it came in fourth.  I also don't see that as a failure.  The predictions were way off for a number of reasons including that it's not a 'youth' picture.


It'll be interesting to see what the box office on BROS is during this week.


It's a great film.  One you should see.  But homophobia -- on the part of theater chains -- was apparent before it opened.  There's other homophobia at play as well.


For example?  Let's take the tale of some walking out on one scene.  


Billy and Luke Macfarlane have finally talked and spent time together.  Both have commitment issues.  But Billy wants Luke to come up to his place.  Luke's been seeing two guys -- he's in a thruple -- and wants Billy to go with him there.  They bicker.  Then we cut to the two of them seated.  We see them from the neck up.  Billy, looking strained, says he's going to go ahead and leave.  The camera goes wide and we see two guys in front of Luke's lower body.  They're servicing him.  Despite the fact that no peen or balls are shown, some were grossed out by that.


Homophobia.


I seem to remember a much bigger oral scene involving dozens in THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY.  Does no one else remember that?  Nobody walked out on that.


The difference was that in MARY, those gay men were an object of ridicule.


So if it's ridicule, some ticket buyers are happy to stay seated and laugh at the gay men.


BROS is a great movie.

New content at THIRD:



The following sites updated:


Posted by at

Sunday, October 02, 2022

BROS is the best film of 2022

I'm several margaritas to the wind -- you have been warned.  We went out tonight -- Maggie, Dak Ho, Toni, Sumner and I -- and saw BROS and then went out for Mexican.  Had the best tortilla soup -- and so-so enchiladas -- as well as several house margaritas.  


Now I'm home and going to quickly recommend BROS to you.


I can't imagine you don't know what the movie's about.  Most who read here are members of THE COMMON ILLS community and C.I.'s posted, what, 50 or more videos over the last few days promoting BROS?


But in case you don't know, Billy Eichner is a comedian -- DIFFICULT PEOPLE (which I loved), PARKS & RECREATION (pretty much loved it), stand up, Billy On The Street, etc.  He's a very funny guy.  He stars in the film and co-wrote it.  He plays Bobby.


Bobby is a podcaster.  Bobby is gay.  Bobby is an expert on history and a social critic.  He grasps that gays are repeatedly erased throughout history.  He knows this is no more an accident than all the straight actors that keep getting cast to play gay characters in films.  

Please note, LOVE SIMON's actors like horse-faced Jennifer Garner tried to sell the film as though it were BLACK PANTHER.  BP had encouraged children to see this first MARVEL film -- if you overlook the Blade series -- starring an African-American actor.  What Jenny from the Garner didn't seem to grasp is LOVE SIMON didn't have a gay actor in the lead -- it had a straight one.  It's not the same thing.  And MARVEL wouldn't have pretended it was so why did so many let them get away with it.  Ava and C.I. didn't.  And they also called out LOVE VICTOR -- noting that if the point of the film was that it's okay to be gay, that point needed to be made by casting gay actor as Simon or Victor.

Oh! Oh! Oh!  C.I.'s a female Bobby!!!!!  So is Ava!!!!!  


They have spent how many years online addressing these issues?  I just got that.  That's making me laugh.


But so Bobby's also on the board of an LGBTQ museum.  And they're trying to open and they need money.


Bobby meets Aaron (Luke Macfarlane) at a club. Aaron is shirtless -- and no complaints for me on that.  Bobby insults him.  Aaron insults Bobby.  It's their flirtation.  But is there anything more?


And then as they get close, suddenly Aaron stops communicating.  Bobby texts him over and over.  He's really losing it.  And this is when a guest star shows up in the film.


Debra Messing is hilarious.  She plays herself.  She's said something on Twitter, I forget what (I think comparing herself to Viola Davis) and it creates a backlash so she needs to do something to get back in good graces with her fans.  She can donate to the museum!!!


She shows up for a tour.  Bobby is about to show her around.  But then he starts talking about Aaron.  Why is he ghosting Bobby?  What does this mean?  What's going on with him?


Debra half-listens before exploding that every gay man in the world now thinks she's Grace Adler on WILL AND GRACE.  It was just a role.  She won an Emmy for her acting -- she even beat Sarah Jessica Parker.  (I'm so buzzed and drunk that I typed Sarah Michelle Geller and had to go back and correct that.)

She is furious.  


You know who doesn't do this?  Lesbians.  Because they have their s**t together, Debra tells him.


So he's blown the big money donation.


But he and Aaron do smooth things out.  And on a trip to Provincetown (Harvey Fierstein runs the B&B they stay at), he makes a pitch to an obnoxious billionaire and it goes bust but Aaron -- who is a probate attorney -- steps in and secures the donation.


So things are great for the rest of the trip and they're in love and it's time for the family meet.


Ava and C.I. are probably not going to laugh about my comparing them to Bobby (it's meant with love) because of what happens next.  He meets Aaron's family and he's supposed to be ''chill'' per Aaron.  That's told to him ahead of time.

But he does an LGBTQ tour of NYC for Aaron's family and then Aaron tells him to be less intense and Bobby can't.  So when Aaron's mother states that her second graders are too young to learn about gay people, a big back and forth starts between her and Bobby that leads to Bobby revealing that Aaron is very unhappy with his life and Aaron telling Bobby to shut up.


Aaron's never been honest with his family.  He has been honest with Bobby.  He did law because that's what was expected of him and he hates it.  When he tells Bobby his deepest secret it seems so mild but it's so real because our deepest secrets are mild to others.  


For Aaron, it's that he wants to make chocolate.  He didn't think he could share it -- and he's lied before about it.  When his brother caught him making chocolate once, Aaron insisted he was doing it for a girl he liked.  

He never could tell his family because it seemed too gay to him.  And he's gay but he doesn't want to be 'too gay.'


And sometimes Bobby -- whose confidence he loves and admires -- is "too gay."


That's because Bobby's being true to himself.  He's not too gay.  But Aaron's not being true to himself.


They have a big break and I'll let you be surprised how they work their way back together, but they do.


It has a happy ending and it's a great film that I'm still laughing at as I review things in my head.


My first shock laugh: When he and Aaron are sitting down and Bobby says he's going to go ahead and go.  And the camera pulls back and Aaron's got two men at his crotch (this isn't X-rated for those who are prudes, everything's edited carefully).  Aaron is in a thruple and Bobby had said he didn't want to join him on but after a jump cut, turns out that's what he did because he was so attracted to Aaron.


Anyway, great film. 

Now I'm going to bed.  Pray for me tomorrow that my hangover is not as bad as I'm expecting it to be.


Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:" 

Friday, September 30, 2022.   Terrorist, the catch all excuse for violence.




Yesterday, the State Dept's Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel conducted a telephone press briefing and we'll note this:

QUESTION: Thank you. Hi, Vedant. Thank you for taking my question. I have a question about Iran as well but not the sanctions. Regarding the possible fatalities in Iraqi Kurdistan due to the Iranian missile attacks, do you have any updates – have there – do you know of any Americans having been among those killed? Because we have gotten information on at least one individual, U.S. citizen. And also the second part of my question, yesterday, the Iranian president said that the demonstrations are part of a U.S. plot. Did the Biden administration ask the people to go out on the streets and demonstrate? Thank you.

MR PATEL: Thanks, Guita. First and foremost as it relates to the attacks, I want to reiterate that we condemn Iran’s violations of Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And the genesis of your question – we can confirm that a U.S. citizen was killed as a result of a rocket attack in the Iraqi Kurdistan region yesterday, but due to privacy considerations I don’t have any further comments to provide.

And on your piece about the protests – these protests are not at all about the United States. This is about the Iranian Government and its efforts to cut or disrupt access to the internet, its efforts to crack down on peaceful protestors, its efforts to infringe on basic human rights. That’s what these protests are about. It is not about the United States.


The government of Iran claims it was attacking terrorists.  From PRESS TV:

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Ground Force has defended the latest ballistic missile and drone strikes against terrorist bases in Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, stating that operations will continue until all anti-Iran separatist and terrorist outfits holed up in the rugged mountainous area lay down their arms and surrender.

 “In the wake of an uptick in the seditious acts of separatist and terrorist groups stationed in Iraq’s northern region (of Kurdistan), the proven role and involvement of some terrorist and separatist outfits in the recent riots that have gripped some Iranian towns and cities, the discovery and neutralization a major sabotage plot hatched by Komala terrorist group against Iran's nuclear facilities, and disregard of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officials for calls demanding the destruction of the terrorists’ bases, the IRGC Ground Force identified their command centers and headquarters, which were also instigating and supporting recent wicked acts, and heavily bombarded them in a decisive and retaliatory response,” it announced in a statement.

And, of course, the government of Turkey always claims it is targeting terrorists in Iraq.  IANS notes:

Turkish forces have destroyed 16 targets of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iraq, Defence Minister Hulusi Akar said.

The operation destroyed caves, bunkers, shelters and command posts of the PKK, a Kurdish militant political organisation which is outlawed by Ankara, in the Asos Mountain region of Iraq on Tuesday, the Minister told reporters on Thursday.

The targets were hit by airstrikes of the Turkish Air Force, Xinhua news agency quoted local media reports as saying.

Turkey respects the territorial integrity and sovereignty rights of all its neighbours, especially Iraq and Syria, Akar noted.

'Syrians are our brothers, Iraqis are our brothers. There is no problem with that. Our problem is terrorists. We are after terrorists. This struggle will continue until the last terrorist is eliminated,' he said.



And, don't forget, US troops are in Iraq and went there in the first place because of 'terrorism' (the US government and media falsely linked Iraq to 9/11 and the US government also falsely claimed Iraq had WMDs).

Yesterday was the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste:


BAGHDAD – On the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste (IDAFLW), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) call for action to address food loss and adopt sustainable food waste management in Iraq.

IDAFLW aims to raise awareness about food loss, waste issues and possible solutions, to promote global efforts and collective actions toward meeting Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 12.3 that aims at halving per capita global food waste at retail and consumer levels and reducing food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses by 2030.

We call upon the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to establish develop national targets and strategies in line with SDG 12.3. We also call on the government to encouraging supply chain collaboration with the aim to reduce food waste during production, processing and storage stages as well as support innovative behavioral changes to shift and reduce consumer food waste norms.

To reduce food waste in Iraq, efforts must be made to encourage improved behavioral practices among food providers and consumers, as well as increased investments in intra-regional trade and the modernization of food supply chains.

Globally, while more than 820 million people go to bed hungry each night, FAO estimates that one-third of global food production – estimated at 1.3 billion tons of food – is annually lost or wasted along the supply chain, amounting to a financial loss of about US$ 1 trillion annually. The food produced but never eaten would be enough to feed two billion people[RN1] . That’s more than twice the number of people on the verge of famine across the globe. 

Food production has environmental and monetary costs and has become increasingly difficult in the current climatic condition with an ever-increasing population is very difficult. Food waste and food loss drains valuable resources such as water, land, energy, labour and capital especially in the region; one of the world’s most affected by water scarcity.

The impact of food waste on the environment is also massive; it is estimated that food loss contributes 6-8% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, effectively helping accelerate climate change. Most of the discarded food ends up in landfills, and as it decomposes it produces methane, a greenhouse gas that has 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide.

FAO and WFP renew their commitment to work with both governments to develop and implement “awareness campaigns” and “food banks” to mitigate food waste by collecting unserved food and channeling it to people who need it and complement Iraq’s efforts to end poverty, reduce hunger and improve human health.[RN2]




Combatting hunger effectively, or climate change, or anything requires a functional government.  Iraq still doesn't have one.  







October 10th, elections were held.  Still no president, still no prime minister, still no Cabinet of Ministers.  Ten days away from a full year since the election and still nothing.



Two years earlier, in October 2019, young Iraqis across central and southern Iraq took to the streets to protest. This movement, known as Thawrat Tishreen – Arabic for October Revolution – did not call for the removal of a specific leader or party but instead for revolution against the system. They chanted: ‘We will never back off. No way. Let all parties hear us.’

Since elections only reinforced the toxic political order, its followers refused to vote and instead insisted that protest was the only way to be heard. Iraq’s ruling elite struggled to respond to Thawrat Tishreen. They could no longer convince the electorate that they represented their ethnic, sectarian or other communities, or that they promoted democracy and reform. Nor could they provide economic benefits, namely public sector jobs.

Ideologically and economically bankrupt, Iraq’s elite and the political machinery turned to direct violence to suppress the movement, killing hundreds of protesters and wounding thousands more.

Since then, the system has continued to employ violence to minimize free speech and protest. Someone familiar with this is Ahmed al-Bashir, the prominent Iraqi political satirist. To continue producing his Albasheer Show on television and YouTube, which reaches millions of Iraqis, Bashir lives and works outside Iraq because of threats to his life. ‘In Iraq there is no longer free speech,’ he said at Chatham House’s annual Iraq Initiative conference last year.

Demographic realities and shrinking public authority have exacerbated intra-elite fragmentation. One speaker close to the Sadrist movement has stated that Sadr wants none of the former leaders to be able to participate in elections or government formation.

Sadr’s attempt to form a majority government after his 2021 electoral victory was his solution to the crisis and a bid to regain some ideological power with his base and the wider, disenfranchised population.
Following its failure and this summer’s violence, the Sadrists seem unwilling to play by the rules of the game and form another consensus government.   

In response, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative to Iraq, has struggled to bring together the elite, including Sadr and Nouri al-Maliki, to reach a consensus government to combat the direct violence. Following the clashes in August, the United Nations
Assistance Mission for Iraq issued a statement that ‘Iraqis cannot be held hostage to an unpredictable and untenable situation.’

However, Iraqis have not only been held hostage to the recent violent clashes, they have been hostages of the political order put in place after 2003, when the US-led coalition worked with returning exiled Iraqi political parties to establish muhasasa. Since then, this ruling elite has acquired its wealth and power through corruption.
 
Iraq’s political system has proved resistant to both grassroots revolutionary protest and attempts at manipulation by its elite. In their current efforts at stabilization, both Iraqi and international actors are again focusing on a short-term settlement within the elite. Their solution is to limit the direct violence that erupted this summer in the hope that this will lead to change.

But such a settlement will not address the everyday conflict consuming Iraqis. Instead, it will reinforce the status quo and once again ignore the dynamics of structural violence, which will continue to take the larger toll of lives.


Lastly,  Will Lehman is running for president of the United Auto Workers union.  Big Tech is opposing his campaign as evidenced by Twitter's latest move.


On Thursday morning at approximately 11 a.m. Eastern, Twitter locked the account of United Auto Workers presidential candidate and rank-and-file worker Will Lehman. The action against Lehman’s account, which Twitter falsely claimed was implemented in response to violation of its rules, is a flagrant act of censorship and attack on the democratic rights of workers.

The lock on Lehman’s account came without warning, Lehman’s campaign told the WSWS, occurring almost immediately after it tweeted a thread reporting on the support for his campaign among John Deere agricultural equipment workers.

The specific tweet in the thread that Twitter claimed violated its rules stated, “Equality is a central concern of workers, as this young worker at Deere Harvester says:”

The tweet included a short video of a young worker at Deere’s Harvester Works expressing his support for Lehman’s campaign.

In the video, a supporter of Lehman asks the worker, “So what do you think about what Will’s calling for, building a rank-and-movement of workers to put an end to the UAW bureaucracy and fight for what workers need?”

John Deere Harvester worker voices support for UAW presidential candidate Will Lehman

The worker replies, “I think Will’s doing a good job in putting into this. We need someone to step up in the union, to give us the chance to have equal rights, just like the salaried side. I think what Will is doing is good for the future of John Deere Harvester, and I’m right behind you Will.”




The following sites updated:

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)