Wednesday, December 2, 2020

We all need a laugh

 

 Jimmy Fallon can always be counted on for a good natured laugh.  More and more, hosts of late night programs seem ugly and mean.  Mr. Fallon still comes off like a human being you would want to be friends with.

 

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

 Wednesday, December 2, 2020.  The push for Toxic Neera continues.

Joe Biden got harasser Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.  Now he's working to put toxic workplace 'manager' Neera Tanden in charge of the OMB.


To be fair to Neera, there are people who defend her.  For example, 'journalist' Victoria Bosworth Tweeted:

Biden OMB pick

@neeratanden

supports a Federal Jobs Guarantee, opposes punitive right-to-work, welfare-work & Medicaid-work laws. She supports $15 min wage. Claiming she's anti-progessive is tediously knee-jerk. Also, putting WOC in white male jobs IS progressive. Be less racist.


That makes no sense -- non-progressive people do not make a world progressive merely due to their skin color.  Be less stupid, Victoria. 


But Neera's got the pedophile vote sewn up.  That is what Victoria Bosworth is.  Asking a trans person to show you their genitals?  That's appalling, that's treating a person as though they are a thing.  More to the point, the trans person in question was underage.  That makes Victoria a pedophile.  So remember that, the pedophiles are on board with Neera.  Thanks for sharing, Vicky, now don't ask any children to show their genitals today, okay?


In October 1991, Clarence Thomas got on the Supreme Court.  According to Pedophile Victoria Bosworth's 'logic' that was a great progressive moment in history -- he was put "in white male jobs [that] IS progressive."  He has done damage ever since.  You can thank Joe Biden.


You can thank Joe Biden for the assault on Anita Hill after she came forward about enduring Clarence Thomas' harassment.  April 25, 2019, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Carl Hulse (NEW YORK TIMES) reported:


Joe Biden knew Anita Hill was going to be an issue for him. So a few weeks ago, as he prepared for his presidential announcement, he reached out to her through an intermediary and arranged a telephone call, hoping to assuage her.

It did not go how he had hoped.

On Thursday, the first day of his presidential campaign, the Biden camp disclosed the call, saying the former vice president had shared with Ms. Hill “his regret for what she endured” 28 years ago, when, as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he presided over the confirmation hearings in which she accused Clarence Thomas, President George Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, of sexual harassment.

But Ms. Hill says the call from Mr. Biden left her feeling deeply unsatisfied.

In a lengthy telephone interview on Wednesday, she declined to characterize Mr. Biden’s words to her as an apology and said she was not convinced that he has taken full responsibility for his conduct at the hearings — or for the harm he caused other victims of sexual harassment and gender violence.

[Read excerpts from Anita Hill’s interview with The Times.]

She said she views Mr. Biden as having “set the stage” for last year’s confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who, like Justice Thomas, was elevated to the court despite accusations against him that he had acted inappropriately toward women. And, she added, she was troubled by the recent accounts of women who say Mr. Biden touched them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable.


Confirmation hearings have never shown Joe in a good light.  I was at one where yet another Republican got put on the Court and Joe's refusal to fight and his personal betrayal of a woman left the woman crying in the hall.  That's Joe Biden.  Betray a little, betray a lot, that's Joe Biden.  


And demonstrating that he still will not oppose toxic work environments, Joe is nominating Neera who oversaw the toxic work environment at CAP where women were harassed constantly and Neera -- in charge of the whole thing -- looked the other way until BUZZFEED reported on it.  Then Neera took action: She outed the woman who had spoken to BUZZFEED -- that shows you who Neera sides with in a toxic work environment: The harassers.


Neera is not fit to be in charge of anything.  Her history is appalling.  The most basic thing a manager has to be able to do is to ensure a safe work environment.  Neera failed to do that.  And yet Joe wants to put her in charge of the OMB.


It goes to the fact that Joe is not a defender of women.  


Joe pretended for a long, long time to be a good guy, a defender of women.  But the reality is, it's 2020 and he's trying to put Neera in charge of an agency which demonstrates he's still supporting the attacker and not the attacked.


Anthony Zenkus Tweets:


Neera Tanden, who outed a sex harassment survivor at a work meeting, went from #BelieveWomen to deleting all references to Believe Women from her twitter. Amazing how being offered a job by a president-elect credibly accused of sexual harassment and assault can change things.
Image
Image



Professor Zenkus doesn't seem to get it himself.  Yes, outing a victim of harassment to the entire workforce is appalling and needs to be called out.  But you're not holding her accountable for the toxic environment that led to women being harassed.  Women complained and they were not treated seriously.  You do not put the person over a work environment like that in charge of any agency.


The whole reason the attacked was outed was because she took her story to the media.  Stop acting as though the only thing Neera did was out the woman.  Neera was responsible for the work environment.  Credible charges of harassment were repeatedly made and women were not listened to.  That was Neera's choice -- a lot like Doormat Hillary Clinton.


Remember, Hillary had multiple relationships -- work relationships -- with men who were toxic.  Jessica Estepa (USA TODAY):

Hillary Clinton reportedly asked to keep an adviser to her 2008 presidential campaign onboard, despite accusations that he had sexually harassed a young woman.

The New York Times reported that Burns Strider, Clinton's faith adviser at the time, was accused of harassing a 30-year-old woman who sharing an office with him. The woman told the campaign that Strider sent her suggestive emails, rubbed her shoulders inappropriately and kissed her on the forehead.

A sexual harassment report was made to campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle. Doyle reportedly approached Clinton and asked that Strider be fired. Clinton declined to do so, and Strider remained on staff.


As Ana North (VOX) noted:


Clinton’s history when it comes to sexual misconduct allegations against her husband — and others in her circle — is a complicated one. She’s never had a satisfying response to questions about the accusations against her husband, which include Juanita Broaddrick’s accusation that he raped her in 1978. On the other hand, she allowed an adviser to keep his job with her 2008 campaign despite allegations of sexual harassment — and when she addressed that decision this year, her comments left a lot to be desired. 


That's Neera's mentor.  Hillary mentors a lot of weak women -- weak women who march about in public life but are at home alone and crying because they married a bastard who cheats on them and publicly humiliates them.  It's the bonding thread of so many of Hillary's relationships with women -- the sick join with the sick to avoid healing.  Neera's a joke.  She's basically an emotional punching bag at home and that's probably why she's so damn nasty to so many when she's acting out in public.


("And you?"  I'm just a bitch.  I never claimed otherwise.)


Neera's confirmation hearing in the Senate?  If it takes place, women who worked at CAP and were harassed should be invited to tell their stories to the American people so we can decide if that's the sort of management we believe should exist in the federal government.


Tara Reade has made a credible accusation of assault.  I believe her.  I believe Joe Biden assaulted her.  She recently wrote:


The hypocrisy of the Democrats and the Me Too movement is not anything new. It was done to Rose, Juanita Broaddrick and others. The Democratic party is not only complicit with rape, it empowers the predators all the while hiding behind rhetoric that women are protected. I am a woman, I was a Democrat, and I was not protected. One of the unfortunate consequences of the fall-out for this U.S. Presidential election is the chilling effect my experience is having on other survivors. My coming forward and the resulting attacks on me illustrated the very dire consequences of anyone coming forward about a powerful person, most especially a Democrat. However, I do not regret coming forward about my history with Joe Biden, nor speaking up against xenophobia and the absurd anti-Russia narratives being weaponized to brainwash American citizens.


Time and again, we fail.  We fail over and over and we fail for a number of reasons.  Tara Reade was a test and too many feminists shoved her aside because Joe was their personal savior.  Bill Cosby?  Guilty of multiple attacks on women.  News in the '00s and this decade.  But, help me out, I seem to remember a woman calling him out in the 1990s.


What was her name?


Tammy Bruce.  She was part of NOW -- forced out for calling out OJ Simpson.  It's so interesting how the women who best exemplify what feminism is supposed to mean are the ones the movement lets down or flat out betrays.


I think we've betrayed Tara.  Yes, some of us have spoken out for her.  But when we let liars publish op-eds in NYT saying 'I believe her but I'm voting for Joe and I'm a feminist,'  no, bitch, you're not a feminist.  Rape and assault?  We don't dismiss those.  That's what Men's Rights activists do.  That's what the US legal system did for far too long.  We betrayed Tara.  We let these liars pose as feminist.  They're not feminists.


Don't talk to me about abortion if you can't defend a woman from assault.  Don't talk to me about any rights you supposedly believe in.  Because if you're okay with a woman being raped, you're not a feminist and you're not anyone that should be allowed to pose as a feminist.


Tammy Bruce is a right-wing figure now.  I have no idea what she speaks of or what issues she supports.  I do know that instead of ostracizing her and punishing her, we could have tried to have a lively debate, a give-and-take, and kept someone who is passionate about women's issues (or was then -- again, I have no idea about today).  But she was shoved aside.  Phyllis Chesler remains a feminist but she was betrayed by the movement.  She was raped and instead of getting support, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem undermined Phyllis to protect their friend (her rapist).  


These are stories and issues that The Fourth Wave will need to grapple with and address.  I hope they do so honestly.  Gloria never did.  She emerges, pushing Betty Friedan aside, and she immediately damages the movement.  When Betty was around (1972), women made demands at the Democratic Party convention.  1976?  Gloria's there telling women we're asking too much and we must not rock the boat.  We go form staging sit-ins at magazines to doing nothing but our near annual abortion march.  We don't fight for rights, we beg for the rights we do have to be upheld.


And time and again, she pushed this or that woman aside.  The Red Stockings is just one example.  There's her hissy fit when 60 MINUTES was recording a meeting and Camile Paglia's name came up and Gloria shut the whole taping down immediately.


She's a coward and that's no surprise when you look at her history.  She didn't lead, she misled and she set the cause back.  She also failed to step aside which must have  Betty Friedan laughing somewhere since she used Betty's age (Betty was in her fifties) to push Betty out of leadership


There's a lot there for The Fourth Wave to unpack.  And it will be messy and it should be.  It should be lively and rewarding as well.  


Let's hope they're up to the task.

Let's hope that they aren't ridiculous like John Grant at COUNTERPUNCH.  Is he tonguing Joe Biden's shaft or just the nuts?  Don't pretend you're against the Iraq War and write that ridiculous column.  Joe is a War Criminal.  And I'm so damn tired of the 'professional' peace movement and their stupidity.  Joe's overturning the 2010 elections in Iraq need to be called out and, all these years later, I've lost sympathy for the cowards who can't do it.


You want to end wars, you have to disrupt.  You're not going to end anything with butterfly kisses to Joe Biden.  Let's hope The Fourth Wave has the spine that people like John Grant lack.


Dropping back to Monday's snapshot:


Friday saw an attack on the peaceful protesters in Nassariya.  This was an attack, it was not a ''clash.''  The protesters had been in al Haboubi Square for some time.  When Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi ordered the Baghdad square attacked and the tents torn down a month ago, he attempted something similar in Nassaiya.  It did not fly in the city, it did not fly in the province (Dhi Qar Governorate).  Mustafa had to back down and the protesters continued their peaceful protest.  As Sinan Mahmoud (THE NATIONAL) observed yesterday, "The coronavirus and violence against demonstrators has seen the moement slow elsewhere but it endures in Nasiriyah."


Friday, they were attacked.  The death toll has now risen to 16.  With over 80 more left injured that number could continue to increase.  


Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered the attack.  Dilan S. Hussein (RUDAW) reports that Moqtada told his cult to "clean up the 'atheism' that he said had taken over the city's streets" before sending them out on Friday.  They arrived at the square with loaded guns, in four-wheel vehicles and with props.  


 Basra journalist Mohammed Qasim Tweets:


#Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia mixed alcohol with the #Rainbow flag, meaning that homosexuals and #alcohol are corruption and must be eliminated, and this is a public violation of #human rights.
Image
Image
Image



Moqtada gave the orders and then sicked his rabid cult on the protesters.  


This was a planned assault.  Not only does the Iraqi government need to disarm his goons, they need to put them on trial.  Equally true, it was not necessary for the cult to enter the town square (al Haboubi square) -- where the peaceful protesters were -- and have been for over a year -- in order to get to any destination. They chose to enter that square, they did so with props and they did so with guns.  And they chose to enter the square in "four wheel drive vehicles."  This was not a 'clash,' it was a planned assault.


ALJAZEERA notes:


By Tuesday, Nasiriya protesters were back at the site, albeit surrounded by federal police and at the mercy of a curfew. But unlike Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, where in October tents were cleared out and roads reopened, Haboubi Square is still alive with demonstrators.

“The people of Nasiriya have always been praised for their revolutionary belief,” said Sheikh Imad Rikaby of the Rikaby tribe. Like him, Iraq commentators have frequently alluded to Nasiriya’s long history of rebellion and revolutionary politics to explain Dhi Qar’s central role in the protests.

“I think the real explanation is likely more mundane and reflects primarily the comparative neglect of the province by the federal government when compared with Basra,” said Ben Robin-D’Cruz, a researcher on Iraqi politics at the University of Edinburgh.


We'll include this Tweet:

@JoeBiden
A massive campaign of arrests targeting civilian activists in Nasiriyah by the new police chief of the criminal Muqtada al-Sadr militia, and within two days many young Iraqi heroes were arrested #helping_civil activitors_in thiqar city
Image
Image



TRT WORLD observes:


Iraq has one of the world’s youngest populations. Many of them are out of work and look to family and friends for financial support. 

Instead of taking tough decisions to strengthen institutions like the judiciary, which can enforce private contracts, politicians have used Baghdad’s oil wealth to reward supporters with jobs.

This has bloated the public sector; a large chunk of the government's budget of $80 billion is spent on salaries and pensions. This burden is set to increase as the country's population of 38 million increases by almost a million people every year. 

This year, the cost of salaries for 4.5 million public sector workers and 2.5 million pensioners, will eat up all of Iraq’s oil revenue, according to the Iraqi finance ministry. 

In October, the Finance Minister Ali Allawi released a white paper promising to cut government deficit and plug the holes from where corrupt officials siphon  off state revenue. 

Corruption has become endemic in Iraq. Only a tenth of the $8 billion in customs revenue reach the official coffers - the rest is pilfered along the way. That’s why even a minor job of a clerk in the customs department is being sold for as much as $100,000, Ali Allawi recently said

While the oil revenue was spent on pacifying constituents, little has been spent on developing infrastructure to facilitate the private sector, which plays a miniscule role in the Iraqi economy. 

“What’s mainly holding Iraq back is corruption and mismanagement,” says Mawlawi. 


We'll wind down with this alert from Human Rights Watch:


The ongoing closures of Iraq’s displaced persons camps on short notice is forcing some residents into homelessness and poverty, Human Rights Watch said today.

Human Rights Watch has repeatedly said that the authorities should allow freedom of movement for residents of camps, which in some cases have functioned like open-air prisons. The government’s renewed action to facilitate documentation for families is a positive step toward this goal. But the authorities should not force camp residents out without first ensuring they have alternative access to shelter, food, water, health care, and other basic services in a safe and secure environment.

“Reintegrating families who have spent years in camps back into Iraqi society so they can start to lead a normal life is a positive step.” said Belkis Wille, senior crisis and conflict researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But the current approach of forcing people out of camps that have provided them with food, shelter, and security for years, often with only 24 hours’ notice, makes them even more vulnerable.”

In October 2020, Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi formed a committee with the mandate to close about 17 camps, currently housing at least 60,337 people. The camps house people displaced by fighting between the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) and Iraqi forces between 2014 and 2017. Since mid-October, authorities have closed 11 camps and rendered another two into informal settlements, forcing out at least 27,191 residents, mostly women and children, according to aid workers. At the time of publication, in Baghdad-controlled areas only five remained open and more camp closures were ongoing.

The committee has said that it aims to close all camps in Baghdad-controlled territories by December 2020, and those in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq by 2021, three aid workers told Human Rights Watch. Many of the families have stayed because they have been unable to obtain civil documentation and because they fear retaliation if they return home because they may have family links to ISIS. Others are unable to afford rent, basic services, or to rebuild their destroyed homes, or their home areas lack basic services including health care and education.

Human Rights Watch reporting has documented that the Iraqi authorities have generally made decisions on where these families can live without adequate consultation, deciding either to leave them in the area which they fled, move them to another camp, or force them to return to their home areas. Up until now, the government has not undertaken a thoughtful analysis of each family’s specific situation and vulnerabilities before forcing them out of camps. Aid workers said the government is trying to develop a returns plan with these elements in mind but does not have this in place yet. The government’s newest push to close all remaining camps is so rapid that it is forcing people out with no time for them to figure out where it would be safe for them to go or how to get housing.

From November 11 to 17, 2020, Human Rights Watch interviewed five residents of Hammam al-Alil (HAA) camp in Nineveh and three residents of Habbaniya Tourist City (HTC) camp, all of whom requested anonymity. The authorities closed HAA on November 14, forcing out at least 8,585 residents. HTC was closed on November 11, though the authorities allowed the site to remain open on an informal basis because over 200 families in the camp had nowhere safe to go. Before forcing camp residents out, security forces in HAA conducted a “security screening” of the residents, and as part of the process helped facilitate access to civil documentation for families missing identity documents.

Security forces had previously denied security clearances required to obtain identity documents and other essential civil documentation to thousands of Iraqi families perceived to have ISIS affiliation, usually because of their family name, tribal affiliation, or area of origin. This denied them freedom of movement, their rights to education and work, and access to social benefits and birth and death certificates needed to inherit property or remarry. The authorities have prevented thousands of children without civil documentation from enrolling in government schools, including schools inside camps for displaced people. The efforts to issue documents alongside these closures is a positive development.

However, aid workers at HTC and HAA told Human Rights Watch that the authorities there had forced some families to engage in a process known as tabriya in order to get their security clearance before leaving the camp. The process of tabriya requires them to open a criminal complaint disavowing any relative suspected of having joined ISIS. After they file the complaint, the court issues them a document to present to security forces enabling them to obtain their security clearances. 

After completing the screenings and issuing documents, security forces only gave camp residents Human Rights Watch interviewed between one and seven days to choose whether they would return home or settle elsewhere in the country, with most given only 24 hours. None of them got free government transportation if they were not returning to their homes, nor any financial support, although the government had promised to give all returnees a compensation package of US$1,500. It is unclear whether families who did not return to their homes but resettled elsewhere will ever receive the package.

All of the families interviewed said they would not return home because of concerns for their personal safety. Some were able to move elsewhere, though they were struggling to afford the rent. A man from Anbar who was forced out of HTC said that security forces gave him the option to move to another camp in the area that has not yet been closed, but he refused and instead chose to rent a home in another city.

“Since 2017, the authorities have relocated me three times,” he said. “I don’t know why they keep moving people from one camp to another. If the government is not going to give us some compensation so we can rebuild our homes and afford basic services and guarantee our safety, then why are they closing the camps?”

According to aid workers tracking the camp expulsions, many of the families forced out of HAA have since reported that they were struggling to afford basic services in the areas where they had ended up. Aid workers who have followed camp departures from August to October said that 50 percent of displaced people had less access to food upon leaving and 60 percent said they had less access to water. Twenty-five percent said they were not able to get health care. These figures are of particular concern as the weather gets colder and the Covid-19 pandemic rages on in Iraq. Aid workers also said some families were suffering from “daily harassment” and blackmail at the hands of their local communities since returning.

Four of the residents interviewed said they had wanted to return home but that local residents had blocked their return, forcing them into further displacement and leaving some even more vulnerable.

Iraq is obligated under international law to protect, respect, and fulfill the right to an adequate standard of living, which includes ensuring that everyone has adequate food, water, sanitation, and housing. Article 30 of Iraq’s constitution states that, “The State shall guarantee to the individual and the family – especially children and women – social and health security, the basic requirements for living a free and decent life, and shall secure for them suitable income and appropriate housing.”

The authorities should ensure that every person in Iraq has access to their civil documentation, and should halt all efforts to push residents out of camps until they renew the residents’ identity documents. Before closing any camp, the authorities should ensure that families in the camps have a minimum of 30 days and are given enough information to decide where they want to resettle, as well as accessible transportation to their preferred location.

The authorities should ensure that they provide families with damaged homes with the financial resources to rent a property as well as financial assistance to help them rebuild their homes. The authorities should also ensure that families who cannot afford to pay for food, electricity, water, and other basic services have access to all of these without charge.

“While the aim of this push to close camps seems to be to improve stability across the country, stripping people of the only access they have to shelter, food, and water and sending thousands into further displacement will actually have the opposite effect,” Wille said.

Families Prevented from Returning Home

Three HAA camp residents told Human Rights Watch that they wanted to return to their hometown, Qayyarah in Nineveh. But once the closures were announced, their town’s mayor visited the camp and informed them that he could not vouch for their safety if they returned. He warned of vigilante violence against them for their perceived links to ISIS. One woman, age 28, with three young children said:

I don’t know where to go. I can’t return to my village. My house is destroyed, and anyway, the community would not accept me back. I can’t afford rent somewhere else because I am a single mother with no income. I felt safe with my children here in the camp, with aid workers around. I am a young woman, and outside of a camp, I might be exposed to sexual harassment. They should let me to stay here rather than exposing me to further risks outside the camp.

Another woman from Qayyarah said that armed forces were occupying her home, so even if she did risk returning, she would have nowhere to live. She has five children and is taking care of three more. She said that though she had found a house in Mosul to rent, she had no stable income to afford it. “If the government could help me safely go back to Qayyarah and sell my house, then I could afford to buy a new house in Mosul,” she said.

 

A woman who had been living in HTC, whose husband is in jail on terrorism charges, said that she was thrilled when security forces told her on November 1 that she could return home to her village in Jazirah al-Khaldiyah, a subdistrict in Anbar:

They promised that if we decided to go home, they would guarantee our safety. On November 8, a group of seven families headed back to my village, escorted by two military vehicles. While we were at the checkpoint to enter our village, an old man came and said that he knew us all personally and that we were not allowed to return home. The military tried to negotiate with him but it didn’t work, and so they forced me to move to another camp in the area, saying I was not allowed to go back to HTC because it was being closed. I want to be stable in one place so I can register my children in school and have a normal life like everyone else.

According to the aid workers, at least 121 families from HAA camp and 503 families from HTC have been unable to return to their homes and have been forced to move to nearby camps that remain open for now. Aid workers who have followed camp departures said that 33 percent of the displaced people were ultimately not able to return to their home areas, with over 60 percent of women they spoke to saying they could not return home because of concerns for their personal security.

A man with seven children from Shura district in Nineveh said that security forces gave him 24 hours’ notice to leave HAA. “They gave us the option to go wherever we wanted, but they didn’t give us time to prepare or even plan where to go,” he said. “Many of us didn’t have houses still standing to go back to, and some of us would face security risks if we went home to areas where there are tribal tensions.” He said he was currently renting a home in a town where he thought he might be safe, but that he had limited means to keep up on his rent payments.


  The following sites updated:







Tuesday, December 1, 2020

The true reality

Donald Trump appears to be headed out of the White House, Joe Biden appear to be heading in.  It is what the powers-that-be want.  Mr. Biden is a better face for war, after all.  Jonathan Cooke (ICH) writes about the reality of empire:

 

New Salesman Needed

The cynical way this works was underscored in a classified 2010 CIA memorandum, known as “Red Cell”, leaked to Wikileaks, as the journalist Glenn Greenwald reminded us last week. The CIA memo addressed the fear in Washington that European publics were demonstrating little appetite for the US-led “war on terror” that followed 9/11. That, in turn, risked limiting the ability of European allies to support the US as it exercised its divine right to wage war.

The memo notes that European support for US wars after 9/11 had chiefly relied on “public apathy” – the fact that Europeans were kept largely ignorant by their own media of what those wars entailed. But with a rising tide of anti-war sentiment, the concern was that this might change. There was an urgent need to further manipulate public opinion more decisively in favour of war.

The US intelligence agency decided its wars needed a facelift. George W Bush, with his Texan, cowboy swagger, had proved a poor salesman. So the CIA turned to identity politics and faux “humanitarianism”, which they believed would play better with European publics.

Part of the solution was to accentuate the suffering of Afghan women to justify war. But the other part was to use President Barack Obama as the face of a new, “caring” approach to war. He had recently been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – even though he had done nothing for peace, and would go on to expand US wars – very possibly as part of this same effort to reinvent the “war on terror”. Polls showed support for existing wars increased markedly among Europeans when they were reminded that Obama backed these wars.

As Greenwald observes:

“Obama’s most important value was in prettifying, marketing and prolonging wars, not ending them. They saw him for what U.S. Presidents really are: instruments to create a brand and image about the U.S. role in the world that can be effectively peddled to both the domestic population in the U.S. and then on the global stage, and specifically to pretend that endless barbaric U.S. wars are really humanitarian projects benevolently designed to help people — the pretext used to justify every war by every country in history.”

Obama-style Facelift

Once the state is understood as a vehicle for entrenching elite power – and war its most trusted tool for concentrating power – the world becomes far more intelligible. Western economies never stopped being colonial economies, but they were given an Obama-style facelift. War and plunder – even when they masquerade as “defence”, or peace – are still the core western mission.

That is why Britons, believing days of empire are long behind them, might have been shocked to learn last week that the UK still operates 145 military bases in 42 countries around the globe, meaning it runs the second largest network of such bases after the US.

Such information is not made available in the UK “mainstream” media, of course. It has to be provided by an “alternative” investigative site, Declassified UK. In that way the vast majority of the British public are left clueless about how their taxes are being used at a time when they are told further belt-tightening is essential.

That is the true reality.

 

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

 Tuesday, December 1, 2020.  All you writer boys?  Can you just cup your groins and shut your mouths for a few minutes?  As usual, your critiques of Neera Tandem miss the point and, yet again, feminists have to step up to cover what you refuse to see or at least refuse to emphasize.


Starting and staying in the US with Neera Tanden.  Neera cannot be made OMB.  Will she be?  It's very likely.  But there is one main reason she should not be.  We've noted multiple videos since Team Biden announced that Neera would be Joe's nominee for OMB: 


If someone in the above has stressed the point I'm about to make, my apologies.  I don't have time watch everything that I'm asked to highlight here.  I have read a great deal of written commentary about Neera.  The main point is either ignored or glossed over.


Neera's Twitter rages are well known and that might be the only good thing about her becoming OMB -- that Joe would insist she stay off Twitter.  But there's no way feminists can support Neera.  Nor can they remain silent.


We've already collectively sent a bad message with some of us supporting Joe in the face of Tara Reade's credible allegations of Biden assaulting her.  I believe Tara.  If you do and you're a feminist who supported Joe, shame on you.  You sent a message -- the same way Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan  sent a message when they refused to stand with Phyllis Chesler when she was raped.  Instead of supporting her, they made excuses for her rapist Davidson Nicol.  In 2020, you have said you believe a woman who says Joe Biden assaulted her but that that woman can be sacrificed.


In doing so, you've made girls and women collateral damage.  Supposedly, on the left, we decry that term and we loathe it being used to justify the US government killing innocents.  However the soap boxes some of us are standing on currently?  They're caving in a little bit and may collapse shortly.  Because we have no right to call out the US government's justifying deaths as "collateral damage" when we ourselves are turning girls women into just that.


Neera is a woman.  She is not a feminist and she should not have the support of any feminist in the United States.  Walter Bragman (JACOBIN) writes of Neera's attempts to gut Social Security.  So what?  Do I agree with that?  Hell no.  But Walter's already documented -- throughout the primary -- Joe Biden's stance and it's in keeping with Neera's stance.  I don't think you defeat her the way Bragman's trying.


You defeat her by making the case that she's either incompetent or flat out hostile to other women.  She has demonstrated that she should not be in a position of authority.


Sarah Mimms (BUZZFEED) 2018:

Two days after BuzzFeed News unveiled allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation at one of the nation’s top liberal think tanks, the Center for American Progress's president, Neera Tanden, met with staff to restore confidence in the organization’s ability to handle the issue and ensure that employees feel safe.

But during the meeting Wednesday afternoon, Tanden named the anonymous victim at the center that story — a revelation that a CAP spokesperson said was unintentional — and what began as a tense meeting became what three staffers in the room described as a textbook example of the organization’s failures to appropriately handle sexual harassment cases.

"There is literally one thing you cannot do in this meeting and that is out the victim and Neera did it multiple times...It also destroys whatever small level of confidence in the system remained," one CAP employee who was in the room said in a text to BuzzFeed News. “As a manager I don't know how I can tell staff to trust the system when the head of the organization just outed the victim in front of the entire organization. It is impossible to trust her.”

“Neera lost the organization today,” another CAP employee who was in the meeting said. “There was so much angst in that room. She outed the victim, and the subtext of every question was a lack of confidence in her leadership and ability to create trust within the organization.”


Let's note this from Sarah's earlier article:


The Center for American Progress, the politics and policy hub for the Democratic establishment, has put out four different policy proposal papers on handling sexual harassment in the workplace, as well as data on how pervasive the issue is “across all industries.”

The organization’s president, Neera Tanden, has vehemently criticized Republicans for their reaction to the accusations of sexual misconduct against President Donald Trump and wrote in a tweet still pinned to her profile, “I don't think the country has understood how psychologically wounding it was to so many women that Trump won after the Access Hollywood tape.”

But only an hour after the Access Hollywood tape was made public, top officials at CAP received an exit memo from a young woman who'd just quit detailing the sexual harassment she experienced from Benton Strong, a manager on her team — harassment, she wrote, that management already knew about — and how she faced retaliation for reporting it.

In the email, the junior staffer, who asked that BuzzFeed News refer her to as Mary, which is part of the woman’s formal name, wrote that “on several occasions, myself and others on the team felt as if reporting had been a mistake and that the retaliation, worsening of already tenuous team dynamics, and treatment by supervisors outweighed the seemingly positive act of reporting sexual harassment in the workplace.” When contacted about this story, the woman confirmed the authenticity of the exit memo, but declined to comment further, except to respond on Saturday to a statement from CAP.

“CAP’s culture obscures its mission,” Mary wrote, toward the end of her memo. “All of this to say, I surely expected better out of an organization that housed a national campaign on sexual assault.”


Get it and grasp it: Harassment took place repeatedly at CAP while Neera was the head of it.  The harassment was known by management and the women being harassed were not assisted in anyway by Neera.  Instead, she made a point to look the other way.  Once Sarah Mimms reported what was going on, Neera immediately called a meeting and outed a woman being harassed.  


That's what Neera did. 


In terms of management skills?  She has none.  She is not fit to be in any position let alone the head of the OMB.  What she did would not fly in corporate America.


Glenn Greenwald writes a very long article.  But like everyone else, he's not addressing actual issues.  Oh, Neera was mean to Bernie!!!! Do you think the Congress is going to give two s**ts about that?  Do you think every action Joe's taking right now isn't already spitting in Bernie's face?


Can we focus on reality?  Joe wants to put Neera in charge of an agency, a federal agency.  But Neera's history -- and we're only going back two years, demonstrates that she is not up to being in management.  She had one duty at CAP: To protect her employees.  And she failed.  And when her failure was exposed, she outed the woman who spoke to BUZZFEED about the harassment.


In corporate America, that would be it for Neera.  Not saying others don't do worse and get away with it.  But anyone in corporate America who did what Neera did and the press covered it?  That person would be dismissed immediately.  


That Joe has nominated Neera goes to just how much we have collectively failed as feminists.  Joe's not a clean slate.  Even those of us who set aside Tara Reade (I don't, I believe Tara) have to admit Joe's pattern of harassment.  Amanda Arnold and Claire Lampen (THE CUT) detailed some of the other harassment of women:


Ahead of former vice-president Joe Biden’s expected 2020 presidential bid, women are speaking out about their personal interactions with him — alleging he physically touched them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable. Last week, the Cut published an essay by Lucy Flores, a former Nevada lieutenant governor nominee, who wrote that Biden smelled her hair and kissed the back of her head at a campaign event in 2014. In the week since, several more women have come forward.

Below, here’s a running list of the allegations against Biden.

Lucy Flores
On March 29, in the aforementioned essay published on the Cut, former Nevada lieutenant governor nominee Lucy Flores alleged that Biden smelled her hair and gave her “a big slow kiss” on the back of her head at an event for her 2014 campaign. In that moment, she wrote, she felt “embarrassed” and “shocked.”

“I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me,” she continued. In response to the essay, Biden claimed that he had no memory of having “acted inappropriately,” but added that if he was in the wrong, he would “listen respectfully.”

Amy Lappos
When Amy Lappos was a congressional aide for U.S. representative Jim Himes in 2009, she claims that Biden touched and rubbed his nose against hers during a political fund-raiser. “It wasn’t sexual, but he did grab me by the head,” she told Hartford Courant on April 1. “He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth.”

After the incident, Lappos didn’t file a formal complaint. “He was the vice president,” she told the Courant. “I was a nobody.”

D.J. Hill
D.J. Hill was one of two women to come forward with allegations in the New York Times, which referred to Biden’s conduct as “tactile politics” in a report published on April 2. At a 2012 at a fundraising event in Minneapolis, Hill alleges that Biden rested his hand on her shoulder, and then started to move it down her back, which left her feeling “very uncomfortable.”

“Only he knows his intent,” she told the Times, adding, “If something makes you feel uncomfortable, you have to feel able to say it.”

Caitlyn Caruso
In the same Times report, a woman named Caitlyn Caruso claimed that after sharing the story of her sexual assault at a University of Nevada event in 2016, Biden hugged her “just a little bit too long” and laid his hand on her thigh.

“It doesn’t even really cross your mind that such a person would dare perpetuate harm like that,” she told the Times. “These are supposed to be people you can trust.”

Ally Coll
On April 3, Ally Coll told the Washington Post that at a 2008 reception, Biden squeezed her shoulders, complimented her smile, and held her “for a beat too long.” A young Democratic staffer at the time, Coll said her initial reaction was to shrug it off. But she told the Post she now feels the alleged incident was inappropriate, adding, “There’s been a lack of understanding about the way that power can turn something that might seem innocuous into something that can make somebody feel uncomfortable.”

Sofie Karasek
In 2016, Sofie Karasek was photographed holding hands and touching foreheads with Biden at the Oscars, where she stood alongside 50 other sexual-assault survivors during Lady Gaga’s performance. It was a moment that soon went viral, and was described then by the Post as “powerful.” But in the Post’s report published this week, Karasek says she believes that Biden violated her personal space. She also told the Post that she wasn’t impressed with Biden’s two-minute-long video response to the growing unwanted-touching allegations against him — in which he never says he’s sorry — as he “didn’t take ownership in the way that he needs to.”

“He emphasized that he wants to connect with people and, of course, that’s important,” she told the publication. “But again, all of our interactions and friendships are a two-way street … Too often it doesn’t matter how the woman feels about it or they just assume that they’re fine with it.”

Vail Kohnert-Yount
In the same Post report, Vail Kohnert-Yount alleged that when she was a White House intern in the spring of 2013, Biden “put his hand on the back of [her] head and pressed his forehead to [her] forehead” when he introduced himself, and that he called her a “pretty girl.” She was “so shocked,” she said, “that it was hard to focus on what he was saying.” Though she told the Post that she doesn’t believe Biden’s conduct constituted sexual misconduct, she described it as “the kind of inappropriate behavior that makes many women feel uncomfortable and unequal in the workplace.”


If you remember, many rushed forward with garbage about 'that's just Joe' or 'he's just touchy.'  What he did was unacceptable.  It was wrong.  It caused enough of a problem for him that he taped a video 'apology' (even before the pandemic, he was refusing to deal with the press with regards to tough issues).  And then what happened?  Seth McLaughlin (THE WASHINGTON TIMES via AP):

Speaking at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers construction and maintenance conference in Washington, Mr. Biden opened his remarks by assuring the audience that the hug he gave IBEW President Lonnie Stephenson before taking the stage was consensual.

“You know as the say in parts of my old neighborhood in Scranton, you guys brung me to the dance, you really did, and I just want you to know I had permission to hug Lonnie,” Mr. Biden said with a grin, sparking laughter and applause from the crowd.



These jokes came two days after his so-called apology.  Sabrina Siddiqui (GUARDIAN) noted:

On Wednesday, Biden pledged in a video to change his behavior.

“Social norms are changing. I understand that, and I’ve heard what these women are saying,” Biden said. “Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful of personal space in the future. That’s my responsibility and I will meet it.”

Speaking to reporters after Friday’s event, Biden was asked if he would apologize to the women directly.

“I’m sorry I didn’t understand,” he said. “I’m not sorry for any of my intentions.”


Joe got a pass and he learned nothing.  This goes to what his administration will be.  He has offended women -- I think even non-feminists can agree with that -- and his actions since have not demonstrated that he's the great supporter of women.  


And yet here he is nominating a woman who presided over an unsafe work culture, who did not address the workplace harassment until after BUZZFEED exposed it and who then outed a victim of the harassment to the entire workplace.  


Neera's actions are outrageous, offensive and go to how she's not fit to preside over any agency.  But equally true, that after Tara has accused Joe of assault, after eight other women have detailed harassment, Joe has learned nothing and is willing to nominate someone who is the poster of a workplace harassment.


This is offensive and shame on anyone -- feminist or not -- who doesn't speak out.


I wanted to cover Iraq and the assault Moqtada carried out.  But as often happens, my dreaming hours were on a problem and the solution popped up.  Neera is unqualified to head an agency. 


Yet our left -- and, let's be honest, it's our left men -- wants to tear her down because of Social Security (I don't support her position but it's in keeping with Joe's position) or because she was mean to Bernie or because she's a conspiracy nut or because . . .


At what point, Walker and Glenn and all of you, at what point do you value women?  At what point do you see someone who presided over a toxic workplace and refused to address it until the press exposed it?  That goes directly to whether or not she's qualified to run anything -- let alone the OMB?


Glenn and Walker aren't the only ones at fault.  There should be hyperawareness about harassment in the workplace.  But we spent too much time in 2019 and 2020 minimizing Joe's actions.


Neera's unfit.  What does it say about Joe that he's nominated her?


It calls into question his own judgment and it certainly tears at his pose of being the great supporter of women.


Girls lives matter.  Women's lives matter.


We have treated women and girls, over and over, as collateral damage.  We've said it's for the greater good.  It's not. 


It's not for the greater good of any girl or woman because the message is repeatedly sent that assault is okay if it's just a girl or just a woman. 


We need to rise up and make it clear that we will not be your collateral damage.  Our lives matter.


And excusing an attack or an assault on one of us is excusing an attack or assault on all of us.


I want to be clear, as I've noted before, that some feminists don't believe Tara.  That's fine.  We all have to make the judgment ourselves.  If you didn't believe Tara and you're a feminist, did you not believe Lucy?  If you didn't believe Tara and you're a feminist, are you okay with toxic workplace leader Neera being put in charge of a government agency?


There's no excuse for this nomination.  It is appalling.  And if we are feminists, we need to be calling it out.  Loudly.  


Last Wednesday, we noted The International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.  We focused on the violence aimed at women in Iraq and the US.  Did anyone else?


I didn't see men rushing to cover the topic.


And now we've got Neera nominated to head an agency after she failed employees and I'm not seeing men stepping up and tackling this.  They should be.  It goes to her qualifications -- her lack of them.  But they'd rather zoom in on any other topic.


This is the topic.  How can she head an agency when she's already demonstrated that she's a failure and that those under her are at risk?  


This is the issue and it's always feminists that have to raise it.  There's no greater issue that goes to why she's not fit to head the OMB but look at the discussion and grasp how men are using anything and everything to go after her except for her actual appalling record. 


The following sites updated: