by Michelle Gagnon
I feel like there's been an increasingly acrimonious discourse lately on traditional vs. self-publishing, and frankly, I'm tired of it. I'm seeing it at conferences, online, and everywhere in between. Both camps are equally guilty here, in terms of snide comments and blatant put-downs. Those who are under contract with traditional publishing houses sniff at the fact that self-published authors skipped over hurdles to publish what they suspect (but rarely say publicly) must be drivel, or what one writer friend of mine referred to as a "tsunami of swill."
In the other camp, the self-published authors extol the fantastic revenue returns they're receiving, a far greater percentage than what they would have gotten from a standard publishing contract. They make lots of references to an archaic business model, implying that anyone who still partakes in it is a fool.
Enough already.
I don't really care how someone is published, or how many books they sell, or how much money they're making. But the overall nastiness that's becoming commonplace is off-putting. The prevailing attitude used to be, "we're all in this together" among writers, whereas now there's a schism. And that's a shame, because both models have their merits.
To those (like me) who are still publishing with the major houses: I've read wonderful novels in the past few years that failed to find a home. Sometimes the reason for that was clear--the book was aimed at a very niche market, one where publishers couldn't envision making a profit. Other times, I was at a loss to know why a particular book didn't sell. One was an amazing YA novel written by a friend of mine, who ended up self-pubbing on Wattpad. After reaching an extraordinary amount of downloads, she moved it to Amazon and started charging for it. And it's doing well- IMHO, the publishers lost out on this one.
To self-published authors: The traditional houses aren't going anywhere. People frequently point to the music industry, which is a fantastic example. What they fail to take into account is that musicians still aren't, by and large, self-producing music. Eighty-five percent of the music sold worldwide is still produced by the same music companies that were producing it a decade ago. Many of those companies have merged and/or consolidated, sure. But they're still around, for the same reason that the big 6 will still be around in a decade. Like it or not (and I'm not, personally, a huge fan of this, but so be it), most of the houses are part of much larger conglomerates. And News Corp and CBS aren't going anywhere; they're also unlikely to shed an industry that still feeds into their film and TV franchises. So, no, people who still follow the old model aren't going to be shoved out, by and large. The midlist might diminish further, but books will continue to be released by those companies well into the future.
There are pros and cons to each model. Self-published authors don't have the benefit and protection of a contract, so if Amazon decides tomorrow to change those royalty rates, they're well within their rights to do so. It's also far more difficult to secure foreign and film/tv rights when you self-pub, and that tends to be the bread and butter of traditional authors.
Traditional authors, meanwhile, do lose out on some royalties that they could potentially be getting. They also have to wait months, and occasionally years, for a book to finally appear on shelves. And advances are not what they once were.
But there's no right way and no wrong way. Write your book. Publish your book, however you prefer. But please, stop with the mud slinging. At the end of the day, we're all still pursuing the same dream.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Before & After Sandy Satellite Imagery
Google has updated the Crisis Response Map for Superstorm Sandy with some new satellite imagery. The new post-Sandy imagery shows the shoreline from Atlantic City to Cape May, NJ.
The map includes a slide control so that you can compare the new imagery with the Google Maps satellite image taken before the storm.The Crisis Response Map also includes links to power outage information in all the areas affected by the storm.
Voter turnout
We did Halloween with our daughter tonight. It was nice. But except for minutes in the car catching news on the radio, I have no idea what's going on. Hectic day at work and then straight to trick or treating.
But what I did hear was a discussion between a Democratic pollster and the host of a talk show about expected voter turnout.
This is, if the pollster's information is correct, not a must-vote election. The expectation is the this will not have 2008's turnout or 2004 or 2000. I'm assuming they are referring to percentage. Say voter turnout will be 72% instead of 76%.
I say that because each year our population increases. So it's got to be percentages.
Now if the pollster was right -- and he may have been wrong -- as I have understood politics, low turnout generally means Democrats aren't rushing to the polls.
That may be an outdated stereotype. When I was a young person and in all the years since, it was thought conservatives turned out regardless. Democrats? There is the youth factor. There is also the work factor. Democrats are more likely to not have the flexible schedules that allow for easy voting.
I could go into that more but that might never have been accurate or it might not be today.
Also the pollster -- a Democrat -- didn't seem worried so I'll guess that the old beliefs are no longer true.
But the turnout is expected to be lower this year. I will be so glad when the election is over. Next Tuesday. Can't get here quick enough.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
But what I did hear was a discussion between a Democratic pollster and the host of a talk show about expected voter turnout.
This is, if the pollster's information is correct, not a must-vote election. The expectation is the this will not have 2008's turnout or 2004 or 2000. I'm assuming they are referring to percentage. Say voter turnout will be 72% instead of 76%.
I say that because each year our population increases. So it's got to be percentages.
Now if the pollster was right -- and he may have been wrong -- as I have understood politics, low turnout generally means Democrats aren't rushing to the polls.
That may be an outdated stereotype. When I was a young person and in all the years since, it was thought conservatives turned out regardless. Democrats? There is the youth factor. There is also the work factor. Democrats are more likely to not have the flexible schedules that allow for easy voting.
I could go into that more but that might never have been accurate or it might not be today.
Also the pollster -- a Democrat -- didn't seem worried so I'll guess that the old beliefs are no longer true.
But the turnout is expected to be lower this year. I will be so glad when the election is over. Next Tuesday. Can't get here quick enough.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, kebabs are out, al Qaeda is back, corruption never left Iraq, nor did US troops (despite Beecroft's claims otherwise), we look at Benghazi, terror and more. Save us all from the sexism. Last night, Ann, Marcia, Ava and I weighed in on a sexist get-out-the-vote ad and I would have hoped that lengthy piece could be it on the topic for a bit. But sexism never ends, instead it seems to roll in with the tide. Yesterday's snapshot noted Nussaibah Younis' "Time to Get Tough on Iraq" (New York Times) which is an important column. And one of many important pieces of writing Nussaibah's contributed over the years -- such as at England's Guardian newspaper. But today Jacob Hornberger (Media With Conscience News) decides to 'tackle' the article in the way only certain men can -- by completely misunderstanding everything about the article and about Nussaibah. So when Hornberger writes of Nussaibah, "He wants the U.S. government to get tough . . ."? |
Ravana – The Great Warrior (2009) Bengali Movie HQ Watch Online
Ravana – The Great Warrior 2009 – Watch Full Free Bengali Movie Online
Movie Genre: Animation Starring: Debjit, Subroto Nath Mukherjee, Namita Chakraborty, Atanu Sen, Kuntal Mukherjee, Satabdi Mitra Director: Ashtam Producer: Sandeep Agarwal
ParaNorman Review
Norman tries to prevent a zombie apocalypse in ParaNorman.
3 Stars
In what's looking like a banner year for animated films, ParaNorman is without question the sweetest we've seen so far. The film's acceptance themes are anything but subtle, but its story is clever, its animation is crisp, and its characters are really charming. A double feature with Tim Burton's Frankenweenie would make for a very heart-warming, entertaining Halloween—for adults and kids alike.
Norman Babcock (voice of Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a good-natured kid whose best friend is his Grandma (voice of Elaine Stritch). The problem is she's dead. Norman sees and often converses with the dead, which alienates him from his parents and classmates in sad and painful ways. And in a town like Blithe Hollow (presumably standing in for Salem, Massachusetts) with a dark history of curses and accusations of witchcraft, death is everywhere—making Norman's "gift" completely inescapable.
When a scraggly town crier (voice of John Goodman) tells Norman that he must use his gift to save Blithe Hollow and its citizens from imminent doom, he balks. But a storm is brewing, which makes him nervous, so he visits the old man's house, where he's told he needs to read from a book at the place where a supposed witch was put to rest hundreds of years ago. So he does, but nothing happens, and without warning, a handful of zombies rise from the grave to wreak havoc—unless Norman can somehow stop them.
Once the zombies rise, ParaNorman transforms from a character-driven film to something plot-driven, but writer/director Chris Butler and co-director Sam Fell smartly never lose sight of Norman's own demons—his inability to connect with his father, the constant ridicule he receives from kids at school. Norman is sweet, but it's easy to see why he's alienating. Of course, you know he'll change over the course of the film. The trick is to make that growth feel organic. Butler and Fell pull it off better than you might expect. Not only is the transformation natural, but it's entertaining as hell.
It wouldn't exactly be accurate to classify ParaNorman as an action movie, but there are some pretty thrilling chases. The real star of the film, however, is the animation. This is claymation at its absolute best. It looks more like a Halloween movie than anything I've ever seen before with oranges, blacks, filthy greens, and haunting purples dominating every frame. The character design, also, is noteworthy—some characters' heads are shapes I couldn't even describe to you.
ParaNorman is also quite funny—oftentimes to the point that you'll laugh out loud. It features a wide, diverse cast of characters, all of whom ultimately play an important role in the film's resolution, which is pat but satisfying. The film takes you on a pretty wild ride, and by the time you reach that conclusion, you'll feel it's earned. It's hard to argue with a film that can accomplish all that. Though it's slight, it doesn't make a single major misstep.
ITALIAN HORROR: THE THIRD MOTHER
Part of the Italian Horror Blogathon at Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies
An earlier version of this review can be found here.
It's one thing to watch Mother of Tears, Dario Argento's 2007 conclusion to his Three Mothers trilogy, with some distance between yourself, and Suspiria and Inferno, and understand in a general way why it is not as good as they are; but when you watch all three right in a row, Mother of Tears is like getting slapped in the face with a sock full of fish guts. This is not, really, all that shocking - for as anyone enough of a fan of Argento to seek out and watch Mother of Tears already knows, the entire experience of the director's filmography after his last good film, 1987's Opera, is like getting slapped in the face with one kind of wet, smelly substance or another, over and over again, in new and increasingly un-exciting ways ("Jenifer", his first contribution to the TV series Masters of Horror, sidesteps this general descent into awfulness, and The Stendhal Syndrome has its defenders, though I have not myself seen it).
In fact, for all that Mother of Tears is a terrible, disappointing follow-up to one masterpiece and one damn fine horror movie - far more than I recalled - that's not the worst of it. The worst is that it's a straight-up bad movie, on its on terms, forget who directed it and forget that it was the long-awaited culmination of a franchise. Despite a handful of moments that absolutely can't help but work - a woman, gripped by an unknown and unseen force, throwing her baby off of a bridge, depicted in a horrifyingly casual handful of shots, or some of the more elliptically-shot gore scenes, of which there are many more in this film than in the others of the trilogy - it's poor filmmaking, plain and simple. Not just because we expect more of Dario Argento, but because we expect more of people who get paid good money to make movies.
The film's plot is considerably more logical than Suspiria or Inferno, though still full enough of gaps, holes, and unexpected jumps that we can rest assured that we're in the comforting arms of Italian genre cinema: in brief, an archaeological dig sponsored by the Catholic church has found an ancient box containing several artificacts, which they send to a museum of antiquities in Rome; there it is studied by Sarah Mandy (Asia Argento), the third "Sarah/Sara" in the trilogy, and the first who does not end up serving as expendable meat; but opening the box and studying its contents - statues, a cloak, a dagger - serve to awaken the power of the final member of the Three Mothers, the witch sisters who have done so much to cause misery to humanity for centuries. And when Mater Lachrymarum (Moran Atias) decides to assert her terrible powers, things go real bad: a wave of suicides sweep Rome, and several people close to Sarah are killed in diabolically violent ways. Eventually, Sarah meets Marta (Valeria Cavalli), a white witch who can start to fill in some of the details of what the hell is happening: it turns out that Sarah is herself the daughter of a powerful white witch Elisa (Daria Nicolodi, Asia Argento's mother), and Lachrymarum has been focused on killing her since she is the only person who can stop the black witch's terror.
That is, mind you, taking a lot of the work out of it. For the most part, the film consists of Sarah doing one thing, followed by a lengthy sequence of crazy magic happening and people dying as a result, and nearly all of the actual story occurs in a handful of scenes where exposition is dumped on us by a friendly, menacing alchemist (Philippe Leroy), who retells the story of architect/scientist Varelli, who built the homes of the Three Mothers and wrote a book about it; you may remember this book as a major plot point in Inferno, and unlucky for you if that's the case, because the backstory for Varelli provided in that movie is quite a bit different from the backstory provided in Mother of Tears.
Anyway, same old story: an Argento movie with a plot that isn't, strung along a series of visually aggressive setpieces. Except that the Argento of Mother of Tears had long since lost the talents to make his horrifying imagery look as hallucinatory and rich as in his glory days, and "visually aggressive" had, by 2007, come to mean "pointlessly disgusting" in the director's output. Sure enough, Mother of Tears more than makes up in viscera what it lacks in imagination, but only the most rabid gorehound would consider that a trade-up; and if the film is not so unpleasant as some of Argento's other late work, that leaves us with a whole lot of room to be rather unpleasant, indeed.
And when that is married to the slapdash filmmaking on display through pretty much the entire film, particularly in the areas of music (Claudio Simonetti's score has the muzaky quality of an Asylum film) and acting (Asia Argento, whom I typically adore even though she is sort of terrible, is on her worst behavior here, acting with the disjointed, inarticulate stiffness of a cheap porn star), the result is a movie that feels grubby and bad: mean without any sort of aesthetic uplift, and vicious without being in the least bit scary, and incoherent with the poetics of Suspiria or a half-dozen other Argentos. It traffics in exploitation - there's a crazy amount of nudity, with Mater Lachrymarum herself almost unnaturally excited to show off her millennia-old boob job - without the sense of playfulness that would make the exploitation go down easier. When I first visited this movie, in a far less angry review, I suggested it resembled a parody of Argento, and now I must reconsider that: this is no parody, it's a goddamn travesty.
An earlier version of this review can be found here.
In fact, for all that Mother of Tears is a terrible, disappointing follow-up to one masterpiece and one damn fine horror movie - far more than I recalled - that's not the worst of it. The worst is that it's a straight-up bad movie, on its on terms, forget who directed it and forget that it was the long-awaited culmination of a franchise. Despite a handful of moments that absolutely can't help but work - a woman, gripped by an unknown and unseen force, throwing her baby off of a bridge, depicted in a horrifyingly casual handful of shots, or some of the more elliptically-shot gore scenes, of which there are many more in this film than in the others of the trilogy - it's poor filmmaking, plain and simple. Not just because we expect more of Dario Argento, but because we expect more of people who get paid good money to make movies.
The film's plot is considerably more logical than Suspiria or Inferno, though still full enough of gaps, holes, and unexpected jumps that we can rest assured that we're in the comforting arms of Italian genre cinema: in brief, an archaeological dig sponsored by the Catholic church has found an ancient box containing several artificacts, which they send to a museum of antiquities in Rome; there it is studied by Sarah Mandy (Asia Argento), the third "Sarah/Sara" in the trilogy, and the first who does not end up serving as expendable meat; but opening the box and studying its contents - statues, a cloak, a dagger - serve to awaken the power of the final member of the Three Mothers, the witch sisters who have done so much to cause misery to humanity for centuries. And when Mater Lachrymarum (Moran Atias) decides to assert her terrible powers, things go real bad: a wave of suicides sweep Rome, and several people close to Sarah are killed in diabolically violent ways. Eventually, Sarah meets Marta (Valeria Cavalli), a white witch who can start to fill in some of the details of what the hell is happening: it turns out that Sarah is herself the daughter of a powerful white witch Elisa (Daria Nicolodi, Asia Argento's mother), and Lachrymarum has been focused on killing her since she is the only person who can stop the black witch's terror.
That is, mind you, taking a lot of the work out of it. For the most part, the film consists of Sarah doing one thing, followed by a lengthy sequence of crazy magic happening and people dying as a result, and nearly all of the actual story occurs in a handful of scenes where exposition is dumped on us by a friendly, menacing alchemist (Philippe Leroy), who retells the story of architect/scientist Varelli, who built the homes of the Three Mothers and wrote a book about it; you may remember this book as a major plot point in Inferno, and unlucky for you if that's the case, because the backstory for Varelli provided in that movie is quite a bit different from the backstory provided in Mother of Tears.
Anyway, same old story: an Argento movie with a plot that isn't, strung along a series of visually aggressive setpieces. Except that the Argento of Mother of Tears had long since lost the talents to make his horrifying imagery look as hallucinatory and rich as in his glory days, and "visually aggressive" had, by 2007, come to mean "pointlessly disgusting" in the director's output. Sure enough, Mother of Tears more than makes up in viscera what it lacks in imagination, but only the most rabid gorehound would consider that a trade-up; and if the film is not so unpleasant as some of Argento's other late work, that leaves us with a whole lot of room to be rather unpleasant, indeed.
And when that is married to the slapdash filmmaking on display through pretty much the entire film, particularly in the areas of music (Claudio Simonetti's score has the muzaky quality of an Asylum film) and acting (Asia Argento, whom I typically adore even though she is sort of terrible, is on her worst behavior here, acting with the disjointed, inarticulate stiffness of a cheap porn star), the result is a movie that feels grubby and bad: mean without any sort of aesthetic uplift, and vicious without being in the least bit scary, and incoherent with the poetics of Suspiria or a half-dozen other Argentos. It traffics in exploitation - there's a crazy amount of nudity, with Mater Lachrymarum herself almost unnaturally excited to show off her millennia-old boob job - without the sense of playfulness that would make the exploitation go down easier. When I first visited this movie, in a far less angry review, I suggested it resembled a parody of Argento, and now I must reconsider that: this is no parody, it's a goddamn travesty.
Trusty rain boots
For the past few days, everyone in Manhattan has been walking around in rain boots. My trusty pair, above, are these Loeffler Randall booties. The great thing about Loeffler Randall boots is that they look like cool shoes, not clunky rainboots, so you can wear them to work or dinner. And they're small enough to take on trips. I'd highly recommend them. xoxo
P.S. These tall boots are also super cute.
Smitten Kitchen cookbook
Smitten Kitchen, the warm and wonderful food blog, just came out with a cookbook! Deb Perelman cooks fearlessly in her tiny kitchen in New York City and creates delicious and approachable recipes. (She's a firm believer that "there are no bad cooks, just bad recipes.") The book has 105 recipes (almost all are brand new), funny personal stories and a lay-flat binding so the cookbook will stay open on your kitchen counter.
Bravo, Deb! Cannot wait to get my hands on it. I have a feeling that it'll be one of those beloved cookbooks we'll not only use in the kitchen but also read in bed before falling asleep:)
P.S. Her lazy egg sandwich...
(Photos by Smitten Kitchen)
Mr.Sapra from Punjabi Cultural Heritage Board presents Ajay Devgn with a kirpaan
Let us see the photo gallery of this Mr.Sapra from Punjabi Cultural Heritage Board presents Ajay Devgn with a kirpaan images,stills.
.jpg "Mr.Sapra from Punjabi Cultural Heritage Board presents Ajay Devgn with a kirpaan")
.jpg "Mr.Sapra from Punjabi Cultural Heritage Board presents Ajay Devgn with a kirpaan")
Nargis Fakhri on the cover of magazine Ink
Bollywood actress Nargis Fakhri on the cover of magazine Ink Magazine November 2012 issue.
 |
| Nargis Fakhri's photo shoot for Ink Magazine gallery,pictures. |
Deepika Padukone on the cover of Femina Magazine
Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone on the cover page o Femina Hindi Magazine November 2012 issue. The magazine tagged "Main Bahoot romantic hoon" -Deepika Padukone
_3.jpg) |
| Deepika Padukone's latest hot photo shoot for Femina Hindi Nov 2012 edition |
The Best Pumpkin Crème Brûlée You'll Ever Have
Happy Halloween! I have a treat for you today. Have you ever made creme brûlée? My mom recently had the great idea to serve the rich custard at dinner parties and then pass around a little torch so everyone can burn the hard caramel on top of their dish. It's a spectacle! Both grown-ups and kids adore it. Well, lucky for us, Karen Mordechai of Sunday Suppers has agreed to share her pumpkin-flavored recipe...Read More >
Find Your Neighborhood with Google Maps
NabeWise is an impressive application to help you find the perfect neighborhood to move into or visit.
NabeWise allows users to select the criteria that is important to them in a neighborhood, from a list of filters, and then displays the best matched neighborhoods on a Google Map. NabeWise includes a number of filters that allow users to select the character, the things to do and the type of people they are looking for in a neighborhood.
Users can also set filters for the average cost of property and to filter parking, public transit and safety. If you like the look of a neighborhood on the map you can click through to get fuller reviews, photos and videos, school stats and a wealth of other information about the neighborhood.
Create Your Own Twitter Map
Tweet to Map is a jQuery plugin that allows you to easily create a Google Map showing location based Tweets.
Using the plugin it is possible to create a Google Map that shows geotagged Twitter messages that have been posted around any location. The plugin includes options to define the radius around a location that you wish to display Tweets in and a hashtag search to show only Tweets including certain hashtags.
It is also possible to customise the map markers with the plugin.
ALIEN (1979) Action Figure Commercial
"Give up! Alien can't be beat!" Vintage TV spot for the Second Coolest Toy Ever!
Happy Halloween, Star Kids!
Here's a few other scary Space: 1970 posts you might enjoy today:
Galaxy Of Terror Review
Alien: The Illustrated Story
Saturn 3 Theatrical Trailer
ALIEN (1979) Action Figure Commercial
"Give up! Alien can't be beat!" Vintage TV spot for the Second Coolest Toy Ever!
Happy Halloween, Star Kids!
Here's a few other scary Space: 1970 posts you might enjoy today:
Galaxy Of Terror Review
Alien: The Illustrated Story
Saturn 3 Theatrical Trailer
Haunted Theater
By Joe Moore
Happy Halloween!
As far back as I can remember, Halloween was and is my favorite holiday. My first memory of All Hallows Eve is when I was 6 or 7 and was invited into a neighbor’s house where my two best friends lived. At one point, their mother showed me a small trap door in the ceiling inside a linen closet. She said that it led to the attic where Hector, their family ghost lived. As my friends and I sat around eating the candy we had collected earlier that night, I swear I heard something moving around up above our heads. Hector was my first ghost. There have been others.
Down through the years, I did my share of tricking and treating once the sun went down, and loving every minute of it. And the #1 reason (besides my never-ending hunger for candy corn) that I loved Halloween so much was that it was the one day of the year when I could be anyone or anything I wanted. I could take on a totally different persona and it was okay. Sometimes the real alter ego would emerge. Sometimes it would surprise my family and friends. Most times, it would surprise me. Interestingly enough, I’ve found a way to duplicate that Halloween identity switch every day. I became a novelist. Whenever I want, I can take on my characters’ identities and live through their lives within a world that exists only in my mind. What a cool job!
When our two boys were growing up and Halloween rolled around, I would take the day off from work and spend it getting the house ready for what we called Haunted Theater. I had a huge 6’ Sony front projection TV and an equally huge bay window. I would roll the TV up to the front window and move my big theater speakers outside. Each year we would show a traditional Halloween movie like Ghostbusters or Abbott and Costello Meet The Mummy, and invite all the little ghosts and goblins to come back to our front yard after they had roamed the neighborhood. At our house, they could enjoy their sweet bounty while watching a great movie. We served Halloween spirits to the moms and dads from a caldron overflowing with dry ice fog. There were many years when we had 20-30 kids camped out on the grass watching that year’s feature film. It became a decade-long tradition.
Years later, when my wife and I would be out at the mall or a restaurant, we would often run into a stranger who would say, “Weren’t you the guys who showed the movies on Halloween?” It always reaffirmed that using up a vacation day each year to get the house ready was worth it.
So tonight when the knocks come on your front door and the shouts of Trick or Treat echo through the neighborhood, remember that Halloween is a night dedicated to kids and fun, and an evening that those boys and girls will remember for the rest of their lives. Make it special. Happy Halloween!
What about you? Any Halloween memories or traditions you treasure?
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Important essay went up at several sites
"'You have the blood of an American hero on your hands'" (San Diego Union-Tribune):
What did President Barack Obama know and when did he know it? Why has the Obama administration kept changing its story about how Ambassador Chris Stevens, security officials Tyrone Young of Imperial Beach and Glen Doherty of Encinitas, and information officer Sean Smith, who grew up in San Diego, died on Sept. 11 in Benghazi, Libya? Why won’t the mainstream media treat the incontrovertible evidence of the White House’s dishonesty and incompetence like the ugly scandal it obviously is?
These are all questions that demand to be answered after revelations that demolished the tidy narrative the president has been offering about Benghazi.
I think you're going to find the press getting more restless and demanding answers as more time passes.
I wish I had more to offer than that.
I've spent the night being a sounding board and I was thrilled to be that.
"We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)" just went up at Marcia, Ann and C.I. and Ava's sites.
It's wonderful. They went through several drafts on this trying to get it just right and it was a thrill to hear it in all of its drafts and watch it come to life.
They offered me writing credit for being a sounding board. Thank you but I didn't earn a credit. They also offered, before they started writing, that I could participate in it. I didn't feel I had anything really to offer on that topic but that's when I said, "I can contribute by being a sounding board and will gladly help out that way."
So go read their writing and, like me, be thrilled they said it.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
What did President Barack Obama know and when did he know it? Why has the Obama administration kept changing its story about how Ambassador Chris Stevens, security officials Tyrone Young of Imperial Beach and Glen Doherty of Encinitas, and information officer Sean Smith, who grew up in San Diego, died on Sept. 11 in Benghazi, Libya? Why won’t the mainstream media treat the incontrovertible evidence of the White House’s dishonesty and incompetence like the ugly scandal it obviously is?
These are all questions that demand to be answered after revelations that demolished the tidy narrative the president has been offering about Benghazi.
I think you're going to find the press getting more restless and demanding answers as more time passes.
I wish I had more to offer than that.
I've spent the night being a sounding board and I was thrilled to be that.
"We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)" just went up at Marcia, Ann and C.I. and Ava's sites.
It's wonderful. They went through several drafts on this trying to get it just right and it was a thrill to hear it in all of its drafts and watch it come to life.
They offered me writing credit for being a sounding board. Thank you but I didn't earn a credit. They also offered, before they started writing, that I could participate in it. I didn't feel I had anything really to offer on that topic but that's when I said, "I can contribute by being a sounding board and will gladly help out that way."
So go read their writing and, like me, be thrilled they said it.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, October 30, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, corruption continues, the State Dept wants nearly $150 million next year for Iraqi police training, the same media that served up Chris Stevens' mother as a voice for all refuses to acknowledge Tyrone Woods' father, and more.
On October 16, 2012, the Council of Ministers dismissed Central Bank of Iraq (CBI) Governor Sinan al-Shabibi, amid allegations of corruption leveled against him. This peremptory and constitutionally questionalbe move occured as an audit of the DBI's foreign currency auctions surfaced. The audit purportedly found that perhaps 80% of the $1 billion purchased at weekly CBI-managed auctions was tied to illegal transactions, with the funds subject to those transactions potentially lost abroad to money laundering. This development is symptomatic of a troubled year in Iraq, evidenced by increased corruption, resurgent violence, deepening ethnosectarian strains, growing apprehensions about the conflict in Syria, and widening divides within the coalition government.
So notes the latest quarterly report from the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction which was released today. It's findings will largely be ignored by the US press that focuses on the disaster and aftermath from Hurricane Sandy and the race of president. Since we mentioned al-Shabibi, let's go back to the report:
The former CBI Governor is credited by many analysts for maintaining the stability of the Iraqi dinar and for keeping inflation and interest rates low -- all viewed as crucially important prerequisites for the kind of well-managed economic growth Iraq hopes to achieve with its enormous oil wealth.
Political opponents of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, along with many banking and financial experts expressed immediate concern that the dismissal of Dr. al-Shabibi -- who is widely viewed as personally honest and professionally effective -- was an attempt to bring the CBI and its $63 billion in reserves under executive branch control. They pointed to the CoM's action as just one of among several steps the Prime Minister has taken to concentrate power within his office. For example, in 2010, al-Maliki won a legal case that effectively shifted control of independent agencies, such as the CBI, from the Council of Representatives (CoR) to the CoM. In an advisory opinion issued in February 2012, the Higher Judicial Council affirmed the earlier ruling, this time naming the CBI. The ruling drew criticsm at the time as a violation of the CBI's independence as guaranteed under the 2005 Iraqi Constitution.
September 19th, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Robert S. Beecroft's nomination to be the next US Ambassador to Iraq. He was confirmed the Saturday after the hearing. We covered the hearing in the September 19th and 20th snapshots. Senator John Kerry is the Committee Chair, Senator Richard Lugar is the Ranking Member. From the hearing:
Ranking Member Richard Lugar: Now you mentioned the relative security of our embassy and what have you. In the past, there's been considerable discussion, not only among diplomats but among the American public about the size in Iraq. There was discussion when this was first built -- a monumental structure, to say the least. I remember at one conference, I suggested in fact that this structure is so big that it might really serve as a unifying purpose for Middle Eastern countries -- a sort of united forum in which they would all come together -- or like the Hague or what have you. And some people found some interest in this even if the Iraqis did not necessarily nor could our government since its our embassy. But what is the future, simply of all of the real estate, all of the responsibilites? They're huge and this is going to be an ongoing debate, I'm certain, in the Congress as we come to budget problems in this country.
Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: Uhm, thank you very much. We-we recognize that this is an issue we started with an embassy that was staffed to address all possible contingencies, to follow up on the wonderful work that the US military had done in Iraq. Since that time, and again starting with Ambassador [James] Jeffrey, and it's something that I personally am continuing and have been very closely involved in and we will pursue -- We're calling it a "glide path exercise" where we're looking at what our objectives are and how we are resourced and staffed to meet those objectives. And what we've found is that we can prioritize and can focus our mission and will continue to do that on what we really need to accomplish. And as we do that, we're able to reduce personnel. Since the beginning of the year, we have reduced personnel by more than 2,000. We're now somewhere between 13,000 and 14,000 personnel in Iraq -- down from over 16. Facilities? We have given back in the last couple of days, facilites we had in Kirkuk, had an airbase up there, and facilities we had in Baghdad for police training center. And we have another facility in the next few days which we'll give back also in Baghdad. So we're reducing not just the number of personnel but we're reducing the number of pieces of property we occupy and use and we are very mindeful of the cost that it takes to support the mission in Iraq and I personally am dedicated to reducing those costs by again focusing on the mission on what we really need to achieve.
"Since the beginning of the year, we have reduced personnel by more than 2,000. We're now somewhere between 13,000 and 14,000 personnel in Iraq -- down from over 16." That's what he said. Turns out it wasnt true. From the report:
Although Ambassador Beecroft told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 19 that the size of the U.S. Mission in Iraq continued to decline this quarter, reporting to SIGIR on the personnel totals indicated some ambiguity about actual numbers. U.S. Embassy-Baghdad reported that 16,035 persons supported the U.S. Mission in Iraq at the end of the quarter, including 1,075 U.S. government civilian employees and 14,960 contractor personnel. The Embassy said the discrepancy was due to earlier underreporting of certain staff categories.
Numbers are important, accurate ones even more so -- especially when the US government continues to spend vast sums in Iraq. For example, the report notes that the State Dept wants $149.6 million to 'train' the Iraqi police in Fiscal Year 2013. $149.6 million for one of the most trained and re-trained forces? For a force that the 'acting' Minister of the Interior stated does not need US training?
The US government has that money to waste when sequestration is supposedly looming, a 'financial cliff'?
Do people realize how many years the US has spent training the Iraqi police force? How much money?
We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it." She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. But Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States." He made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.
8 years. 8 years of training last November. And for Fiscal Year 2013, the State Dept wants $149.6 million dollars to train yet another year?
From that hearing:
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?
Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?
[long pause]
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye." Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.
The State Dept still can't answer Ackerman's question: "When will they be willing to stand up without us?" They can't even answer his second question: "Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?"
If sequestration kicks in and Americans see the safety net further gutted, you damn well better believe that $149.6 million dollars going to yet another year of 'training' the Iraqi police is going to be an issue.
Now let's talk about the 'acting' Minister of the Interior. That's Deputy Minister Adnan al-Asadi. He is one of the Iraqis Ranking Member Ackerman referred to in the November 30th hearing, "Interviews with senior Iraqi officials by the Special Inspector Generals how utter disdain for the program. When the Iraqis suggest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States, I think that might be a clue."
Ackerman's right and Adnan al-Asadi is who stated, to SIGIR, that the US government should spend the money in the US. In addition, in July, the Office of the Special Inspector General For Iraq Reconstruction issued [PDF format warning] "Iraq Police Development Program: Lack Of Iraqi Support And Security Problems Raise Questions About The Continued Viability Of The Program."
What did that report find?
That the US State Dept had wasted ("de facto waste") approximately $206 million in training the Iraqi police since they took over October 1, 2011. How so? They spent $98 million on a Bsara training facility and $108 million on a Baghdad training facility.
What happened to those US-owned facilities?
The US turned it over -- at no charge -- to Nouri's government. Why?
The June 29th snapshot covered the most recent hearing on this topic (the June 28th House Oversight and Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations hearing). Jason Chaffetz is the Subcommittee Chair but he'd stepped out of the hearing and US House Rep Black Farenthold was Acting Chair. As he established in his line of questions (to the State Dept's Patrick Kennedy and Peter Verga and the State Dept's Acting IG Harold Geisel, DoD's Special Deputy IG for Southwest Asia Mickey McDermott, US GAO's Michael Courts and SIGIR's Stuart Bowen Jr.), the US government did not secure a lease for the land. Here's that exchange.
Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Mr. Courts, Ambassador Kennedy and I got into a
discussion about the absence of or presence of land use agreements for the facilities
we have in Iraq do you have the current status for that information from your latest
report as to what facilities we do and do not have land use agreements for?
discussion about the absence of or presence of land use agreements for the facilities
we have in Iraq do you have the current status for that information from your latest
report as to what facilities we do and do not have land use agreements for?
Michael Courts: What Ambassador Kennedy may have been referring to that for 13 of
the 14 facilities the Iraqis have acknowledged a presence through diplomatic notes.
But there's still only 5 of the 14 for which we actually have explicit title land use
agreements or leases.
the 14 facilities the Iraqis have acknowledged a presence through diplomatic notes.
But there's still only 5 of the 14 for which we actually have explicit title land use
agreements or leases.
Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Alright so I'm not -- I'm not a diplomat. So what does
that mean? They say, "Oh, you can use it until we change our minds" -- is that
basically what those are? Or is there some force of law to those notes?
that mean? They say, "Oh, you can use it until we change our minds" -- is that
basically what those are? Or is there some force of law to those notes?
Michael Courts: Well the notes are definitely not the same thing as having an explicit agreement. And as a matter of fact, there's already been one case where the Iraqis
required us to reconfigure, downsize one of our sites. And that was at one of the
sites where we did not have a land use agreement and so obviously we're in a much
more vulnerable position when there's not an explicit agreement.
required us to reconfigure, downsize one of our sites. And that was at one of the
sites where we did not have a land use agreement and so obviously we're in a much
more vulnerable position when there's not an explicit agreement.
As Farenthold noted of the Baghdad Police College Annex, "It was intended to house the police department program -- a multi-billion dollar effort that's currently being downsized. And as a result of the State Dept's failure to secure land use rights, the entire facility is being turned over to the Iraqis at no cost. The GAO reports Mission Iraq has land use agreements or leases for only 5 out of all of the sites that it operates." That number has increased by only one since that hearing.
This is tax payer money being wasted at a time when the US government is supposedly in the midst of a fiscal crisis. These two facilities, worth approximately $206 million were turned over -- free of charge -- because the State Dept failed to secure land-lease agreements.
In other words, you could say: The US government built it, but it didn't own it.
Having wasted that amount of money, you might think the State Dept would stop trying to spend hundreds of millions in Iraq. And yet they want $149.6 million to spend in the next fiscal year just on Iraqi police.
And not a penny should be spent on this program. The Ministry of the Interior is over the police. But the Ministry has no minister. Adnan al-Asadi is the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior. An actual minister would have certain rights and powers and that would give him or her independence. Adnan al-Asadi is an 'acting minister' -- a qualification that doesn't exist in the Iraqi Constitution.
The Constitution requires Ministers be nominated and that the Parliament vote in favor of confirming them. Once that happens, a person has their position until the term expires, they resign or the Parliament removes them. Nouri can't remove them.
So if al-Asadi were Minister of the Interior, that's who the US would be interacting with on this program. Instead, they're interacting with the 'acting' minister who has no job protection and is kicked to the curb the second he displeases Nouri al-Maliki. al-Asadi is a puppet allowing Nouri to control the Ministry of the Interior.
Back in July, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." He's refused to name nominees and have them go before Parliament. This is a power grab. By January 2011, Iraqiya (the political slate that came in first in the March 2010 parliamentary elections, ahead of Nouri's State of Law) was calling it a power grab but the (US and European) press was insisting that it was only a matter of weeks before Nouri named nominees. We're closing in 2013 and he's still never named nominees. It was a power grab. It is a continuing power grab. The Parliament declared last week that they would take up this new 'classification' of 'acting' ministers.
The State Dept wants to waste more US tax dollars training people who work for a ministry that Nouri refuses to find a head for. That is not a recipe for success. It has not been a recipe for success.
The State Dept needs to be called before the Senate to answer for exactly what they're doing. As the SIGIR has repeatedly noted, they refuse to inform the Inspector General what they are doing in Iraq. This is on Hillary. She's Secretary of State. No, she doesn't have any power over Iraq and if she wants to go public with that information I will gladly back her up on that point. But as long as she's keeping her mouth shut and serving as Secretary of State, this is on her. And when she departs, it needs to be noted that while she was Secretary of State, hundreds of millions were wasted in Iraq and the State Dept refused to submit to Congressionally mandated oversight. Congress created the SIGIR.
Not only has the State Dept ignored the SIGIR, they have refused to answer questions from the Congress -- in writing or in hearings -- and they've provided false information to Congress (also known as lying). That's under Hillary Clinton's leadership unless she wants to talk about how Barack assigned Iraq elsewhere. Unless she wants to get honest about that, she needs to face a storm of criticism over the lost hundreds of millions by the State Dept while she was serving as Secretary of State. I like Hillary but my liking her doesn't bring back that money or prevent the loss of further millions.
While US infrastructure crumbles and citizens are threatened with sequestration kicking in automatcially, grasp that page 6 of the report notes the US government has "obligated $27.19 billion" on security training, equipment and buildings.
We'll cover other aspects of the report throughout the week. But the money issue does matter. This isn't a hundred dollars wasted. This is hundreds of millions wasted. And the State Dept still refuses to submit to oversight but continues to argue that they deserve control of hundreds of millions of more tax payer dollars to do something with in Iraq -- something which they can't clearly define and something that, for some reason, can't stand up to transperancy and sunlight. If you're new to sequestration and the 'fiscal cliff," Diane Rehm devoted this hour of Monday's program -- The Diane Rehm Show (NPR) to explaining the issues and discussing them with guests Ruth Marcus (Washington Post), Alice Rivlin (Brookings) and David Wessel (Wall Street Journal) as well as taking calls from her audience. The link is audio but I'm told there is a transcript that will be going up.
For more coverage of the report SIGIR issued today, you can see the interview Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) did with Stuart Bowen, Adam Schreck (AP) and Tony Capaccio (Bloomberg News) covers the developments as well.
The report doesn't paint a good picture of Nouri's Iraq. Nor do other articles today.
At The Huffington Post, Wael al-Sallami offers his take on Iraq which includes:
The fact of the matter is that the militias were using the US troops as an excuse to perform acts of terrorism and have targeted Iraqi civilians instead on so many occasions. Therefore, the departure of the US troops didn't even reduce those acts, in fact, it has increased them simply for the lack of a strong military presence in the country. No, the Iraqi army does not qualify as "strong military presence."
By concentrating evermore power into his own hands, and reserving positions of responsibility in Baghdad exclusively for his loyalists, the prime minister is building up fierce resentments, and the results cannot be good.
The bitter truth is that such policies fail to even benefit Mr Al Maliki's own constituencies. The rash of shootings and bombings over the Eid weekend predominantly targeted Shia communities. Al Qaeda in Iraq, and other radical Sunni groups, appear to be resurgent. But the security forces that are now dominated by Shia loyalists cannot take the fight to the militants without turning it into a sectarian war - "justice" in such a struggle is a subjective value.
Even apart from the Syrian crisis, the United States should be getting tough on the Maliki regime to prevent Iraq's descent into authoritarianism. Although Prime Minister Maliki's first term had its successes, including the "Charge of the Knights" attack against Shiite militias in Basra in 2008, Prime Minister Maliki has become increasingly consumed by his own dictatorial ambitions. And a number of his actions have heightened sectarian tensions in Iraq. He cut a deal with the extremist Shiite party led by Moktada al-Sadr. He reneged on a promise to meaningfully include the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya list in government. He presided over what's being seen as a witch hunt against leading Sunni politicians, culminating in the sentencing to death in absentia of Iraq's vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi.
In addition, Mr. Maliki's government is plagued by incompetence, corruption and a contempt for human rights; ordinary citizens are fast losing confidence in the power of the democratic system. Mr. Maliki has further undermined Iraq's independent institutions, such as the electoral commission and the Iraqi central bank, by bringing them under his direct custodianship. And, most dangerously of all, he is concentrating power over Iraq's entire security apparatus in his hands by refusing to appoint permanent ministers to lead the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of the Interior and National Security Council.
And power grabs are no longer enough for Nouri, apparently. As we noted yesterday, he wants a majority government -- just as US General Ray Odierno warned in 2010 but was dismissed and ignored because the White House thought they were better off listening to US Ambassador to Iraq and professional and willful idiot Chris Hill. A majority government is one that shuts out the other segments of Iraq. "White" Iraqiya -- I doubt they ever grapsed how racist that is -- made some stupid statements yesterday that some idiots repeated as though they were statements demanding Iraq be seen as an independent country.
If you're stupid and you love it, stay stupid. But stop inflicting it on the rest of us. White Iraqiya is a splinter group that did not get their way and specifically holds grudges against Saleh al-Mutlaq and Ayad Allawi who remain with Iraqiya. White Iraq is a tiny splinter group that makes a lot of noise but hasn't accomplished anything in two years of tantrums. They have gotten closer to Nouri and they may be among the ones getting close to Nouri. Ouday Hatem (Al-Monitor) reports:
Political sources told Al-Hayat that Maliki's coalition had reached a preliminary agreement with a number of blocs — some of which are included in the Iraqiya List — to form a majority government.
The sources revealed that "among these blocs is the Unity Alliance of Iraq, led by Sheikh Ahmed Abu Risha, and some members of parliament from the Kirkuk, Mosul, Anbar and Saladin provinces."
The sources explained that "the blocs within the National Alliance — except for the Al-Ahrar bloc, which represents the Sadrist Movement in parliament — are supporting this political step."
The sources confirmed that "the prime minister seeks to divide the Iraqiya List and the Sunnis by including tribal leaders and former Baathists, and by re-enrolling all former army officers."
Let's move over to the US where Bob Munson disagrees with the Ventura County Star's decision to endorse Barack Obama's re-election bid:
Saying President Obama got us out of Iraq is like saying it stopped raining after superstorm Sandy moved on.
The death and destruction in Iraq for three years under Obama was unnecessary. The Iraqis hated us. Our last troops snuck out under the cover of darkness no different than the Nazis leaving Paris.
Obama could have quit Iraq the day after inauguration, and Iraq would have been no different today.
Tyrone Wood's was one of the four Americans killed in Benghazi Septemeber 11th (the other three were Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens). The argument IBD's editorial board should be making is why does Chris Stevens' mother get to be everywhere and presented as a spokesperson for all four. She clearly does not represent Pat Smith (Sean's mother). She also doesn't represent Charles Woods (Tyrone's father). That's your argument if you want to be effective: You, the media, have allowed one woman to be the face of four Americans. Her views are not the only view and you have silenced and refused to hear the other parents involved. We do not have a class based society in the US and revolted against the British empire for many reasons including to reject a caste system. So why is the media pretending that Chris Stevens is somehow more important than the other three Americans because he was an ambassador?
Tyrone and Glen were veterans. They apparently were veterans who didn't just risk their lives to try to save lives on September 11th, they gave their lives to try to save lives on September 11th. How dare the media refuse to allow all the parents to speak and instead subject us to the pratteling -- yeah, I'm going there again -- ramblings of Chris Stevens' apethetic and uninformed mother and father.
Even when no other parents were speaking out publicly -- check our archives -- I made clear that the Stevens did not speak for all the parents. I also made clear that their call for this topic not to be discussed this way or that was b.s. because it was a terrorist attack. If Chris Stevens had taken his own life and his family said, "We just want him to be in peace"? Fine. That's a private matter.
This was a terrorist attack on Americans -- not people who happened to be Americans but on people because they were Americans. That makes it a national issue -- an international one. And the Stevens need to take their hurt and pain somewhere private if they don't like the way the deaths are discussed.
And the media needs to stop being so damn biased.
They are biased on this issue. There's no denying it. In fact, let me go to Ruth last night:
In addition to ignoring the details, the media has 2 other tricks they are playing right now.
1) Ridicule those asking questions.
2) Imply that only conservatives are demanding answers.
The second one bothers me the most.
And not just because I am too far left to be a centrist, let alone a conservative. The main reason it bothers me is that the media knows if they play that false card, half the readers will stop reading right away. They will have no interest in the topic. They will tell themselves, "Oh, this is just what conservatives are saying. This is a conservative talking point."
It is really amazing how those of us on the left who are asking questions are ignored in the media's attempt to clamp down on consumer interest in this story.
1) Ridicule those asking questions.
2) Imply that only conservatives are demanding answers.
The second one bothers me the most.
And not just because I am too far left to be a centrist, let alone a conservative. The main reason it bothers me is that the media knows if they play that false card, half the readers will stop reading right away. They will have no interest in the topic. They will tell themselves, "Oh, this is just what conservatives are saying. This is a conservative talking point."
It is really amazing how those of us on the left who are asking questions are ignored in the media's attempt to clamp down on consumer interest in this story.
Ruth is 100% right.
That's part of the attempt to bury the story: To assert falsely that only the right-wing cares about it. That signals to people who aren't right-wing that they shouldn't care.
They should care. Four Americans are dead. Ruth's left-wing. I am left-wing.
This isn't about right or left -- although those who want to silence the discussion keep insisting otherwise. This is about an attack on four Americans. This is about an administration which refuses to answer questions.
Pretend for a moment that it's October 30, 2001 and it's the Bush administration refusing to call September 11, 2001 a terrorist attack.
We've dealt with what Barack said in the Rose Garden. He said in passing and it may not have referred to that day. Why was it in there? To cover his own ass. Which would indicate that a cover up is taking place. You don't do cover-your-own-ass from September 12th forward unless you have something to hide.
Questions are being asked and they need to be asked. Charles Wood has called out Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Charles Wood has every right to be heard and shame on anyone in the supposed news industry who won't report what Wood is saying. It doesn't require 'belief' or 'support.' It only requires that you are in the news business. If you are, the parent of an American killed in a terrorist attack now calling out the President of the United States is what is known as "news."
NewsBusters is a media watchdog from the right. They occassionally send things to the public account. If it has to do with what we're talking about, we will note them. Tom Blumer wrote about what Charles Wood was saying over the weekend:
"When he finally came over to where we were, I could tell that he was rather conflicted, a person who was not at peace with himself," Woods said. "Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish. His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye, his eyes were over my shoulder.""I could tell that he was not sorry," he added. "He had no remorse."Beck said he wanted to give the president "the benefit of the doubt," and asked Woods how he could be sure that Obama wasn't just uncomfortable or nervous during their conversation. Woods said it was Obama's "demeanor."
The right-wing that's objecting to differing treatment for Cindy Sheehan and Charles Wood is missing the point that Cindy was presented as just a blank,not too smart, hurting mother who wanted answers and didn't know a thing about politics or have a thought about war. That's not Cindy, she's very smart. But that's what the media presented and why they kept going to her before they couldn't take the fact that she was anti-war and was not going to be silent about that fact. If anyone wants Charles Wood to get the media attention he deserves, the answer is to point out that the parents of Chris Stevens were presented by the media as the voice of the four. And that's not fair nor is it accurate. The media needs to fix their narrative and the way to do that is to include the other parents involved.
On other national issues, there is the US presidential election. Samantha Goldman (World Can't Wait) offers some hard truths in the midst of campaign spin season:
In reality however there is no option within the electoral process for women. Our basic rights to control our bodies, or not to be blamed and shamed is not up for a vote. Despite what Obama supporters would like us to believe, these past four years have been a horror and have shown a dangerous trajectory. It is only through this overall context of the War on Women that the impact of these comments becomes starkly clear. State legislation aimed at limiting birth control and abortion has been proposed and enacted at unprecedented rates. The legislation that has passed includes but is not limited to: state sanctioned rape through vaginal ultrasounds, anti-science mandatory counseling prior to abortion, increased waiting periods for abortion, and gestational limitations. An analysis by the Guttmacher Institute found that 2011 saw the most restrictions on abortions passed through state legislatures ever: 135 anti-women laws were enacted.