Monkeys Cured of Color Blindness

Two male squirrel monkeys now see the world in an entire new way in full color.
Female squirrel monkeys can see in color, but male squirrel monkeys are normally red-green colorblind because they lack pigments in the retina that notice those wavelengths of light.

Now, researchers have performed gene therapy that permitted two male squirrel monkeys named Sam and Dalton to produce proteins that detect red light. As soon as the red-light-harvesting protein was made in the monkeys' eyes, the animals were able to distinguish between red and green spots in color vision tests, Jay Neitz of the University of Washington in Seattle and his collaborators report online September 17 in Nature.

The experiment wasn't supposed to work, Neitz says. People born with cataracts don't develop nerve relations that help the brain make sense of messages sent by the eye. If the defect isn't corrected early, these people stay essentially blind even if their eyes return to full function later.

Because there was no reason to assume color vision was different from other types of vision, the team had assumed it would not be possible to reverse the deficit in an adult animal.

Neitz polled experts in the vision field on whether they thought producing photoreceptors in colorblind adult monkeys could give color vision. "Every single person said, "absolutely not.'" But the researchers decided to move forward with the experiment to see if they could get the pigment protein to be made in the eye.
Male monkeys lacking the red photoreceptor protein were given injections of a virus carrying a gene for the protein.

Levels of the protein slowly rose in some retinal cells. After 20 weeks, Neitz and his colleagues started to see differences in the way Sam and Dalton performed on daily color vision tests. Around that time, protein production levels peaked and the monkeys have maintained stable color vision for two years since treatment.

Still, the monkeys' actual sensation of color what it looks like to them remains a mystery?

"The achievement is technically amazing and conceptually very cool," says Melissa Saenz, a neuroscientist at Caltech in Pasadena, Calif. But even though the monkeys can distinguish some new wavelengths of light, "there's no proof that the monkeys recognize a new dimension of color," she says. For example, the monkeys may now perceive red and green as different shades of yellow and blue, colors the animals already knew.

"If it doesn't involve experiencing new sensations of color, it would not dramatically change the experience of colorblind people if the treatment were valid to humans," Saenz says.

West Ham 4 - 0 Man Utd

Rampant West Ham booked a first League Cup semi-final for 20 years after banging holders Manchester United out of the Carling Cup at snowy Upton Park. Former Red Devil Jonathan Spector was in inspired form, scoring with a header and a close-range finish to nick his first goals in English football.

The disjointed visitors, before unbeaten this season, conceded again as Carlton Cole nodded in after the break. Cole then turned Jonny Evans to fire simply past Tomas Kuszczak.

Though Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson predictably did not select his strongest team, the preliminary XI could still boast the likes of Ryan Giggs, Darren Fletcher and Javier Hernandez. So it still registers as something of a shock that West Ham, bottom of the Premier League, ran out such persuasive and deserved winners against the league leaders - especially in light of the Londoners' poor start to this season.

And under-pressure Hammers boss Avram Grant may now insist they are over their bad patch after a performance that was rich in assure, both individually - Nigerian striker Victor Obinna was hugely impressive as he created all four goals - and collectively.

The match started fast in freezing conditions, with both teams attacking each other as the play moved quickly from end-to-end. Obinna even tried an determined free-kick from over 30 yards before the end, displaying the confidence coursing through the veins of a west Ham side which notched their biggest win over United in 80 years.

World's Incredible Glaciers Caves

These are the amazing pictures from the 'Ice Man' - a frosty photographer who is prepared to go to strange lengths to capture the perfect picture. Eric Guth is the real life Jack Frost spending days hiding out in some of the world's most spectacular glacier caves. The 30-year-old regularly camps for days inside the eerie glaciers which can reach incredible temperatures sometimes as low as 20 degrees below freezing.

His adventures to find the perfect icy picture have taken him all over the world - from Patagonia in South America to Iceland in the North Atlantic. As these amazing pictures show his trips are well worth it as he captures the dramatic beauty of these hidden low temperature landscapes.

Eric, from Portland, USA, said 'I have been enthralled with ice for as long as I can remember so I can't imagine doing anything else.' 'My mum was a photographer and when she passed her camera down to me, taking pictures of glaciers just seemed like the natural thing to do.' 'I have been known to camp out for anything up to four or five days.'

'Some of the caves are minute and I can cover the whole thing in an hour or so but some take days to explore and I like to cover every nook and cranny.' 'The long camping trips can be pretty strong and it's definitely a change from the sun I am used to at home but I love it.'

'I've made it my mission to track down the most spectacular glaciers in the world and while I have seen dozens already the sight always takes my breath away'.

Yesterday's mistake rushes forward to comfort today's

"Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama: Be independent" (Jennifer Epstein and Matt Negrin, Politico):

Jimmy Carter wants to see President Barack Obama drop his efforts at bipartisanship during the next two years, and he thinks Obama will heed his call.

“In the next two years, President Obama will be much more independent in fighting hard to prevail and not trying to reach out,” the former president said in an interview with CBS News. “I think he’ll be a much more tough proponent of what he stands for in the future, giving up on Republicans’ support and taking his case to the American public.”

As I explained in 2007, Barack is the new Jimmy Carter -- a faux friend of the people who's really just another whore for empire and corporations. Why is Jimmy Carter even allowed to be on TV after his administration created the situation in Afghanistan that we now blame for the 9-11 attacks? Seems to me, Jimmy Carter should have been hauled off in irons a long, long time ago.

Instead, because he's a Democrat, we're supposed to pretend like his actions didn't unleash hell.

How fitting that the sell-out to Nelson Rockefeller, et al, would show up now and try to rescue Barack Obama. The whores of corporations stick together. It's like a brotherhood or sisterhood, presumably.

So here comes Tri-Lateral Jimmy to tell us all about how it's going to be. And on my end, I can only think, "Why?"

Then I remember that Rolling Stone -- the Kool Kid of its day -- whored to get Jimmy into office. Created the myth of Jimmy Of The People. I remember that the original Kos Toilet Boy is Jann Wenner and I remember how this was all perfectly predictable.

For the Blogger Boyz who sold their souls and are still wet behind their ears, I'd suggest that they check into what happened to Jann. He thought he was going to be a DC player as well. Didn't happen. Not only didn't happen, but he lost a ton of money on DC (specifically to Doris Kearns Goodwyn's drinks-like-a-fish husband).

If you think things can't get worse, read the Politico article, tomorrow Jimmy meets with Barack.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, November 30, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, John Chilcott's Iraq Inquiry exposed as a sham, look who's blurbing, Bradley Manning's mother denied right to visitation, and more. Starting with Roger Hodge, author of The Mendacity of Hope: Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism which he discusses on the latest Law and Disorder Radio (aired on WBAI yesterday and on various stations throughout the week) with hosts Heidi Boghosian, Michael Ratner and Michael S. Smith. For an excerpt of the discussion, refer to yesterday's snapshot. In his book, Hodge writes: President Obama has made permanent the enormous increase in military spending since 2001. His budget projections through 2017 allocate $4.8 trillion for the Defense Department, compared with $4.6 trillion spent by Bush over eight years. Given the escalation in Afghanistan, however, it is likely that Obama will spend more than $5 trillion on the military -- more, in inflation-adjusted terms, than has been spent during any eight-year period since 1946. The number of U.S. troops in Iraq has been euphemistically "drawn down" -- as of May 2010 there were 92,000 -- but all evidence suggests that we will never fully withdraw. In 2010, American military contractors were still building permanent bases all over that shattered country, and even if every single American soldier were to be withdrawan (a condition no competent observer ever expects to see), an army of unaccountable mercenaries employed by the United States is still by any substantive definition an American occuption force. In December, when Obama nnounced his surge in Afghanistan, the Congressional Research Service reported that the 30,000 new troops would be accompanied by up to 56,000 additional private contractors. As of May 2010, according to the official Pentagon figures, there were 112,092 private military contractors in Afghanistan and 95,461 in Iraq, with 42,782 in other U.S. Central Command locations, for a total of 250,335. The official total is very likely to be a significant undercount, of course, and it does not include the contractors employed by other agencies, such as the State Department and USAID, nor does it include those working for the CIA. No, no comptent observer ever expects to see that but then when has -- as he's known among his students -- Professor Bitch ever been compentent? The over-praised blogger deleted a post he put up yesterday -- if he'd like to deny it we have screen snaps -- which resulted in people pointing out that academics should stick to reality and not tea leaf reading. Poor Professor Bitch, he'd almost lived down the tender smack down on Iraq that Steve Rendell inflicted upon him a few years back when he was making an appearance on CounterSpin. Thanks, Professor Bitch, for showing your true colors yet again. Screen snaps will run in the gina & krista round-robin and we'll be handing them out at speaking engagements all week as well. It takes a lot of whores to keep propping up Barack, in fact it takes an entire brothel. Which is why Hodge's book is so important. Tariq Ali has a new book out (disclosure, I've known Tariq for years) entitled The Obama Syndrome: Surrender At Home, War Abroad. It's an excellent book. But Hodge manages to easily top Tariq for one reason. Look Who's Blurbing. While both books offer excellent text, Hodge's book is a keepsake For Those Of Us Who Never Drank The Kool-Aid for the dust jacket alone. It's there you'll find key members of the Cult of St. Barack. Look, there's Socialist Barbara Ehrenreich. You may know Babs from her constant attacks on women (such as at the FAIR gala last decade where the 'feminist' thing to do was for her to deliver a speech trashing Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda). You may not know her political affiliation because, like so many too juvenile to cop to being a Communist or Socialist, she flocked to "Progressives" for Obama. Why not "liberals"? You need to study up on your New Left and Cold War history -- Socialists and Communists do not identify as liberals. There was Babsie injecting herself into the Democratic Party primary, writing psychotic pieces about Hillary's 'secret' religion -- while Babsie hid in a political closet -- and doing everything a media whore could. As Bob Somerby noted in real time, "There ought to be a special circle in hell for hustlers like Barbara Ehrenreich." You may also know Babsie from her big-boned daughter Rosa Brooks who now works in the administration (Los Angeles Times readers are just glad she's gone) where she is most infamous for advocating that the US government institute licensing for journalists thereby controlling who could and who could not report. As Babsie and her brood have long demonstrated, totalitarianism knows no political boundaries. On the back of Hodge's book, Babsie pants: "This is what I've been waiting for -- a profound and hard-hitting critique of the Obama administration from the left!" Golly, Babs, couldn't you pen one yourself? Oh, of course not. Whores aren't known for courage, now are they. She continues, "The Mendacity of Hope should help wake up all those Obama voters who've been napping while the wars escalate, the recession deepens, and the environment goes straight to hell." Who's been napping, Babs? Those of who didn't enlist in the Cult of St. Barack didn't pack up our bags after the 2008 election. Closet Communist Leslie Cagan did and, when packing up her own bags, she packed up the bags of the organization she RUINED United for Peace & Justice. Napping? Babs, you've written six columns in two years -- going by your own website -- and for one who proclaimed Barack to be The One, you've been strangely silent on him ever since, now haven't you, tired whore? Oh, look. Another whore, Naomi Klein, blurbs, "Ready to wake up from the Obama dream yet? If so, this thrilling scathing and relentlessly truthful cri de coeur is your strong cup of coffee. Hodge skewers the sloppy intellectual cluture that willed this political chimera into being, while expertly unmasking the corporate machine that is the real Barack Obama. Drink up." You first, Naomi, and why don't you choke on it? For those who don't know, Naomi swore she was staying out of the 2008 election -- and, as a Canadian-American citizen, she had every reason to. She really doesn't want to raise the issue of dual citizenship, does she? If you think the immigration discussion is ugly in this country (and it is) wait until people get a load of the fact that Naomi may be voting in US elections . . . after her father fled the US (I applaud him for it) to avoid serving in Vietnam. You can hear the rumble of grandstanding on the part of GOP senators starting up, can't you? "She has American citizenship and her father deserted!" Yeah, Naomi, you really need to learn to stay out of US elections. But of course she couldn't. And it went far beyond what she thought was her 'careful' and 'undetectable' slanting on the Real News Network in 2007 and 2008. Naomi decided to do a book tour. Naomi decided to do stand-up on her book tour. The Chicago September 2008 appearance? So much sexism has never been unleashed by one woman -- not even by Phyllis Schlafly. Stay on the sidelines? No. Despite preaching in 2004 that the peace movement (Naomi prefers "anti-war movement" so that she can reject her father -- having already rejected her feminist mother) should never be hijacked by elections, there was Naomi making a fat ass out of herself. There was Canada's very own Tiffany-era mallrat telling 'jokes' that would make Hugh Hefner blush. Was it worth it, Naomi? Really? There are two Naomis. Many confuse them. Used to be Naomi Klein was the thin one -- that changed about two years ago. Not because Naomi Wolf began to lose weight but because Naomi Klein's been seriously packing on pounds. Naomi Wolf. Everyone's favorite pill-popping columnist. Naomi explained the 'feminist' thing to do was to spit on Hillary and support Barack. She did that during the primaries. She did that by cloaking herself as the victim. It was a cute little act and the only time the term "cute" has been applied to Naomi in years. She continued that bulls**t throughout the lead up to the election as well as after -- breaking only when donning her sexually enhancing burqa. She was on CNN in January 2009 proclaiming -- as Ms. magazine had -- that Barack was what a feminist looked liked. On the back of Hodges' book, Naomi Wolf blurbs, "Roger Hodge has written a desperately needed expose of how Barack Obama is not the messiah of liberalism but its deisgnated gravedigger -- he is one of the all too few voices on the progressive side who dares to tell the truth about the corporate masters this administration actually serves, and the dire effects of that allegiance upon what is left of our Republic. This is a blazing indictment of corporate collusion and a bracing injection of hard truths." I'm counting nine columns you've written for the Huffington Post, Naomi, since Barack was sworn in. While I see your attempts to distract and defocus for the administration by obsessing over the Tea Party -- a party that your last bestseller (and I do mean "last") owes a debt too but we don't talk about that, do we? -- I see nothing calling out the administration. Where is it, Naomi? Or did you pop a pill and think you wrote it when you didn't? Babsie's always been nuts, Naomi Klein's been a non-stop disappointment to her parents, but Naomi Wolf? No one went nuttier than Naomi Wolf. Appearing in public -- often with a dirty face and hair unkempt -- she spent most of 2007 and 2008 insisting her tax returns were stolen by the government. (Because the government didn't have them already?) She would tell anyone who listened that she was being spied on, her mail opened, her calls listened into. She could hear the "clicks"! Was she on a party line? Today's surveillance doesn't provide clicks when tapping. (Echos do, however, occur.) She went completely bonkers. An Alan J. Pakula character transposed into a Stephen Spielberg film. It was not a pretty sight. And the reason we open with this is to make very damn clear: IT'S NOT THAT EASY. Having whored and lied for Barack Obama, you're not just going to sneak back in to the party. No. The three above are not Democrats (Naomi Wolf once was but she denounced that around the time she denounced Judaism). In their political affiliations, they damn well know they have to practive confessions in their own political cells. They need to make a point to do the same in the political discourse at large. Meaning, you better get honest about your whoring or you better expect that you will go the way of Faith Popcorn and so many other pundits whom the public rejected. You whored, you lied, you attacked. Those of us who gave a damn about the Iraq War -- the one that is still going on, the one that Naomi Klein can't seem to find today despite the fact that it is her claim to fame -- refused to play the game, refused to whore. We're not letting you back in unless and until you confess. You were handed the reigns of the movement -- look at Leslie Cagan -- and what did you do? You destroyed the movement. (UPFJ posted a yea-war-is-over message the day after the 2008 elections and closed shop.) To let you slink back in now without confessing to your crimes would be a betrayal of the movement. So your pimp Barack got a little rough with you, slapped you around and now you want to sneak back over to our side? It's not that easy. And what's up here online is nothing compared to what we have taken to college audiences for two years now. They know you, across the land, as the whores you are. Outside of the tiny circle-jerk that passes for Panhandle Media, you are whores, you are known whores. And as others in the beggar media realize that, you won't be booked. Or they'll risk being fired on air as well. This isn't a vanity issue, this isn't hurt feelings. This is you have blood on your hands. You whored and Iraqi s died. You whored and the war went on. You have blood on your hands and you will confess or you will continue to be known as the whores you are. Naomi Klein asks if people are "Ready to wake up from the Obama dream yet?" Naomi, what were you doing in DC the day of the inauguration? Oh, that's right, you were fundraising. And partying. We know you were attacking others. You gave that idiotic interview to Matthew Rothschild, remember? Castigating 'radicals' who refused to belive that Barack was the savior. Do you expect The Progressive to 'disappear' your words, Naomi? Your attacks on the left critics of Barack Obama are well known and public record. Now you want to show up on a dusk jacket pretending you were there all along? They really raise those Canadian mallrats dumb, I guess. The Cult of St. Barack got their commemorative plates in January 2009. It took a little while for the truth tellers of the left to get our own commemorative keepsake: The dusk jacket of Roger Hodge's new book. Suitable for framing. At your local bookstore and available online. And let's note this from yesterday's Law and Disorder Radio . Heidi Boghosian: Roger, you actually sort of sum up it up in talking about health care by saying: "The health bill is of a piece with Obama's general approach to governance which is to make loud, dramatic claims about his purportedly reformist agenda -- claims that both his supporters and his enemies almost always take at a face value -- while working behind the scenes to make sure that no major stakeholder in his coalition of corporate backers will suffer significant losses." And that could sum up most of what he's done. Michael Smith: Yeah, that was an outstanding passage in the book, I thought Roger Hodge: Thank you. Thank you. And we see it again and again. We see it with detentions -- Heidi Boghosian: Guantanamo. Roger Hodge: Guantanamo. We see it with -- Michael Ratner: State secrets. Roger Hodge: -- Afghanistan. We see it with Iraq. Supposedly the war in Iraq is over. People take that at face value. 'Oh, he ended the war in Iraq.' Well he didn't. Michael Ratner: He just said he did. In England, the Iraq Inquiry has been going on for some time and we've covered it for some time. We voiced doubts but, until they went to Iraq and refused to interview Iraqi citizens, we held off passing a judgment that they were a fake process. They were fake, they were a fraud and that's revealed in today's news cycle. Robert Booth (Guardian) reports, "The British government promised to protect America's interests during the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, according to a secret cable sent from the US embassy in London. Jon Day, the Ministry of Defence's director general for security policy, told US under-secretary of state Ellen Tauscher that the UK had 'put measures in place to protect your interests during the UK inquiry into the causes of the Iraq war'." From the cable: 10. (S/NF) Day also promised that the UK had "put measures in place to protect your interests" during the UK inquiry into the causes of the Iraq war. He noted that Iraq seems no longer to be a major issue in the U.S., but he said it would become a big issue -- a "feeding frenzy" -- in the UK "when the inquiry takes off." Miranda Richardson (Sky News) adds, "The cable, released on the Wikileaks website, says the then foreign secretary David Miliband was present at a meeting with US officials, during which the head of security policy at the Ministry of Defence said the UK would protect American interests." Christopher Hope and Robert Winnett (Telegraph of London)note, "The Stop the War Coalition claimed the document was evidence of 'the beginning of the cover-up' and brought 'the whole inquiry into disrepute'." For an overview of the latest release by WikiLeaks, we'll note this from Sunday's KPFA Evening News: Anthony Fest: The whistle blower website WikiLeaks released another trove of confidential documents today. Last month WikiLeaks released thousands of Pentagon documents most associated with the US occupation of Iraq. In contrast, the documents made public today include thousands of diplomatic cables -- communications between the State Dept and Washington and US consulates all around the world. The documents cover both the George W. Bush and the Barack Obama administrations. WikiLeaks gave an advance look at the documents to several media organizations including the New York Times and the British newspaper the Guardian. Those publications now have articles on their websites analyzing the documents. WikiLeaks says it will post the documents on its own website in the coming days although it has said its site was the target of a cyber attack today. The documents release is certain to provoke tension between the US and its allies. For example, some of the cables say that Saudi donors are the largest financiers of terror groups. Other cables detail the cover-up of US military activities. One of them records a meeting last January between US Gen David Petreaus and the president of Yemen about air attacks against rebels in Yemen. The president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, tells Petraeus, "We'll continue to say they are our bombs and not yours." According to the Guardian, the documents reveal that some Arab leaders had privately urged an air attack against Iran and that US officials had been instructed to spy on the United Nations' leadership. Among the other disclosures are deep fears in Washington and London about the security of Paksitan's nuclear weapons. Another document asserts massive corruption at high levels of the Afghanistan government saying the Afghan vice president traveled to the United Arab Emirates carrying $52 million in cash. Still other documents disparage the British military in Afghanistan. Hugh (Corrente) notes the laughable response fromt he US government and press talking heads, "The most recent release of wikileaks docs has provoked all the standard reactions we have come to expect. The punditocracy, both governmental and media, have thrown everything they could think of at them hoping something will stick. We are told that the docs are an attack on our national security and not just that but the international community. Then we are told often by the same people that they are of no importance, that they are full of mistakes and inaccuracies, that they are essentially gossip, that foreign leaders say even worse and more impolitic things about our leaders." That's an excerpt, he charts the kabuki dance in full. In full on Media of the Absurd, The NewsHour (PBS) 'explored' the issues last night by having Judy Woodruff speak to (I am not making this up and link has text, video and audio) with Zbigniew Brzezinski and Stephen Hadley. Hadley, of course, still hopes that the cover story on the outing of Valerie Plame holds. Strangely, Hadley had much to say to reporters about how the leak of Valerie Plame wasn't really a story. For some reason, Judy didn't bring any of that up. Brzezinski maay be the most Castro hating official to serve any administration and that might be his tombstone note had he not been the 'genius' that turned Afghanistan into a quagmire that became the Taliban. That's right, he should be on trial for War Crimes but instead PBS thought we needed to know that he was against WikiLeaks. By the way, if The NewsHour is going to be played on NPR stations --and it now is -- and they want to remember the war dead, they need to name the fallen. Showing pictures and displaying text onscreen? Doesn't play on the radio. Not at all. It's so obvious you wonder how they could be so stupid? Then you remember, they booked Stephen Hadley to talk about leaks. To catch how The NewsHour should have covered the WikiLeaks release but didn't, check out Marco Werman (PRI's The World) discussion with Le Monde's Sylvie Kauffman. Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) and Leila Fadel (Washington Post) cover the WikiLeaks release in terms of Iraq and US fears of Iranian influence. In bad news for Hoshyar Zebari, Alsumaria TV reports, "WikiLeaks documents revealed on Monday that Iraq's Foreign Ministry has provided US Embassy in Baghdad since 2008 with the names of Iranian diplomats asking for a visa to enter Iraq." Zebari is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Staying with the WikiLeaks revelations, Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports that the release includes State Dept cables about how the US Embassy in Spain pressured Spanish officials to drop the case brought by the family of journalist Jose Couso -- a Spanish citizen who was killed by the US military in Iraq. Turning to the topic of Bradley Manning. Background, Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7th, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. This month, the military charged Manning. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning is now at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key and still not allowed to speak to the press. The latest WikiLeaks release has brought Manning's name up again. Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic blogs, "To date, Bradley Manning stands accused only of providing a classified video of U.S. operations in Iraq to WikiLeaks. But U.S. government officials say they consider Manning the prime suspect behind the flood of documents that have wound up being promulgated by the group determined to bust U.S. secrecy." In every culture in decay, you need the whores like Marc Ambinder. Little flecks of trash who will repeat what the government wants them to. Isn't it funny that Manning is identified by Ambinder but his accusers are not. Does Marc Ambinder know the first damn thing about the US justice system? I'm sure if we were to ask him how to best pleasure a source or how to toss the salad of government anonymice, he could give us a vivid description, probably even draw an intricate diagram. But the actual justice system and the belief that people are innocent until proven guilty? He'd be hazy there. He'd be even more confused if we asked him to speak to the issue of the government attempting to try their case in the press. And even more so about the issue of the government going off the record to plant details in the press about an ongoing case. But whores don't need to be smart, they just need to be willing. Marc Ambinder is always willing -- kind of like cellulite, which has a memory, Ambinder. Hillary embarrassed herself yesterday in such a manner that the press conference may go down as her Colin Powell before the UN moment. If the US is in danger, as Rebecca pointed out last night, or if the White House just believes the US is in danger, then that was a message that should have been delivered by President Candy Ass. As president of the United States, it's his job, if the US is in danger, to alert the citizens. He didn't do that -- big surprise, what jobs can he handle? But Hillary joined a long conga line of self-righteous government officials decrying leaks. The only leak that matters, pay attention employees of the US electorate, is the leak that interferes with a legal case and is done by the government. The government's not allowed to leak and, if it's demonstrated that they have, judges can and often do toss cases out of court. Point, if you're going to ride your self-righteous pony through the town square, you damn well better shut down your own leaks. The administration has always been a glossy photo of hypocrisy but never more so than when they send the anonymice out to attack Bradley Manning and his chance at a free trial. Climb down from the crosses, Hillary and all the rest, you have no grounds to decry leaks while you turn a blind eye to your own leaks that attempt to poison public opinion against someone who has not been found guilty of a damn thing. Richard Savill, Victoria Ward and Nick Allen (Telegraph of London) report that Bradley Manning's family attempted to visit him and WERE TURNED DOWN. He's been arrested since May. What does it say about the United States and the pathetic leadership of Princess Candy Ass that someone found guilty of nothing is refused the right to see his family. Furthermore, even if he were found guilty, they would have no rights to deny him visits. Bradley has been found guilty of nothing and locked away for months and they won't even let him see his family. His own mother was refused the right to see her son. As David Bowie once sang, "This is not America" (song written by Bowie, Pat Metheny and Lyle Mays, first appears on the soundtrack for The Falcon and the Snowman). Turning to violence, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life today while a second Baghdad car bombing has left three people injured and, last night, a Baquba car bombing claimed 4 lives and left twenty-nine people injured. Over the long holiday last week, The Nation waived through an attack on a US citizen by the 'reporters' who've brought you so many distortions on the Tea Party (those wanting actual reporting on the Tea Party should refer to Kate Zernike's Boiling Mad: Inside the Tea Party -- the only clear eyed study of the movement thus far). And you can refer to this column by Justin Raimondo for details of the shameful piece of 'writing' The Nation ran. Excerpt: If Ames and Levine are going to become the "go to" team for the dirt on libertarians, such as it is, they ought to learn their subject. Because the very idea of Charles and David Koch leading a national resistance movement involving civil disobedience on a massive scale is laughable: to anyone who knows them, or knows of them in more than a glancing way, this can only provoke gales of unrestrained laughter. It is sheer laziness to believe this. Indeed, if only the Brothers Koch, and the plethora of organizations their money has funded, were that radical! Unfortunately, they are not: a stodgy, boring conservatism marks both their methods and their politics, and always has. Ames and Levine need to do some real research. It was the anti-Koch wing of the libertarian movement, centered around LewRockwell.com, that first gave John Tyner's act of defiance the publicity and velocity that made it go viral. And if LRC is a front for the Koch brothers, then we have truly entered Bizarro World. In that case, so too is Antiwar.com a Koch front – and so why have we been doing this fundraising campaign for the past two weeks, begging our readers to save us from oblivion? And we note it to note John V. Walsh's latest critique of The Nation: But the editorial policy of The Nation for a long time now has been slowly strangling the magazine. The underlying problem is that this once great journal has become a house organ for the Democratic Party. Nowhere is this more evident than in the editorial stance of The Nation on the wars in Iraq and Af-Pak, especially at the all-important moment to our politicians, election time. While the editorial problems at The Nation affect virtually every issue of importance to its readers, let's simply focus on the question of war and empire to see the nature of the fault. In 2004, The Nation endorsed John Kerry on its cover despite the fact that he ran as a pro-war candidate. Ralph Nader was also turned into a non-person in the pages of The Nation for daring to run again as an independent. The unappealing and egotistical Kerry may have lost the election because of his pro-war position, as the polls shifted against the war in October 2004 to a near majority, too late for Kerry to make the switch. Had he taken on the war and opposed it, that shift might have turned into a majority against the war and Kerry might have been the victor. Then came 2006, when the Dems promised impeachment hearings against Bush for his wars should they win control of the House. The Nation urged us to vote Democratic, but when the hearings did not materialize, silence fell over the magazine. John Conyers was the Democrats' poster boy for the promise of impeachment, but after the election he folded at once. The much ballyhooed impeachment hearings never materialized, and Conyers slunk away. In 2008, The Nation backed Obama, the candidate of the most "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party and of "Progressive" Democrats of America. The endorsement was proffered despite the fact that Obama was promising to step up the war in Afghanistan. When Obama won and the wars continued and military spending increased above Bush levels, The Nation went limp in its criticism of empire. Yes, there were exhortations to Obama to do the right thing, implying that he wants to do so, a proposition so lame at this point as to be comic, but never attacks like the well-deserved salvos fired at Bush for the very same policies on war and civil liberties. Walsh sweeps over one thing and I'm sure it's due to space -- he's a longterm critic of The Nation. They didn't just walk away from impeachment. They attacked it after the Democrats got control of both houses of Congress. You can refer to the Feb. 4, 2007 "The Nation Stats" at Third where we cover the February 12, 2007 issue which ran Sanford Levinson's awful "Impeachment: The Case Against" (and we parodied Levinson here). Again, I'm sure that John Walsh knows about that article and that space limitations prevented him from going into it. Prior to the election, The Nation never questioned impeachment, they fully supported it. After the election? Time to damp down on voter expectations. iraq law and disorder radio wbai michael ratner heidi boghosian michael smith sky news miranda richardson pbs the newshour pri the world marco werman the wall st. journal sam dagher the washington post leila fadel alsumaria tv david bowie marc ambinder wikileaks cnn mohammed tawfeeq

November 2010 in Review

Here's a collection of my posts from November, another very busy month for me. Check back tomorrow for my plan for December.

New Films:
Catfish
Conviction
Fair Game
Farewell
Morning Glory

Recent DVDs:
Get Him to the Greek
Winter's Bone

Older Films:
Anatomy of a Murder
My Fair Lady
Once Upon a Time in the West
Singin' in the Rain
Sweet Smell of Success

Harry Potter Films:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Articles/Lists:
2011 Oscar Predictions: Part 5
2011 Oscar Predictions: Part 6
1-Year Anniversary: My Favorite Posts
Why John Likes Movies
FRIDAY TOP 10: The 2000's Best Picture Winners
FRIDAY TOP 10: Most Anticipated Movies 2011/2012

2011 Oscar Predictions: Part 6

I'll be doing something a little different this time. Below are 25 films (in alphabetical order) that look like they could be players in the 2011 Oscars, in one way or another. I'll give you the categories I think they at least stand a fighting chance in. No doubt some of them will flame out, but this is how things look from my vantage point just before the calendar turns to December. And for full predictions in all the categories (expect the shorts), check out the sidebar down the right of the page.

127 Hours
Solid Bet: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Original Score

Decent Chance: Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing

Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire follow-up has opened well and is still looking like a major Oscar player. Will Academy members be able to overcome the film's infamous amputation scene and give it a win? We'll have to wait and see on that, but my guess is that the nominations will be this film's reward.

Alice in Wonderland
Solid Bet: Best Art Direction, Best Makeup

Decent Chance: Best Costume Design, Best Visual Effects

Long Shot: Best Picture, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing

Let's get one thing straight: No matter how much money this film has made, no matter how much money is pumped into its campaign, this film won't be nominated for Best Picture. Below-the-line categories? It will pick up its fair share of nods. But that's it.

Another Year
Solid Bet: Best Actress/Best Supporting Actress

Decent Chance: Best Original Screenplay, Best Picture

Long Shot: Best Director, Best Supporting Actor

The Lesley Manville question is shaping up to be one of the most important and interesting of the Oscar season. There are many out there who will say this isn't even worth writing about. She's lead. Case closed. I think Sony Pictures Classics will smell blood in the water of the Best Supporting Actress category. She can win that category easily, so why wouldn't they at least try to campaign her there? I haven't seen the film, but I hear she straddles the lead/supporting line quite closely.

Black Swan
Solid Bet: Best Actress

Decent Chance: Best Director, Best Picture

Long Shot: Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Original Score, Best Supporting Actress

Everyone knows Portman is in, and it looks like she's got a really good shot at winning. I also think Darren Aronofsky might get acknowledged in what looks like a somewhat weak Best Director category. Best Picture? I'm still not sold yet, though it's my number 11 right now.

Blue Valentine

Decent Chance: Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Original Screenplay

Long Shot: Best Picture

Oddly enough, I think this film's controversial NC-17 rating might actually help it (people will be curious, I'm sure). But it still might be too small to get any real Oscar recognition. I've got it in two major categories right now--Best Actress for Michelle Williams and Best Original Screenplay--but there's a chance it might be shut out completely.

Conviction
Decent Chance: Best Supporting Actor

Long Shot: Best Actress

This one is sliding and sliding further into obscurity with every update. I think Sam Rockwell still has a shot--it seems like precisely the kind of story the Academy would eat up--but as of this update, Conviction is shut out.

Fair Game
Decent Chance: Best Supporting Actor

Long Shot: Best Actress

What I said about Conviction.

The Fighter
Solid Bet: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress (Adams)

Decent Chance: Best Supporting Actress (Leo), Best Cinematography, Best Editing

Long Shot: Best Actor, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay

Now that the film has finally screened, I think it's safe to say this one is in. It sounds like Bale is a threat to win, and Adams is getting some of the best marks of her career. After that, I think it depends on how popular the film is, both with audiences and the Academy.

Get Low
Solid Bet: Best Actor

Decent Chance: Best Supporting Actress, Best Costume Design

Long Shot: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Original Screenplay

I'm happy Robert Duvall is hanging on strong after the film opened somewhat weakly over the summer. I'm not sure about the film's other prospects, but it remains an intriguing possibility in several categories, including the wide-open Best Supporting Actress.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Solid Bet: Best Visual Effects

Decent Chance: Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction

One of the best films in the long-running series is likely to be a player in some below-the-line categories this year, but nothing else.

How to Train Your Dragon
Solid Bet: Best Animated Feature

Decent Chance: Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score

Long Shot: Best Picture

Dreamworks is going all out for its critical and popular smash from early this year. I don't think it will be able to make it into Best Picture, however, with Toy Story 3 stealing so much of its thunder.

Inception
Solid Bet: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Visual Effects

Decent Chance: Best Art Direction, Best Original Score

Long Shot: Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress

Another one of this year's most intriguing stories, Inception could either be the year's most recognized film or its biggest Oscar disappointment. It should be just fine in the tech categories, and I still think it's solid for Picture/Director, but I wouldn't be surprised if things change in the next few weeks. Stay tuned.

The Kids Are All Right
Solid Bet: Best Actress (Bening), Best Supporting Actor, Best Original Screenplay

Decent Chance: Best Picture, Best Actress (Moore)

Long Shot: Best Director

An actor's picture, through and through, this film is still hanging on strong since its summer release. I think Bening has a solid chance at winning.

The King's Speech
Solid Bet: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design

Decent Chance: Best Makeup, Best Original Score

Long Shot: Best Cinematography, Best Editing

It's the frontrunner right now, and judging by how many "solid bets" I'm giving the film right now, I think it might be an across-the-board sweep on Oscar night.

Made in Dagenham
Decent Chance: Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress

Long Shot: Best Costume Design

I'm surprised this film isn't performaning all that well. It seems like a pure crowd-pleaser. But if it ends up being a box office bust, don't look for much in the line of nominations. Even Miranda Richardson, a former lock, seems vulnerable.

Rabbit Hole
Solid Bet: Best Supporting Actress

Decent Chance: Best Actress, Best Adapted Screenplay

Long Shot: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor

The buzz is still quiet--maybe a little too quiet at this stage. But very strong reviews and a couple critics prizes for the film/Kidman could mean very good things going into next year.

Secretariat
Decent Chance: Best Costume Design, Best Editing

Long Shot: Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing

I actually don't have Disney's film in any of my predictions, but it's got a chance in a number of mostly smaller categories. Picture and Actress (for Diane Lane) seem out at this point.

Shutter Island

Solid Bet: Best Art Direction

Decent Chance: Best Cinematography

Long Shot: Best Actor, Best Original Score

The February release date just kills it. Technical features were amazing, but it still just feels like the forgotten contender this year.

The Social Network
Solid Bet: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing

Decent Chance: Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor (x2), Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing

Long Shot: Best Cinematography

I'd say the film is running third right now, but there's no reason why critics prizes can't move it up in the race. Still, I like Fincher's and Sorkin's chances a lot.

The Town
Decent Chance: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay

Long Shot: Best Director, Best Supporting Actress, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing

This is probably the toughest film to peg because I don't think it's a sure thing in any categories, but it could wind up scoring big in many categories.

Toy Story 3
Solid Bet: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Animated Feature

Decent Chance: Best Original Score

Long Shot: Best Director, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing

Believe it or not, I think this film might be The King's Speech biggest challenger for the Best Picture win. Without another sure thing that people seem to adore, they might just say it's Pixar's time to shine.

TRON: Legacy

Solid Bet: Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Visual Effects

Looks to be a feast for the eyes, ears, and not much else.

True Grit
Solid Bet: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Editing

Decent Chance: Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Makeup

The only major question mark still in the field is probably golden if the Coen Brothers just come out and do what they do best. Wins might be tricky, however, since it's a remake. Plus, they were awarded only three years ago for No Country for Old Men.

The Way Back
Decent Chance: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (x2), Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Makeup

Peter Weir's film's biggest obstacle is its distributor. In the hands of a studio like Fox Searchlight, I'd tend to think this would be a favorite to win it all. Newmarket, however, is going to have trouble getting people to see it. If it succeeds, it could be a major player.

Winter's Bone
Solid Bet: Best Actress

Decent Chance: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay

Long Shot: Best Supporting Actor

It's the little indie that could this year and will likely ride a wave of strong critical support to a few nominations. Jennifer Lawrence is its best chance for a victory.

GIVEAWAY WINNER - THE DE LACY INHERITANCE BY ELIZABETH ASHWORTH

Hello, everybody! This brief posting is just to announce the name of the winner of Elizabeth Ashworth 's historical novel,  The De Lacy Inheritance. Thank to Elizabeth for guesposting on Fly High (HERE) and give away a free copy of her book,  as well as to all of you who have read her post and commented.  Glad to be part of such a big interesting community, I'm going to announce the name of winner.

My congratulations to ...

tiredwkids !!!

The suffering of Kurdish women

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Back On The Court"



I did find it very interesting that Barack doesn't invite women to play in his basketball game yet, after he gets his lips busted in Friday's game, he shows up on the court on Sunday to play his daughters. Apparently, he's attempting to get back on the horse. Or at least the pony.

Aswat al-Iraq has an important article entitled "41% of women in Iraq's Kurdistan circumcised:"

Some 41% of the women in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region were circumcised, a survey conducted by the region’s health ministry revealed on Sunday.

“The issue of female circumcision is hyped up by the media. However, a recent health ministry survey said 41% of the women in the Kurdish cities of Arbil and Sulaimaniya were circumcised while the practice did not exist at all in Duhuk,” Jameel Rasheed, the ministry’s health department director, said during a press conference in Arbil.

Want to explain to me how, after seven years, the US had no impact on that issue. Oh, that's right, the US didn't use the posts in Iraq -- diplomatic -- to promote women. The military did. They didn't do it in what appears to be a pro-active or intentional manner. It just appears that they had job slots open and, when they had a qualified woman, they plugged her into the slot. But the State Department couldn't even do that.

The way you address the issue is you provide an alternative as well as education.

But they don't know what they're doing -- either the US or the KRG -- and so the women of Kurdistan will continue to suffer.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, November 29, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri continues to grandstand, WikiLeaks releases US State Dept documents, and more. Today on the latest Law and Disorder Radio (on WBAI this morning and on various stations throughout the week), about half-way in, after Tina Turner singing "Never Been To Spain" -- first appears on Ike & Tina Turner's Delilah's Power), Roger Hodge discussed his latest book The Mendacity of Hope: Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism with hosts Michael Ratner, Michael S. Smith and Heidi Boghosian. Excerpt: Roger Hodge: Now when it comes to Obama being better or worse than a McCain-Palin administration, I think it's kind of -- There's an argument to be made that constitutionally we might be better off under the Republicans because then the Democrats might at least be opposing these unconstitutional usurpations of authority. It's an interesting conversation to have. I'm not really sure where I fall down on that. But it's hard to imagine that it would be any worse in terms of civil liberties under McCain. Michael S. Smith: Who are the corporate interests? Identify them in terms of the people that backed Obama originally and are feeding at the trough now. Roger Hodge: The straight forward fire sector, I think, is the biggest block. Michael S. Smith: Fire means? Roger Hodge: Fire meaning Finance Insurance and Real Estate. If you look at Obama's major backers in 2008 campaign, the number one backer was Goldman Sachs. Michael Ratner: Yeah, this is a great page. It's actually page 45 of your book and this book is called The Mendacity of Hope: Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism. It's by Roger Hodge and if you really want to figure out what went on and what's going on, get this book and it's easy to get through, it's quite well written. Anyway, this list here is fabulous. Goldman Sachs, as you were saying, is number one corporate backer, is that right? Roger Hodge: That's right. I'm excluding the universities because that's a complex case. I should point out that under American law -- at least so far -- at the moment -- corporations can't donate directly, as you'll know obviously. But when I say that Goldman was his number one backer -- that's a collective backer, that's a collective backer because the employees of Goldman Sachs are the ones who are making those investments. [. . . ] Roger Hodge: I have people, good friends in my life, who have excellent health care coverage supposedly but who are fighting insurance companies just to get basic procedures done to eliminate unbearable pain that no one denies that they have. So having health insurance does not guarantee health care. So the idea that Obama and the Democrats have done this historic deed and given us all the thing we've been fighting for for forty years is really kind of outrageous, incredibly frustration, because we're going to have to have this fight again. Heidi Boghosian: Roger, you actually sort of sum up it up in talking about health care by saying: "The health bill is of a piece with Obama's general approach to governance which is to make loud, dramatic claims about his purportedly reformist agenda -- claims that both his supporters and his enemies almost always take at a face value -- while working behind the scenes to make sure that no major stakeholder in his coalition of corporate backers will suffer significant losses." And that could sum up most of what he's done. Michael Smith: Yeah, that was an outstanding passage in the book, I thought Roger Hodge: Thank you. Thank you. And we see it again and again. We see it with detentions -- Heidi Boghosian: Guantanamo. Roger Hodge: Guantanamo. We see it with -- Michael Ratner: State secrets. Roger Hodge: -- Afghanistan. We see it with Iraq. Supposedly the war in Iraq is over. People take that at face value. 'Oh, he ended the war in Iraq.' Well he didn't. Michael Ratner: He just said he did. And the Iraq War drags on. Sgt David J. Luff Jr. of Ohio died Sunday November 21st in Tikrit as a result of enemy fire. Jack Healy (New York Times' At War blog) notes, "He was the third American soldier to die by enemy fire since the combat mission in Iraq officially ended in the summer" and quotes Col Malcolm Frost stating of the three, "All three in my brigade [Second Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division]. Iraq is still a dangerous place." Read that over and grasp that Col Frost knows who died in his brigade and how. Meaning? I'd hate to be the pompous asshole who went on The Diane Rehm Show and laughed and scoffed at the idea that the press helped sell the Iraq War on any day but especially after last week's article. Poor little Yochi, always so damn dumb. The Hill's Al Eisele has a column at Huffington Post noting the lack of coverage of the Iraq War and he notes Larry Kaplow recent piece on Iraq which we noted awhile back. One of the things Eisele and Kaplow believe is that the oil-rich Kirkuk may not be a potential flashpoint. I would disagree and note that the efforts on both sides -- centralized government or 'government' in Baghdad and the KRG -- to ship bodies to the region as well as the low- intensity conflict that has gone on since 2005 in the region would argue otherwise. But no one knows -- most of all me -- what will happen until it happens. Today Alsumaria TV reports, "Head of Iraq's Census Operations Room revealed that the census general committee is waiting for the ministerial council meeting to decide whether to carry out the census on time due on December 5 or hold it off." The long overdue census has been much pushed back by Nouri al-Maliki for years now; however, he dangled the census throughout the stalemate as reason to support him. Should the census be again shoved back by Nouri -- as it has been for years -- could it cost him political support at a time when the clock is ticking on his efforts to form a government? Nouri came to power in April 2006. Iraq's Constitution mandated a census of and referendum on Kirkuk be held by the end of 2007. As usual with Nouri, nothing got done. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, twenty-two days and counting. Thursday November 25th, Nouri was finally 'officially' named prime minister-designate. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) explained, "In 30 days, he is to present his cabinet to parliament or lose the nomination." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) added, "Even if Mr. Maliki meets the 30-day deadline in late December -- which is not a certainty, given the chronic disregard for legal deadlines in Iraqi politics -- the country will have spent more than nine months under a caretaker government without a functioning legislature. Many of Iraq's most critical needs -- from basic services to investment -- have remained unaddressed throughout the impasse." Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) offered, "He has an extremely difficult task ahed of him, these next 30 days are going to be a very tough sell for all of these parties that all want something very important in this government. It took a record eight months to actually come up with this coalition, but now what al-Maliki has to do is put all those people in the competing positions that backed him into slots in the government and he has a month to day that from today." Saturday, Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported on a press conference Nouri al-Maliki, thug of the occupation, held in which he made remarks which can be read as 'I will form a government in 30 days' or that he was carving out room for himself if he can't meet the deadline at which point he would then insist that he must be given more time and that it would take longer for the Constitution to be followed and a new prime minister-designate to be named. In addition, Fadel quotes him stating, "The Iraqi army, the Iraqi police and the Iraqi security services are capable of controlling the security situation, and therefore the security agreement will stay. I do not feel that there is a need for the presence of any other international forces to assist the Iraqis in controlling the security situation." The context missing? From the June 14, 2007 snapshot: The Pentagon report has many sections and one of interest considering one of the 2007 developments may be this: "There are currently more than 900 personnel in the Iraqi Air Force. . . . The fielding of rotary-wing aircraft continued with the delivery to Taji of five modified UH II (Iroquois) helicopters, bringing the total delivered to ten. The final six are scheduled to arrive in June. Aircrews are currently conducting initial qualifications and tactics training. The Iroquois fleet is expected to reach initial operation capability by the end of June 2007." By the end of June 2007? One of the developments of 2007 was the (admission of) helicopter crashes. US helicopters. British helicopters. Some may find comfort in the fact that evacuations and mobility will be handled by Iraqis . . . whenever they are fully staffed and trained. Four years plus to deliver the equipment, training should be done in ten or twenty years, right? You can also refer to Elisabeth Bumiller's "Iraq Can't Defend Its Skies by Pullout Date, U.S. Says" (New York Times) from July 2009. That's just the air force. Last week, Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reported on the US Defense Dept's Inspector General report which has found that "the Iraq Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior, and the army and police units they support do not have a supply system capable of maintaining operational readiness of the Iraq Security Forces." But Nouri says it's ready. This is the same Nouri who blustered that foreign forces wouldn't be needed after 2006 and then went and renewed the United Nations mandate for the occupation outraging the Iraqi Parliament. To tamp down on their outrage, Nouri insisted that it would not happen again without their signing off on it. 2007 is winding down and, guess what, Nouri renews the mandate again -- without their input. Nouri's public record is one long pattern of claiming US forces are not needed in Iraq -- making that claim publicly while doing something different behind the scenes. Or does no one remember that the Iraqi people were supposed to vote on the SOFA -- a vote that was supposed to have taken place in July 2009 and never did? Printing Nouri's quote on US forces remaining in Iraq demands that Nouri's past history be noted or else just distributing talking points. Was he asked any questions after he made that statement? March 4th of this year, he was telling Arwa Damon (CNN) that he might ask for an extension ("depends on the future"). That was before the long and ongoing political stalemate. Exactly what's changed since March? They still don't have a government. Since March? Reuters quotes Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh stating in London today, "Among the next government's priorities will be to approve legislation of long-awaited oil and gas law through parliament." Will that be the first priority? Really? Because that was announced as Nouri's first priority when he became prime minister in 2006 and it was included in the 2007 White House bench marks that Nouri signed off on. And the calendar says it 2010. Where did the time go, Nouri? AP reports this morning that Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebair is decrying the release of US documents by WikiLeaks begging the question: Doesn't Hoshyar have some real work to do? Including campaign for his current job since a new Cabinet of Ministers is supposed to be appointed? Considering his remarks that angered -- his many remarks -- Nouri throughout the ongoing political stalemate, you'd think he'd be trying to keep his job. Oh, wait, that's why he's parroting US talking points. For the latest release by WikiLeaks, we'll drop back to last night's KPFA Evening News: Anthony Fest: The whistle blower website WikiLeaks released another trove of confidential documents today. Last month WikiLeaks released thousands of Pentagon documents most associated with the US occupation of Iraq. In contrast, the documents made public today include thousands of diplomatic cables -- communications between the State Dept and Washington and US consulates all around the world. The documents cover both the George W. Bush and the Barack Obama administrations. WikiLeaks gave an advance look at the documents to several media organizations including the New York Times and the British newspaper the Guardian. Those publications now have articles on their websites analyzing the documents. WikiLeaks says it will post the documents on its own website in the coming days although it has said its site was the target of a cyber attack today. The documents release is certain to provoke tension between the US and its allies. For example, some of the cables say that Saudi donors are the largest financiers of terror groups. Other cables detail the cover-up of US military activities. One of them records a meeting last January between US Gen David Petreaus and the president of Yemen about air attacks against rebels in Yemen. The president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, tells Petraeus, "We'll continue to say they are our bombs and not yours." According to the Guardian, the documents reveal that some Arab leaders had privately urged an air attack against Iran and that US officials had been instructed to spy on the United Nations' leadership. Among the other disclosures are deep fears in Washington and London about the security of Paksitan's nuclear weapons. Another document asserts massive corruption at high levels of the Afghanistan government saying the Afghan vice president traveled to the United Arab Emirates carrying $52 million in cash. Still other documents disparage the British military in Afghanistan. Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports that Denmark's Social Democrats are hoping that the release will reveal "why Denmark supported the US-led war on Iraq. Documents released thus far on Iraq tend to zoom in on the Iran-Iraq relationship such as one published by the Guardian which opens: 1. (S) SUMMARY: Iran is a dominant player in Iraq's electoral politics, and is using its close ties to Shia, Kurdish, and select Sunni figures to shape the political landscape in favor of a united Shia victory in the January election. A pro-Iran, Shia-dominated, and preferably Islamist government, led by a united Shia alliance remains Iran's top priority. Toward that end, Iran is seeking to increase pressure on Maliki to join forces with the other prominent Shia coalition (Iraqi National Alliance) led by the Sadrists and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI). END SUMMARY 2. (S) Iran is arguably the most influential regional power seeking to shape and influence the outcome of Iraq's election. This message offers an assessment of Iran's efforts to shape Iraq's electoral politics in anticipation of the national election in January. The cable goes on to argue that Iran wants a weakened Iraq with the hopes that such a country would lean more heavily on Tehran. Another US Embassy in Iraq cable insists that Quds Forces officers are spying in Iraq. Maybe they're sending cables to Tehran about the US spies in Iraq? The previous cable and this one assert that Tehran is worried about the influence of Grand Ayatollah Sistani who is not seen as sufficiently deferential to Iran and critical of some aspects of Iranian governance. David E. Sanger, James Glanz and Jo Becker (New York Times) report on King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia: "In December 2005, the Saudi king expressed his anger that the Bush administration had ignored his advice against going to war. According to a cable from the American Embassy in Riyadh, the king argued 'that whereas in the past the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Saddam Hussein had agreed on the need to contain Iran, U.S. policy has now given Iraq to Iran as a 'gift on a golden platter'." The Guardian publishes a cable from March 2009 where "The King expressed a complete lack of trust in Iraqi PM al-Maliki and held out little hope for improved Saudi/Iraqi relations as long as al-Maliki remains in office." From that cable: 14. (S) NO HOPE FOR MALIKI: The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with Maliki. The King said he had met Maliki early in Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, Maliki had no credibility. "I don,t trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don,t trust?" Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for Maliki, "or I would have met with him." On the latest release, the Rocky Mountain Collegian editorial boards offers, "In a world where even international bodies such as the United Nations are hamstrung in the face of U.S. dominance, Wikileaks serves as an essential check on American power. Ultimately, we, as American voters, can be the most effective force in limiting our nations at-times overaggressive foreign policy. And voters need to know the unpleasant facts that Wikileaks provides to make informed choices." With Barack injured in his b-ball game (stiches for his lip last Friday), the administration's line was delivered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today. It was not one of Hillary's better public moments to put it mildly. To put it bluntly, she made an ass out of herself. Click here for full text and video, excerpt: The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. This Administration is advancing a robust foreign policy that is focused on advancing America's national interests and leading the world in solving the most complex challenges of our time, from fixing the global economy, to thwarting international terrorism, to stopping the spread of catastrophic weapons, to advancing human rights and universal values. In every country and in every region of the world, we are working with partners to pursue these aims. So let's be clear: this disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community – the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations, that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity. Hillary, let's be clear. It's an embarrassment for a government out of control. Out of control in terms of doing things they shouldn't and out of control in terms of poor training that allowed a British politician's sex life, for example, to be discussed in a State Dept cable. If America takes a prestige hit worldwide -- if -- then the problem is the actions, not the exposure. If America wanted to improve its image it could immediately end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. If Hillary wants to do her job she can try to stop lying to people about WikiLeaks and focusing on the issue of Iraq's LGBT community. Pari and Dilsa are Iraqi refugees. They are also a couple and one that Sweden insists it is sending back to Iraq despite the fact that Pari and Dilsa are both women and that the LGBT community in Iraq has long been targeted. Melanie Nathan (Ekurd.net) reports: The Swedish Immigration Court has decided they should be expelled in a week. "We are so afraid that we can barely sleep or eat," says Dilsa. The two women, in their 30s, fell in love in Iraq five years ago. But they had [to] hide their relationship for fear of persecution. Pari's family is one of the most powerful Muslim clans in the country with governmental power. Being a lesbian in the environment was impossible and dangerous. Pari was being forced to marry a relative, but she refused and confessed that she loved a woman. Death sentences were issued by the clan. First Pari would be killed, then Dilsa. [. . .] Pari managed to flee to Swede in 2006. Dilsa hid at a friend's home in Iraqi Kurdistan. However, the friend's brother raped her, and she became pregnant. "I fled to Sweden three months after Pari and I had an abortion," she said. Sweden's been sending Iraqi refugees back for some time now. The supposed 'advanced' country has ditched compassion and instead resorted to sending people to what may be their deaths. Dilsa and Pari may become the two latest this week. For more on the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community, you can refer to Iraqi LGBT. And if the US government had elected to make the targeting an issue -- instead of spending months denying it and then offering a mealy-mouthed statement or two -- maybe there would be a world-wide international outcry. Sweden should not send them back but if Hillary has time for press conferences, she's got time to work on this issue whose solution could include admitting the two women to the United States. In today's violence . . . Bombings? Reuters notes a Baquba car bombing which claimed 1 life and left eleven people injured. Shootings? Reuters notes 1 taxi driver shot dead in Mussayab and, dropping back to last night, 1 man shot dead in Mosul. Corpses? Reuters notes 1 police officer's corpse and 1 Sahwa corpse discovered in Baiji, 1 woman's corpse discovered in Mosul, 1 police officer's corpse discovered in Mussyayab Lastly, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Back On The Court" and for those who've been gone on the holiday break, Kat's "Kat's Korner: The 80s (where Cher proves them all wrong)" and "Kat's Korner: Cher demonstrates this is far from over" went up Thursday. iraq law and disorder radio wbai michael ratner heidi boghosian michael smith the washington post leila fadel the new york times elisabeth bumiller the washington post walter pincus the associated press kpfa the kpfa evening news anthony fest deutsche presse-agentur