Kenneth Roth
How are Iraqi Sunnis supposed to turn on ISIS if alternative is this Shia militia destruction? http://trib.al/SPLimjd
Sunday, February 01, 2015
Truest statement of the week
On January 7, 2015, the Xinhua press Agence reported that 14 journalists were killed in Iraq in 2014, citing the Iraqi Journalists’ Syndicate:
“A total of 14 journalists were killed in the violence-ridden Iraq last year, an Iraqi journalists' body said on Tuesday.
[. . .]
The Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) lists only 6 of these victims in its database. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) lists only 4 killed media profesionals.
Question: Why do these organizations not contact their partners of the Journalists’ syndicate? Year after year after year both CPJ and RSF persevere in their evil course of downgrading the number of assassinated colleagues. Read: 2013: Another year of slaughter in Iraq claims the lives of at least 21 media professionals
-- Dirk Adriaensens, "Iraq: Media professionals assassinated in 2014." (BRussells Tribunal).
Truest statement of the week II
I can hardly believe my eyes. [Medea] Benjamin excoriates Kissinger and then allies herself with McCain? what is going on here?
There is no statute on limitations regarding crimes of the past such in in the Chilean coup, BUT right now we are talking about Ukraine. There is a split in the elites regarding US underwriting of regime change in Ukraine---our most recent coup. Kissinger happens to be right on this one---and George Soros, wrong. So, what game is Benjamin playing here? I am quite sure that Code Pink is a client organization of Soros's. CP and Benjamin have done a lot of good things and fought a lot of good fights. But Benjamin is in over her head here. It looks as though she is being manipulated into attacking Kissinger at this moment in time because her sponsor Soros is out of sorts with Kissinger over Ukraine. Benjamin risks losing her credibility if she gets herself mixed up in this fight between two top American foreign policy Vulcans. Because she has probably swallowed the same Ukraine Kool-Aid as the MSM, the Congress, etc. For once, we need Kissinger to prevail in his attempt to tamp down enthusiasm for the putsch in Ukraine as a tool for baiting the Russian bear.
-- Litchfield commenting on Medea Benjamin's latest nonsense at Information Clearing House.
There is no statute on limitations regarding crimes of the past such in in the Chilean coup, BUT right now we are talking about Ukraine. There is a split in the elites regarding US underwriting of regime change in Ukraine---our most recent coup. Kissinger happens to be right on this one---and George Soros, wrong. So, what game is Benjamin playing here? I am quite sure that Code Pink is a client organization of Soros's. CP and Benjamin have done a lot of good things and fought a lot of good fights. But Benjamin is in over her head here. It looks as though she is being manipulated into attacking Kissinger at this moment in time because her sponsor Soros is out of sorts with Kissinger over Ukraine. Benjamin risks losing her credibility if she gets herself mixed up in this fight between two top American foreign policy Vulcans. Because she has probably swallowed the same Ukraine Kool-Aid as the MSM, the Congress, etc. For once, we need Kissinger to prevail in his attempt to tamp down enthusiasm for the putsch in Ukraine as a tool for baiting the Russian bear.
-- Litchfield commenting on Medea Benjamin's latest nonsense at Information Clearing House.
A note to our readers
Hey --
First, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
What did we come up with on Super Bowl Sunday?
Not a lot.
Too many of us -- including me (Jim) -- were focused on the game.
But we did get this:
And that's what we came up with.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
First, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
What did we come up with on Super Bowl Sunday?
Not a lot.
Too many of us -- including me (Jim) -- were focused on the game.
But we did get this:
BRussell's Tribunal.
A comment at ICH worth noting.
How did this get ignored by every outlet?
Ava and C.I. reveal how hollow The Water Cooler Set is -- and how fake.
Ty takes on the film Selma.
We're not Hillary fans. But, damn it, Barack is the president. Stop blaming her for his actions.
I take on the nonsense that is Ray McGovern.
Kat brought this over.
We felt it was worth noting here.
What we listened to.
Repost from England's Socialist Worker.
Mike and the gang wrote this.
And that's what we came up with.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: The White House doesn't do democracy
One of the most important moments last week took place at the White House during an official briefing.
They were uttered by spokesperson Josh Earnest.
Q Josh, thanks. I want to go back to Congressman Schiff’s AUMF legislation. It includes language that would prohibit the use of ground troops. I know that Secretary Kerry a while back, he said that that shouldn’t be part of the AUMF language. Does the administration still stand by that? Are you still opposed to legislation that would prohibit the use of ground troops?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Kristen, I’m not going to be in a position to negotiate the language from here. We are having private negotiations with Democrats and Republicans on the Hill about what should be included in the agreement. But --
Q But that seems like a very basic tenet of any piece of legislation. I mean, the President has said multiple times that he’s not going to send U.S. troops -- put U.S. troops on the ground. So is that something that you would be opposed to?
MR. EARNEST: Well, again, this is something that we’ll have to work out with Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. But I appreciate your raising what is a principle that the President has established from the very first day he started talking about ISIL, which is that he does not believe that it’s in the best interest of the United States for us to commit a significant contingent of American ground troops in a combat role to fight ISIL. He believes that the best way for us to do this is to put American troops in a situation where they can use their skills and expertise to train up local forces that can take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their own country.
Spokesperson Josh Earnest's remarks, that combat troops being sent into Iraq is a private conversation for Congress, not an issue for public debate, were made in public at a press briefing.
So every outlet reported on them, right?
Wrong.
If you saw them at The Common Ills on Saturday, consider yourself lucky because the US press has decided to treat these remarks like they never happened, like they weren't uttered by the White House spokesperson.
A true democracy depends upon an informed citizenry.
But as Ernest made clear, that's not something the White House is actually interested in.
Nor are they interested in debating the issue with the public.
They were uttered by spokesperson Josh Earnest.
Q Josh, thanks. I want to go back to Congressman Schiff’s AUMF legislation. It includes language that would prohibit the use of ground troops. I know that Secretary Kerry a while back, he said that that shouldn’t be part of the AUMF language. Does the administration still stand by that? Are you still opposed to legislation that would prohibit the use of ground troops?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Kristen, I’m not going to be in a position to negotiate the language from here. We are having private negotiations with Democrats and Republicans on the Hill about what should be included in the agreement. But --
Q But that seems like a very basic tenet of any piece of legislation. I mean, the President has said multiple times that he’s not going to send U.S. troops -- put U.S. troops on the ground. So is that something that you would be opposed to?
MR. EARNEST: Well, again, this is something that we’ll have to work out with Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. But I appreciate your raising what is a principle that the President has established from the very first day he started talking about ISIL, which is that he does not believe that it’s in the best interest of the United States for us to commit a significant contingent of American ground troops in a combat role to fight ISIL. He believes that the best way for us to do this is to put American troops in a situation where they can use their skills and expertise to train up local forces that can take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their own country.
Spokesperson Josh Earnest's remarks, that combat troops being sent into Iraq is a private conversation for Congress, not an issue for public debate, were made in public at a press briefing.
So every outlet reported on them, right?
Wrong.
If you saw them at The Common Ills on Saturday, consider yourself lucky because the US press has decided to treat these remarks like they never happened, like they weren't uttered by the White House spokesperson.
A true democracy depends upon an informed citizenry.
But as Ernest made clear, that's not something the White House is actually interested in.
Nor are they interested in debating the issue with the public.
TV: How they pretend they care about racism
"Black Artists Matter#"?
Is that it?
We're not sure what the bulls**t is these days, we just know it's oozing across the nation.
If you missed it, an African-American woman (badly) directed her first studio film and didn't get nominated for an Academy Award -- so it's racism, the howler monkeys from Salon on down insist it's racism, pure racism.
As TV critics, we know all about racism.
We know all about these liars pretending to be concerned about racism as they whine about the Academy Awards 'snubbing' a director who couldn't even win the award for directing from the Georgia Film Critics Association. That wasn't the only loss on the film festival circuit. And about the only award the director won was from the same lunatic organization that awarded Oprah Winfrey "Best Female Action Star."
No, not for Oprah's work in the trail blazing home movie Eating Gayle, but for Selma.
When you're handing out awards declaring Oprah Winfrey to be the "Best Female Action Star," you're not only insulting the likes of Sigourney Weaver, Pam Grier, Angelina Jolie, Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Lawrence, Milla Jovovich, Halle Berry, Jamie Lee Curtis, Linda Hamilton, Lucy Liu, Zoe Saldana, Michelle Rodriquez, Michelle Yeoh and others, you're also making a joke out of yourself.
And if you're one of the critics in The Water Cooler Set trying to insist you're opposed to racism, maybe you should stop practicing it.
Meaning?
The finest acting being done on television these days in the category of Best Supporting Actress in a Drama would be Alfre Woodard's performance on State of Affairs as President Constance Payton.
This is a very complex portrayal, one full of shading and dimensions.
But two things apparently happened.
The Water Cooler Set's hatred for Katherine Hiegl (and all women) meant they'd be damned if they'd give Alfre credit for her great work and The Water Cooler Set's inherent racism means they can only applaud one woman of a color a season.
And this season, they've made that one woman Viola Davis.
Davis has done a wonderful job on How To Get Away With Murder -- despite the fact that every time the show could have made her the series lead it has instead reduced her to supporting actress. Here's a hint: When your series is entitled "How To Get Away With Murder" and Viola's character is married to an abusive murderer, you let her character Annalise do the killing and get away with it. When she is instead 'rescued' by a bunch of students who kill her husband for her, it's less a series starring Viola Davis and more of a filmed version of The Bobbsey Twins And The Doodlebug Mystery.
A really stupid woman in The Water Cooler Set (you have to be a stupid -- or at least a self-loathing -- woman to get in) was whining mere weeks ago about Empire and how it was so awful that this was airing opposite Blackish and whine, whine, whine.
The two shows -- one a soap opera, the other a sitcom -- do have things worth praising and are shows worth watching. But the soap opera is male dominated and The Water Cooler Set has glommed on the actor in Blackish while ignoring the amazing Tracee Ellis Ross.
The idiotic woman rushing to embrace men (in this case African-American men) seemed woefully unaware that Thursday nights presented many strong women of color including Viola Davis, Kerry Washington and Lucy Liu.
It's characteristic of the babbling fools posing as TV critics that make up The Water Cooler Set.
And it's past time they were called on their racism and their sexism by people other than us.
Katherine Heigl is not a bitch and the fact that Shonda Rhimes can't get over their conflict isn't reason for The Water Cooler Set to attack Heigl. Considering her success, we think Shonda should have been a lot more gracious or at least kept her mouth shut. She may think it's amusing but she's a woman and her one-sided cat fight with Heigl will later be used to help bring Shonda down -- probably in two years when Shondaland no longer seems new and the viewers fall away and The Water Cooler Set can really sharpen their knives on her.
Yes, Shonda, you dominate ABC TV.
Once so did Carsey-Werner -- and where are they on the ABC schedule today?
The trashing of Heigl is inexcusable all on its own. It becomes even more downright offensive, however, when it means that Alfre Woodard's amazing acting is ignored in The Water Cooler Set's efforts to continue the trashing of Heigl.
They don't even have the excuse that they're defending Shonda when they go after Maggie Q.
And, make no mistake, they're tearing apart Maggie Q.
The only Asian-American woman to carry an action TV show -- or one hour drama -- in US TV history is following up Nikita with Stalker on CBS.*
Like Mandy Patikin, we've long criticized the violence in so many CBS vehicles, violence presented in a sexual manner.
So if Stalker were the show The Water Cooler Set says it is, we would've long ago called it out.
But it's not.
It's a smart drama that needs to emphasize the continuing elements more.
It is not an exploitation show.
And Maggie Q alone should have earned it strong raves due to the work she's doing.
But women don't get applauded by The Water Cooler Set, they get attacked.
Viola Davis is applauded.
Yes, but only after there was pushback when a TWCS-er wrote a highly offensive and insulting piece about her.
That may have helped the TWCS take Viola seriously -- especially considering that they've never embraced Shonda's show before.
Maggie Q's work had another problem to face.
Dylan McDermott.
Please note, we're not picking on Dylan. He's a talented actor and a heap of hotness.
But his last CBS show, which was solid and amazing, was CBS' Hostages.
The show didn't draw the audience it should have.
That was, in part, due to Dylan being in an unlikable role.
Yes, as the show evolved, viewers (those who stuck around) learned he was only planning to kill the president due to the president having committed rape and his wife (the product of the rape) needing bone marrow and . . .
CBS didn't learn their lesson.
Viewers will take Dylan cheating on a wife (American Horror Story), they will take a great deal from him.
But they draw the line at evil.
Damaged?
Fine.
Evil?
No.
When Stalker began, some idiot thought it would be great to present Dylan's character as a stalker -- a stalker of a young boy and then, a few episodes in, reveal the truth.
It was not a great idea.
It did not make for great acting or great television.
It did, however, run off viewers.
The young boy is not being stalked by Dylan's character.
The young boy is his son.
And if CBS wanted to help the ratings of Stalker, they would have done advertisements around that because the storyline was creepy, did leave viewers with the wrong impression and ran many off.
But none of that has anything to do with Maggie Q.
None of that destroys the fact that she's given a solid performance worthy of praise.
Or that Lucy Liu has done so on Elementary.
None of these women -- Maggie, Lucy, Tracee, Alfre . . . -- are getting the applause they deserve.
In fact, it appears the only time this TV season that women of color not named Viola Davis are going to get attention, it's going to be to attack them.
Case in point: E. Alex Jung's sexist sliming of Mindy Kaling at Al Jazeera.
The idiot Jung argues Mindy is basically a race traitor and this is because she won't present herself as he wants her to.
Right or wrong, women have to be very careful on TV.
We have to be very careful here.
There are two show runners -- who do not have shows currently -- who rightly called out the sexism of network TV. One immediately back pedaled in the face of backlash while the other just resorted immediately to "no further comment."
One of them we know and know very well.
And we know how badly her speaking out hurt her.
So we didn't note it here.
We didn't know either woman's statements.
We applaud it.
But we're perfectly aware that speaking that truth destroyed both women in the industry.
Our friend thought she could just go to a different network.
Didn't work out.
Never does.
Margaret Cho was dicked around by ABC in the 90s. She made similar public comments to the ones Mindy's now slammed for -- made them while she was starring in All American Girl. At the same time Cho was being cautioned by the networks not too appear 'too Asian,' Ellen DeGeneres was learning how far ABC would go with her in the lead up to "The Puppy" episode. It must be seen as a development for the show -- her character realizing she was gay -- but not as the focus or as the dominant theme.
This is the world Mindy Kaling has to navigate.
All the more so because her hilarious show does not have outstanding ratings and should she become too 'controversial' for Fox, The Mindy Project ends this season.
Crap f**k E. Alex Jung doesn't know any of this, doesn't know anything at all.
He just wants Mindy to be the voice of Indian-Americans.
Who would want to do that?
Outside of a politician, who would presume to speak for any segment of humanity?
Here, we've said from the start, we present a feminist viewpoint, not the feminist viewpoint.
Equally true, it's hard to imagine how Mindy can both mine humor and be the voice for every person from India and those who Indian-American.
E. Alex Jung is asking far too much from one person.
He's also deeply sexist which is why he glommed on Mindy Kaling to begin with.
We're failing to remember the Al Jazeera article celebrating Mindy but you can be sure the one trashing her will not soon be forgotten.
E. Alex Jung would never write such an article about the star of CBS' Scorpions -- a British citizens who's repeatedly toyed with is-he-or-isn't-he-Indian throughout his career.
But they think it's acceptable to go after Mindy who, for the record, has never played "Guess my ethnicity because I'm not going to tell you!"
For weeks now, we've had to endure Anglo White media critics insisting a woman not getting nominated for Best Director was racism.
Note, the 'it's sexism!' argument was not one they made.
Because women don't really matter to them.
That's why more time has been spent by these so-called critics whining about a nomination that didn't come then has been spent celebrating the outstanding work done this TV season by Alfre Woodard, Tracee Ellis Ross, Mindy Kaling, Maggie Q, Lucy Liu, etc.
The same media freaks that have turned a non-nomination into a circus have failed to use their platforms to applaud women of color. Which is why their cries of 'racism' ring so hollow.
-----------------
* Lucy Liu is a co-star on Elementary. She co-carries the show. Maggie Q was the star of Nikita.
Is that it?
We're not sure what the bulls**t is these days, we just know it's oozing across the nation.
If you missed it, an African-American woman (badly) directed her first studio film and didn't get nominated for an Academy Award -- so it's racism, the howler monkeys from Salon on down insist it's racism, pure racism.
As TV critics, we know all about racism.
We know all about these liars pretending to be concerned about racism as they whine about the Academy Awards 'snubbing' a director who couldn't even win the award for directing from the Georgia Film Critics Association. That wasn't the only loss on the film festival circuit. And about the only award the director won was from the same lunatic organization that awarded Oprah Winfrey "Best Female Action Star."
No, not for Oprah's work in the trail blazing home movie Eating Gayle, but for Selma.
When you're handing out awards declaring Oprah Winfrey to be the "Best Female Action Star," you're not only insulting the likes of Sigourney Weaver, Pam Grier, Angelina Jolie, Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Lawrence, Milla Jovovich, Halle Berry, Jamie Lee Curtis, Linda Hamilton, Lucy Liu, Zoe Saldana, Michelle Rodriquez, Michelle Yeoh and others, you're also making a joke out of yourself.
And if you're one of the critics in The Water Cooler Set trying to insist you're opposed to racism, maybe you should stop practicing it.
Meaning?
The finest acting being done on television these days in the category of Best Supporting Actress in a Drama would be Alfre Woodard's performance on State of Affairs as President Constance Payton.
This is a very complex portrayal, one full of shading and dimensions.
But two things apparently happened.
The Water Cooler Set's hatred for Katherine Hiegl (and all women) meant they'd be damned if they'd give Alfre credit for her great work and The Water Cooler Set's inherent racism means they can only applaud one woman of a color a season.
And this season, they've made that one woman Viola Davis.
Davis has done a wonderful job on How To Get Away With Murder -- despite the fact that every time the show could have made her the series lead it has instead reduced her to supporting actress. Here's a hint: When your series is entitled "How To Get Away With Murder" and Viola's character is married to an abusive murderer, you let her character Annalise do the killing and get away with it. When she is instead 'rescued' by a bunch of students who kill her husband for her, it's less a series starring Viola Davis and more of a filmed version of The Bobbsey Twins And The Doodlebug Mystery.
A really stupid woman in The Water Cooler Set (you have to be a stupid -- or at least a self-loathing -- woman to get in) was whining mere weeks ago about Empire and how it was so awful that this was airing opposite Blackish and whine, whine, whine.
The two shows -- one a soap opera, the other a sitcom -- do have things worth praising and are shows worth watching. But the soap opera is male dominated and The Water Cooler Set has glommed on the actor in Blackish while ignoring the amazing Tracee Ellis Ross.
The idiotic woman rushing to embrace men (in this case African-American men) seemed woefully unaware that Thursday nights presented many strong women of color including Viola Davis, Kerry Washington and Lucy Liu.
It's characteristic of the babbling fools posing as TV critics that make up The Water Cooler Set.
And it's past time they were called on their racism and their sexism by people other than us.
Katherine Heigl is not a bitch and the fact that Shonda Rhimes can't get over their conflict isn't reason for The Water Cooler Set to attack Heigl. Considering her success, we think Shonda should have been a lot more gracious or at least kept her mouth shut. She may think it's amusing but she's a woman and her one-sided cat fight with Heigl will later be used to help bring Shonda down -- probably in two years when Shondaland no longer seems new and the viewers fall away and The Water Cooler Set can really sharpen their knives on her.
Yes, Shonda, you dominate ABC TV.
Once so did Carsey-Werner -- and where are they on the ABC schedule today?
The trashing of Heigl is inexcusable all on its own. It becomes even more downright offensive, however, when it means that Alfre Woodard's amazing acting is ignored in The Water Cooler Set's efforts to continue the trashing of Heigl.
They don't even have the excuse that they're defending Shonda when they go after Maggie Q.
And, make no mistake, they're tearing apart Maggie Q.
The only Asian-American woman to carry an action TV show -- or one hour drama -- in US TV history is following up Nikita with Stalker on CBS.*
Like Mandy Patikin, we've long criticized the violence in so many CBS vehicles, violence presented in a sexual manner.
So if Stalker were the show The Water Cooler Set says it is, we would've long ago called it out.
But it's not.
It's a smart drama that needs to emphasize the continuing elements more.
It is not an exploitation show.
And Maggie Q alone should have earned it strong raves due to the work she's doing.
But women don't get applauded by The Water Cooler Set, they get attacked.
Viola Davis is applauded.
Yes, but only after there was pushback when a TWCS-er wrote a highly offensive and insulting piece about her.
That may have helped the TWCS take Viola seriously -- especially considering that they've never embraced Shonda's show before.
Maggie Q's work had another problem to face.
Dylan McDermott.
Please note, we're not picking on Dylan. He's a talented actor and a heap of hotness.
But his last CBS show, which was solid and amazing, was CBS' Hostages.
The show didn't draw the audience it should have.
That was, in part, due to Dylan being in an unlikable role.
Yes, as the show evolved, viewers (those who stuck around) learned he was only planning to kill the president due to the president having committed rape and his wife (the product of the rape) needing bone marrow and . . .
CBS didn't learn their lesson.
Viewers will take Dylan cheating on a wife (American Horror Story), they will take a great deal from him.
But they draw the line at evil.
Damaged?
Fine.
Evil?
No.
When Stalker began, some idiot thought it would be great to present Dylan's character as a stalker -- a stalker of a young boy and then, a few episodes in, reveal the truth.
It was not a great idea.
It did not make for great acting or great television.
It did, however, run off viewers.
The young boy is not being stalked by Dylan's character.
The young boy is his son.
And if CBS wanted to help the ratings of Stalker, they would have done advertisements around that because the storyline was creepy, did leave viewers with the wrong impression and ran many off.
But none of that has anything to do with Maggie Q.
None of that destroys the fact that she's given a solid performance worthy of praise.
Or that Lucy Liu has done so on Elementary.
None of these women -- Maggie, Lucy, Tracee, Alfre . . . -- are getting the applause they deserve.
In fact, it appears the only time this TV season that women of color not named Viola Davis are going to get attention, it's going to be to attack them.
Case in point: E. Alex Jung's sexist sliming of Mindy Kaling at Al Jazeera.
The idiot Jung argues Mindy is basically a race traitor and this is because she won't present herself as he wants her to.
Right or wrong, women have to be very careful on TV.
We have to be very careful here.
There are two show runners -- who do not have shows currently -- who rightly called out the sexism of network TV. One immediately back pedaled in the face of backlash while the other just resorted immediately to "no further comment."
One of them we know and know very well.
And we know how badly her speaking out hurt her.
So we didn't note it here.
We didn't know either woman's statements.
We applaud it.
But we're perfectly aware that speaking that truth destroyed both women in the industry.
Our friend thought she could just go to a different network.
Didn't work out.
Never does.
Margaret Cho was dicked around by ABC in the 90s. She made similar public comments to the ones Mindy's now slammed for -- made them while she was starring in All American Girl. At the same time Cho was being cautioned by the networks not too appear 'too Asian,' Ellen DeGeneres was learning how far ABC would go with her in the lead up to "The Puppy" episode. It must be seen as a development for the show -- her character realizing she was gay -- but not as the focus or as the dominant theme.
This is the world Mindy Kaling has to navigate.
All the more so because her hilarious show does not have outstanding ratings and should she become too 'controversial' for Fox, The Mindy Project ends this season.
Crap f**k E. Alex Jung doesn't know any of this, doesn't know anything at all.
He just wants Mindy to be the voice of Indian-Americans.
Who would want to do that?
Outside of a politician, who would presume to speak for any segment of humanity?
Here, we've said from the start, we present a feminist viewpoint, not the feminist viewpoint.
Equally true, it's hard to imagine how Mindy can both mine humor and be the voice for every person from India and those who Indian-American.
E. Alex Jung is asking far too much from one person.
He's also deeply sexist which is why he glommed on Mindy Kaling to begin with.
We're failing to remember the Al Jazeera article celebrating Mindy but you can be sure the one trashing her will not soon be forgotten.
E. Alex Jung would never write such an article about the star of CBS' Scorpions -- a British citizens who's repeatedly toyed with is-he-or-isn't-he-Indian throughout his career.
But they think it's acceptable to go after Mindy who, for the record, has never played "Guess my ethnicity because I'm not going to tell you!"
For weeks now, we've had to endure Anglo White media critics insisting a woman not getting nominated for Best Director was racism.
Note, the 'it's sexism!' argument was not one they made.
Because women don't really matter to them.
That's why more time has been spent by these so-called critics whining about a nomination that didn't come then has been spent celebrating the outstanding work done this TV season by Alfre Woodard, Tracee Ellis Ross, Mindy Kaling, Maggie Q, Lucy Liu, etc.
The same media freaks that have turned a non-nomination into a circus have failed to use their platforms to applaud women of color. Which is why their cries of 'racism' ring so hollow.
-----------------
* Lucy Liu is a co-star on Elementary. She co-carries the show. Maggie Q was the star of Nikita.
Ty's Corner
Selma: Great event, lousy movie.
Ava DuVernay has directed a mess of a movie.
Key moments leave you unresponsive because she's made an 'artistic choice' not to show you the speaker.
Either the face isn't in focus or centered in the frame or it's poorly lit and you can't see the face of the person speaking.
Director Sydney Pollack made this mistake in The Way We Were. In Barbra Streisand's key speech where she's breaking down on the phone, begging a man to see her, we don't get to see her face.
It was a mistake and it may have cost Streisand a second Academy Award for acting.
The mistake certainly cost Pollack a nomination for Best Director.
And, unlike Selma, The Way We Were was a hit -- hell it was a blockbuster.
Unlike Ava DuVernay, Pollack had already been nominated.
For the film They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, Pollack received his first Academy Award nomination as Best Director. But a few years later, with the blockbuster The Way We Were, he didn't even get a nod. He wouldn't win until 1985 for Out of Africa.
After eight weeks, Selma is out of the top ten and hasn't even cracked $45 million in ticket sales despite all the hoopla.
Repeating, The Way We Were was a blockbuster.
Ava DuVernay directed a bad film that failed to become a success.
She never stood a chance at a nomination.
Her film's dishonest.
I don't mean LBJ. But there is that.
I'm more concerned with her portraying Coretta Scott King as a victim.
A friend of Coretta's has come forward to deny that the film's big scene (which is flat and drags the whole movie down) never happened: Coretta never demanded of MLK if he slept with other women.
According to the friend, Coretta didn't believe the rumors.
Now you can debate whether she didn't believe the rumors because she thought there was nothing to them or because she was willing herself not to believe.
But the scene in the film has Coretta asking MLK about them and tossing out where he loves her more.
It's a creepy scene.
Some who've found it creepy have focused on MLK's long pause before answering.
They are bothered by that.
I'm more bothered by the presentation of Coretta in that scene.
I don't think Ava DuVernay's done anything to justify that scene.
For those who find the scene uncomfortable for MLK, I found MLK uncomfortable throughout the film.
There was nothing I liked about David Oeylowo or his performance.
First, let me acknowledge an issue in the e-mails that will not go away. Spider-Man and Superman are American comic book heroes. There is a very serious disgust being expressed over the use of British actors to play these roles.
I acknowledged that opinion and respected it.
But I only truly got it with MLK.
He's not a comic book hero.
He is a legend, a real hero.
And portraying him in film is an honor for any American actor.
So why is he being played by a Brit.
I don't need a British actor playing an American hero.
With all the African-American actors struggling for work in the US, why did the director cast a British man in the role of MLK?
Oyelowo never captures or embraces MLK.
He plays it detached and leaves MLK frequently looking like a used car salesman instead of one of the greatest people of the 20th century.
This was a role for an American.
If you want to talk about 'snubs,' the failure to cast an African-American in the role of Dr. King has to be one of the great snubs involving Selma.
Throughout the film, I saw a slam at Black American men. This has long been a criticism of the films Oprah Winfrey produces. Ishmael Reed has been one of the leading voices on this criticism.
I never saw it until Selma.
MLK is betrayed time and again by this awful film.
And that includes in wardrobe.
Is MLK wearing women's pantsuits?
The jackets time and again fail to look like men's jackets -- of that era or today's.
Instead, they're form fitting garments on MLK that diminish him.
(If they really were the tops to women's pant suits, I'd assume they'd have shoulder pads and they could have used those because Oyelowo's shoulders are narrow enough for him to be trapped down a well.)
Selma is a bad film. It's dull and plodding. It has a role of an American Black male who is not pimping or shooting and it gives that role not to an American but to a Brit. It betrays everything MLK stood for in one way or another. Instead of applauding Selma, we should all be averting our eyes.
Aging Power Bottom Justin Raimondo Rides Again!
Little Justy Raimondo can't stop, won't stop working the sexism.
We're missing the point in aging power bottom Justin Raimondo's column where he calls out Barack Obama.
You know Barack, right?
President of the United States.
The one who broke the law by carrying out war on Libya.
But it's "Hillary's War" in Justin's column.
Hillary is the one who "made it all possible" in Justin's world of bondage and kink.
Maybe after awhile, an aging power bottom confuses reality with erotic fantasies?
That would explain how he's written a column about the actions of President Barack Obama while refusing to call out Barack.
Though nothing explains his cock-knocking with Rand Paul ending.
We're missing the point in aging power bottom Justin Raimondo's column where he calls out Barack Obama.
You know Barack, right?
President of the United States.
The one who broke the law by carrying out war on Libya.
But it's "Hillary's War" in Justin's column.
Hillary is the one who "made it all possible" in Justin's world of bondage and kink.
Maybe after awhile, an aging power bottom confuses reality with erotic fantasies?
That would explain how he's written a column about the actions of President Barack Obama while refusing to call out Barack.
Though nothing explains his cock-knocking with Rand Paul ending.
Jim's World
So I'm checking the inbox and World Can't Wait has now slid over into full on CodeStink cray-cray.
February 4th, retired CIA officer Ray McGovern will be in court for his latest stunt and World Can't Wait wants you to be there.
Not to call out Ray, but to support him.
Such passes for 'activism' these days.
Now let me see if I have this straight: Ray McGovern is a hero but Chris Kyle (portrayed by Bradley Cooper in American Sniper) is someone we should sneer at and attack.
Does Debra Sweet not know Ray's history?
I don't just mean that Ray was CIA from 1963 to 1990.
I mean his position then -- and now -- regarding counterinsurgency in Vietnam.
I mean his work to attack Latin America throughout the 80s.
I mean all the things Ray hides under a rug and that whores and liars let him get away with.
There is nothing heroic about Ray McGovern.
Up until he retired, he repeatedly advocated for the death and destruction of peoples and cultures.
He's never gotten honest about that.
And idiots like Debra Sweet and Cindy Sheehan want to pretend like Ray's job in the CIA was sharpening pencils.
It's amazing Ray-Ray's never been asked about Iran-Contra.
Amazing until you grasp that there's a whole lot of whoring going on within the left these days.
The week goes to Michelle Obama
[Image from an official White House photo taken by Amanda Lucidon -- commentary below from this entry C.I. did at The Common Ills.]
Let's move over to First Lady Michelle Obama.
Friday, she made some remarks on American Sniper.
I thought they were wise remarks (a) with regards to the film and (b) with regards to connecting with veterans.
I thought (and continue to hope) this may mean the next two years won't be about Michelle as wife-of or national scold.
The country doesn't need to be told how to eat by anyone.
We all have to eat and anyone telling us how is going to look like a scold.
Nancy Reagan said "Just Say No" and endured jokes as a result. But at the end of the day, she was referring to drugs and telling children to say "no" so most could support that message.
What we eat is very personal.
Equally true, it also has to do with how much money we make, with where we live and our access to fresh produce.
Anyone positioning themselves as the voice of what America must eat is going to be seen as a scold.
I have no idea why they chose to make that Michelle's issue.
It was sheer stupidity.
And, no, it wasn't her issue.
It was the issue certain 'experts' were sure would win her approval.
Instead, she's still attacked for it and most aren't defending her because it's such a stupid issue. You are never going to win people over with issues that touch on what you should eat.
Michelle, at one point, had a speech where she noted the benefits of drinking water and a campaign that asked you to drink a glass more of water a day or even eat one more fresh fruit or vegetable a week would have had more luck succeeding.
Instead, to some she came off bossy, to some she came off out of touch, etc.
She is far from perfect (true of me, true of most people on this earth) but she has had a very rough road to walk because some of her biggest 'helpers' are such idiots. (Valerie Jarrett, to her credit, did warn that the food campaign could hurt Michelle's likability -- but when men are in the room, they just know everything, don't they?).
With the earlier event this week (Saudi Arabia) and with Friday's remarks, it gives me hope that she's going to pursue issues she really cares about.
(Food was pushed off on her because it was 'a woman's issue' and the male advisors felt Michelle came off "too strong" and this would soften her. Never try to soften a strong woman, celebrate her. Celebrate her strength and you'll see a lot of Americans joining you in that.)
An actress friend who is tight with Michelle phoned to insist that I was ignoring Michelle and all she'd done this week.
Do I do the "Michelle Obama snapshot" five times a week?
No.
More to the point, where am I right now?
I'm at an industry party advocating for a friend whose nominated for a supporting Academy Award and for a Best Picture that is not American Sniper.
I have friends who produced and directed an amazing film, a film I'm honestly in love with. Their film is what I am campaigning for.
Now were I the Weinsteins, this would mean I would attack every other film, spread negative lies about the other nominees, etc.
I haven't done that to American Sniper. And I've written that I truly believe Bradley Cooper's performance is worthy of the Academy Award.
I have twice defended the film here in lengthy pieces.
Ava and I did two pieces at Third defending the film.
Again, I won't be voting for it and I'm not campaigning for it.
It is not my job to promote it.
While being more than fair to American Sniper, I have not once used this site or Third to promote the film -- its name has never appeared here or at Third.
If people are unhappy with what's up here, please start your own website.
I mean that not just in a "Leave me alone!" manner but also because you should have your own. We need more opinions, we need diversity. We do not need conformity.
Equally true, our rebel stance of 2004 and 2005 is probably old hat now and fresh blood is more than sorely needed.
In terms of Michelle, let me close this entry out on her.
They tried to put her in a box early in the primary campaign.
By the 2008 DNC convention, she was lost and over managed.
You saw someone scared to express themselves.
(Some will argue it was because of the 'for the first time . . .' remark. More was made of that remark in the Barack campaign than by the press. She was offered feedback that I said then and say now was actually bullying -- I'm referring to feedback from Barack's advisors.)
The advisors and press then tried to turn a grown woman into a fashion model.
That was beyond stupid.
Then came the scold.
And in the last years the best term for her would be "adrift."
This week, my opinion, belongs to Michelle Obama.
She got a chance to demonstrate why she does have loyal fans and why she's inspired people.
I'm not talking about as First Lady.
Michelle had many admirers before 2007.
She had those because she has skill, she has strength and she's very smart.
This week, she had a chance to show that side of herself and, except for some carping from Ronan Farrow's idiotic MSNBC show, America was impressed -- as we all should be.
Hopefully, the next two years for Michelle will be about that. Being herself, showing her comfort in who she is and what she believes.
And rejecting any efforts to silence her own voice which is a pretty amazing voice when she actually gets to use it.
Friday, she made some remarks on American Sniper.
I thought they were wise remarks (a) with regards to the film and (b) with regards to connecting with veterans.
I thought (and continue to hope) this may mean the next two years won't be about Michelle as wife-of or national scold.
The country doesn't need to be told how to eat by anyone.
We all have to eat and anyone telling us how is going to look like a scold.
Nancy Reagan said "Just Say No" and endured jokes as a result. But at the end of the day, she was referring to drugs and telling children to say "no" so most could support that message.
What we eat is very personal.
Equally true, it also has to do with how much money we make, with where we live and our access to fresh produce.
Anyone positioning themselves as the voice of what America must eat is going to be seen as a scold.
I have no idea why they chose to make that Michelle's issue.
It was sheer stupidity.
And, no, it wasn't her issue.
It was the issue certain 'experts' were sure would win her approval.
Instead, she's still attacked for it and most aren't defending her because it's such a stupid issue. You are never going to win people over with issues that touch on what you should eat.
Michelle, at one point, had a speech where she noted the benefits of drinking water and a campaign that asked you to drink a glass more of water a day or even eat one more fresh fruit or vegetable a week would have had more luck succeeding.
Instead, to some she came off bossy, to some she came off out of touch, etc.
She is far from perfect (true of me, true of most people on this earth) but she has had a very rough road to walk because some of her biggest 'helpers' are such idiots. (Valerie Jarrett, to her credit, did warn that the food campaign could hurt Michelle's likability -- but when men are in the room, they just know everything, don't they?).
With the earlier event this week (Saudi Arabia) and with Friday's remarks, it gives me hope that she's going to pursue issues she really cares about.
(Food was pushed off on her because it was 'a woman's issue' and the male advisors felt Michelle came off "too strong" and this would soften her. Never try to soften a strong woman, celebrate her. Celebrate her strength and you'll see a lot of Americans joining you in that.)
An actress friend who is tight with Michelle phoned to insist that I was ignoring Michelle and all she'd done this week.
Do I do the "Michelle Obama snapshot" five times a week?
No.
More to the point, where am I right now?
I'm at an industry party advocating for a friend whose nominated for a supporting Academy Award and for a Best Picture that is not American Sniper.
I have friends who produced and directed an amazing film, a film I'm honestly in love with. Their film is what I am campaigning for.
Now were I the Weinsteins, this would mean I would attack every other film, spread negative lies about the other nominees, etc.
I haven't done that to American Sniper. And I've written that I truly believe Bradley Cooper's performance is worthy of the Academy Award.
I have twice defended the film here in lengthy pieces.
Ava and I did two pieces at Third defending the film.
Again, I won't be voting for it and I'm not campaigning for it.
It is not my job to promote it.
While being more than fair to American Sniper, I have not once used this site or Third to promote the film -- its name has never appeared here or at Third.
If people are unhappy with what's up here, please start your own website.
I mean that not just in a "Leave me alone!" manner but also because you should have your own. We need more opinions, we need diversity. We do not need conformity.
Equally true, our rebel stance of 2004 and 2005 is probably old hat now and fresh blood is more than sorely needed.
In terms of Michelle, let me close this entry out on her.
They tried to put her in a box early in the primary campaign.
By the 2008 DNC convention, she was lost and over managed.
You saw someone scared to express themselves.
(Some will argue it was because of the 'for the first time . . .' remark. More was made of that remark in the Barack campaign than by the press. She was offered feedback that I said then and say now was actually bullying -- I'm referring to feedback from Barack's advisors.)
The advisors and press then tried to turn a grown woman into a fashion model.
That was beyond stupid.
Then came the scold.
And in the last years the best term for her would be "adrift."
This week, my opinion, belongs to Michelle Obama.
She got a chance to demonstrate why she does have loyal fans and why she's inspired people.
I'm not talking about as First Lady.
Michelle had many admirers before 2007.
She had those because she has skill, she has strength and she's very smart.
This week, she had a chance to show that side of herself and, except for some carping from Ronan Farrow's idiotic MSNBC show, America was impressed -- as we all should be.
Hopefully, the next two years for Michelle will be about that. Being herself, showing her comfort in who she is and what she believes.
And rejecting any efforts to silence her own voice which is a pretty amazing voice when she actually gets to use it.
This edition's playlist
2) Joni Mitchell's Shine.
6) James Blake's Enough Thunder.
7) Diana Ross' Swept Away.
8) Cara Dillon's A Thousand Hearts.
9) Prince's Sign of the Times.
10) Roberta Flack's First Take.
Rulers want Chilcot inquiry to hide their crimes in Iraq (Socialist Worker)
This is from Great Britain's Socialist Worker:
The stench of a cover-up surrounding
the Iraq war inquiry is growing ever stronger. Inquiry chairman Sir John
Chilcot confirmed to David Cameron last week that his report would not
be ready until after the general election.
Various war criminals who may face criticism in the final version are delaying the report. They are using top lawyers to hold it up and water down any evidence against them.
So the inquiry is currently writing to people it intends to criticise to invite their responses before it publishes. This is the latest in a long line of delays. The inquiry was set up nearly six years ago by the then prime minister Gordon Brown.
It finished taking evidence in 2011 and was due to report at the end of that year. The inquiry was supposedly meant to be a “non judgemental” investigation into Britain’s involvement in the 2003 Iraq war.
In reality, it will be a whitewash of all the lies that Tony Blair and his government told. Chilcot is a former top civil servant and “staff counsellor” for security and intelligence service employees.
And he was a member of the Butler inquiry, which cleared Blair of dishonestly using intelligence in the run-up to the war.
Chilcot also limited the scope of his own inquiry to dealing with “mistakes” and “shortcomings” on the road to war and in its aftermath.
His team consisted of three knights and a baroness. One member wrote a speech for Blair justifying “humanitarian intervention”. Each was appointed as a safe pair of hands.
Some evidence was heard in secret “to ensure candour and openness from witnesses”.
Chilcot said that it would not be “helpful” to discuss questions such as whether any of them had opposed the war.
The inquiry didn’t bother to ask any Iraqis what they think— and whatever the report says, no one will face any charges.
At best it will say that “mistakes were made” which they will “learn” from next time.
Some will claim they didn’t want to go to war but couldn’t stop it. Meanwhile, Blair cavorts across the Middle East as a “peace envoy” and fervently backs further intervention in the region.
Those at the top hope that dragging out the report will blunt the rage that many feel about the Iraq war.
But the millions who marched against the war will never forget the lies and hypocrisy of the war criminals.
Rulers want Chilcot inquiry to hide their crimes in Iraq
Warmonger Tony Blair (Pic: World Economic Forum)
Various war criminals who may face criticism in the final version are delaying the report. They are using top lawyers to hold it up and water down any evidence against them.
So the inquiry is currently writing to people it intends to criticise to invite their responses before it publishes. This is the latest in a long line of delays. The inquiry was set up nearly six years ago by the then prime minister Gordon Brown.
It finished taking evidence in 2011 and was due to report at the end of that year. The inquiry was supposedly meant to be a “non judgemental” investigation into Britain’s involvement in the 2003 Iraq war.
In reality, it will be a whitewash of all the lies that Tony Blair and his government told. Chilcot is a former top civil servant and “staff counsellor” for security and intelligence service employees.
And he was a member of the Butler inquiry, which cleared Blair of dishonestly using intelligence in the run-up to the war.
Chilcot also limited the scope of his own inquiry to dealing with “mistakes” and “shortcomings” on the road to war and in its aftermath.
His team consisted of three knights and a baroness. One member wrote a speech for Blair justifying “humanitarian intervention”. Each was appointed as a safe pair of hands.
Some evidence was heard in secret “to ensure candour and openness from witnesses”.
Chilcot said that it would not be “helpful” to discuss questions such as whether any of them had opposed the war.
The inquiry didn’t bother to ask any Iraqis what they think— and whatever the report says, no one will face any charges.
At best it will say that “mistakes were made” which they will “learn” from next time.
Some will claim they didn’t want to go to war but couldn’t stop it. Meanwhile, Blair cavorts across the Middle East as a “peace envoy” and fervently backs further intervention in the region.
Those at the top hope that dragging out the report will blunt the rage that many feel about the Iraq war.
But the millions who marched against the war will never forget the lies and hypocrisy of the war criminals.
Stop the War will hold a protest as MPs debate the report’s timing. Time for truth about Iraq War—Protest Chilcot delay. 10.30am, Thursday 29 January, London SW1P 3JY. It is also set to call a protest at parliament when Chilcot answers questions to the Foreign Affairs Committee
Highlights
This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub, Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.
"United Nations: In business to protect governments..." -- most requested highlight by readers of this site.
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack Goes To..." -- Isaiah's latest comic.
"What a self-obsessed groupie Joan Baez was," "California Dreamin' by Michelle Phillips," "The Star Machine by Jeanine Basinger (attacking KT Stevens and others)," and "High Treason: The Assassination of President Kennedy and the New Evidence of Conspiracy"-- book coverage by Marcia, Elaine, Betty and Kat.
"The Mindy Project (a spoiler)," "State of Affairs (Alfre Woodard)," "state of affairs (the terrorists)," "Nikita," "Best CW Show," "How To Get Away With Murder -- the end is coming," "scandal," "How To Get Away With Murder," "The verdict on Roy is in,""Arrow -- is it wrong to wish someone dead?," "The Hollywood Reporter caught lying," "Drones and Stalker," "Arrow," and "The Originals (bring on Rebekkah)" -- community TV coverage.
"United Nations: In business to protect governments..." -- most requested highlight by readers of this site.
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack Goes To..." -- Isaiah's latest comic.
"Iraq snapshot," "The threat from the Islamic State (Wally)," "Naming the prettiest and the ugliest members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (Ava)," "Sequestration" and "Iraq snapshot" -- C.I., Wally, Ava and Kat report on Congressional hearings.
"What a self-obsessed groupie Joan Baez was," "California Dreamin' by Michelle Phillips," "The Star Machine by Jeanine Basinger (attacking KT Stevens and others)," and "High Treason: The Assassination of President Kennedy and the New Evidence of Conspiracy"-- book coverage by Marcia, Elaine, Betty and Kat.
"The Mindy Project (a spoiler)," "State of Affairs (Alfre Woodard)," "state of affairs (the terrorists)," "Nikita," "Best CW Show," "How To Get Away With Murder -- the end is coming," "scandal," "How To Get Away With Murder," "The verdict on Roy is in,""Arrow -- is it wrong to wish someone dead?," "The Hollywood Reporter caught lying," "Drones and Stalker," "Arrow," and "The Originals (bring on Rebekkah)" -- community TV coverage.
"Thom Hartman, Truth Out and other f**king idiots," "The loony left," "Nancy Pelosi needs to show leadership," "William Boardman can rot in hell," and "Look at all the little . . ." -- taking on nonsense.
"Tea, Texas Tea! Bubbling In The Atlantic!" and "THIS JUST IN! BARRY CRIES 'DRILL, BABY, DRILL!'" -- he's so eco-friendly.
"Vouchers" -- Isaiah dips into the archives.
"Hey, Barry, American Idol is lookng for you!" and "THIS JUST IN! HE SINGS!" -- Cedric and Wally take on Barack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
