This downward trend in spending reflects the actual conditions facing
millions of working people: unemployment, employment in undesired
low-paying service jobs, declining or stagnating wages, cuts to hours,
and a general decline in living standards. These latest figures,
suggestive of recessionary trends, further underscore that there is no
real economic recovery under way. Insofar as jobs are being created they
are overwhelmingly low-paid, oftentimes in the service sector.
Traditionally high-paying jobs have undergone massive wage cuts. For
instance, vehicle manufacturing workers lost 21 percent of their income
between 2003 and 2013.
-- Gabriel Black, "US retail sales fall for third consecutive month" (WSWS).
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Truest statement of the week II
Nearly everyone listening to these assurances came away with the
impression that a person or team of people went through those 60,000+
emails and sorted them into two categories: work or personal. On The Daily Show,
Jon Stewart mocked the notion that sorting through tens of thousands of
emails was more "convenient" than maintaining both work and personal
email accounts. Most criticism of the approach focused on the fact that
Hillary Clinton confidantes, rather than neutral arbiters, were making
the judgment calls about these 60,000+ emails.
But it turns out that no one was "going through" each email to sort work from personal correspondence or to error on the side of disclosure when the line was blurry.
-- Conor Friedersdorf, "Hillary Clinton's Questionable Process for sorting Work Emails," (The Atlantic).
But it turns out that no one was "going through" each email to sort work from personal correspondence or to error on the side of disclosure when the line was blurry.
-- Conor Friedersdorf, "Hillary Clinton's Questionable Process for sorting Work Emails," (The Atlantic).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Another Sunday. 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?
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Another Sunday. 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?
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- Editorial: Are you still going to ignore the War C...
- TV: Let's Hear It For The Boy
- Hillary's e-mails
- Album news of the month
- Ty's Corner
- Look how they lie to themselves
- This edition's playlist
- House of Cards - A political thriller of murder, c...
- ACLU Sues NSA to Stop Mass Internet Spying
- Afghan Girls Need Your Support Today (Feminist Maj...
- Highlights
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Are you still going to ignore the War Crimes in Iraq?
ABC News aired two important reports last week.
The first can be found here.
The second is below.
World News Videos | US News Videos
David Muir: Now to new fall out after our ABC investigation last night. It involves the fight against ISIS known for those awful videos, lining up their victims on the beach. And now a new concern. Are some of the Iraqi forces -- trained and paid for by US taxpayers -- using techniques that are just as brutal? Well the State Dept tonight responding to our report and ABC's chief investigative reporter Brian Ross back on the job tonight.
Brian Ross: The State Dept called these scenes today serious and disturbing. Brutal images of what appear to be Iraqi forces and militias carrying out, celebrating, torture and beheadings. In this torture scene, two US weapons against the wall. This video shows two civilians, pleading for their lives, about to be shot dead. A man with an American supplied weapon walks by, a gunman with what appears to be the insignia of Iraqi Special Forces caught on tape.
US State Dept spokesperson Jen Psaki: Their behavior must be above reproach or they risk being painted with the same brush as ISIL fighters.
Brian Ross: The Pentagon says it has already cut off money to some Iraqi units because of gross human rights violations. But Senator Patrick Leahy says the ABC News report shows the government should cut off money to more Iraqi units.
Senator Patrick Leahy: When you look at at the videos and look at the uniforms being worn, do we really want to say the US condones that?
Brian Ross: US officials tonight tell ABC News that America's top military leader Gen Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has repeatedly warned Iraqi leaders about the conduct of the Iraqi military and the militias that fight with them -- especially because the US is sending $1.5 billion to the Iraqi army and almost 3,000 American troops to help train them.
So now will the world pay attention?
The first can be found here.
The second is below.
World News Videos | US News Videos
David Muir: Now to new fall out after our ABC investigation last night. It involves the fight against ISIS known for those awful videos, lining up their victims on the beach. And now a new concern. Are some of the Iraqi forces -- trained and paid for by US taxpayers -- using techniques that are just as brutal? Well the State Dept tonight responding to our report and ABC's chief investigative reporter Brian Ross back on the job tonight.
Brian Ross: The State Dept called these scenes today serious and disturbing. Brutal images of what appear to be Iraqi forces and militias carrying out, celebrating, torture and beheadings. In this torture scene, two US weapons against the wall. This video shows two civilians, pleading for their lives, about to be shot dead. A man with an American supplied weapon walks by, a gunman with what appears to be the insignia of Iraqi Special Forces caught on tape.
US State Dept spokesperson Jen Psaki: Their behavior must be above reproach or they risk being painted with the same brush as ISIL fighters.
Brian Ross: The Pentagon says it has already cut off money to some Iraqi units because of gross human rights violations. But Senator Patrick Leahy says the ABC News report shows the government should cut off money to more Iraqi units.
Senator Patrick Leahy: When you look at at the videos and look at the uniforms being worn, do we really want to say the US condones that?
Brian Ross: US officials tonight tell ABC News that America's top military leader Gen Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has repeatedly warned Iraqi leaders about the conduct of the Iraqi military and the militias that fight with them -- especially because the US is sending $1.5 billion to the Iraqi army and almost 3,000 American troops to help train them.
So now will the world pay attention?
TV: Let's Hear It For The Boy
The good news first: Matthew Perry is funny again.
That's not a minor thing.
Nor is his starring (again) in a popular TV series.
Post Friends, the former Chandler Bing has struggled.
Since Friends ended, Jennifer Aniston has become a bonafide movie star, Courtney Cox has starred in the long running sitcom Cougar Town, Lisa Kudrow's found success with Web Therapy and The Comeback, David Schwimmer's directed multiple episode of TV shows and two films, and even Matt LeBlanc bounced back from the disaster that was Joey with Episodes.
But Perry?
He starred in NBC's bomb comedy-drama hybrid Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip which audiences fled with, followed that with the grossly unfunny Mr. Sunshine and, for his third strike, Go On which set new lows for NBC and for Perry when it came to ratings.
So to be starring in an actual hit is no minor thing.
The hit is CBS' The Odd Couple which has already been a play, a 1968 film and 1998 sequel, an animated Saturday morning offering and two prior TV shows.
All that's come before is felt in the latest incarnation which feels too often like a bald tire.
Why efforts weren't made to update or challenge the formula are obvious questions until one remembers we're talking about CBS.
Matthew Perry plays Oscar Madison -- the slob -- and Thomas Lennon plays Felix -- the priss.
And hilarity ensues -- sometimes.
Often as a result of Yvette Nicole Brown or Leslie Bibb who take the show in a different (and fresh) direction any time they show up (as Dani and Casey, respectively).
The show has a strong cast but you have to wonder what would happen if, for example, Geoff Stults had been cast as Felix instead of Thomas Lennon or if Wendell Pierce had been cast as Felix instead of Lennon.
Or if Lennon's Felix had been written gay.
(The hint's always been there, even before Tony Randall played the part in the first TV version.)
Lennon's the real problem here.
He's not good looking which wasn't a problem in the 70s but, 30 years later, even CBS realized you had to offer good looking leads (yes, they thought Jon Cryer was good looking when they ordered the pilot for Two and A Half Men).
Is Lennon funny enough to overcome his looks?
On Sean Saves The World, he frequently was.
On The Odd Couple?
Not so much.
He's playing the priss.
The problem there is that was Matthew Perry's role on Friends: Matt LeBlanc was the Oscar to Perry's Felix. So when Perry's given the opposite role, for the show to work, you either screw with the formula or you cast far enough away from Perry for the two actors to be actual opposites.
Lennon hasn't found his footing yet to portray something diametrically opposed to Perry's Oscar -- an Oscar which is much softer and milder than what Walter Matthau, Jack Klugman and Demond Wilson offered.
Lennon's still struggling characterization would be a problem if this were another lame single-camera whimsical-comedy.
Luckily, it's a sitcom as Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez saw sitcoms: recorded before a live audience.
As a result, each episode has seen Lennon's characterization improve as he and the creative team has seen what works and what doesn't.
Were this another lame, single-cam whim-com, he'd be as dull and one-note as Julie Bowman's Claire on Modern Family.
Instead, Lennon has the opportunity to shape a real character.
The studio audience has already helped Matthew Perry immensely.
Did he need drugs to be funny?
That's what some insiders wondered as he went through his post-Friends career giving one tired and listless performance after another.
What was missing from Perry's performance wasn't drugs.
It was an audience to play to.
Perry, who is also producing the show, showed up in the pilot projecting more confidence and humor than anyone could have expected.
As we've long documented, the idiots who think these single-camera whim-coms are 'amazing' are not real fans of comedy. They're idiots -- artistically ignorant idiots -- who say things like, "I don't like a show that tells me when to laugh."
Of course you don't like laughter from a studio audience.
It reminds you that you just don't laugh.
It underscores how sour you are and how joyless.
These idiots like to claim that sitcoms with studio audiences are unnatural -- as if they've never been to a play before?
Maybe they haven't.
Maybe when you're that stupid, you've never been to a theater to see a play performed?
You have to be pretty stupid to assume the whim-com is something new.
As if substandard comedy hadn't already been done on The Courtship of Eddie's Father, My Three Sons and assorted other mildly amusing shows.
TV's comedy greats have always depended on the spark a studio audience can provide performers with -- I Love Lucy, Roseanne, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Jeffersons, Murphy Brown, Seinfeld, Will & Grace, Good Times, News Radio, The Nanny, Gimmie A Break, Laverne & Shirley, Cheers, Newhart, 227, etc.
Breakout characters -- including Jimmie Walker's JJ, Julia Duffy's Stephanie, George Wendt's Norm and Jackee Harry's Sandra -- were singled out first by studio audiences.
Studio audience reaction acted as a gauge for Megan Mullally's creation of Karen in the first episodes of Will & Grace in the same way that studio audience reaction helped Ted Knight develop his character on the early episodes of The Mary Tyler Moore Show.
And Mary Tyler Moore?
One of TV's most gifted comedy actors?
She was lifeless and dull in 1988's single-camera Annie McGuire but in front of a studio audience -- even in a nonsense role like Christine St. George on That '70s Show -- she comes alive.
Sitcoms very roots go to live audience -- in terms of plays and in terms of stand up.
The return of single-camera half-hour shows has really just been notable for the return of empty moralizing.
Ditching the genre has allowed Matthew Perry to exhibit a joy that many had feared he had lost.
So the good news is that Perry's resumed his role as one of TV's most talented comedic actors. And the better news is that viewers are so thrilled to have Perry back that they're willing to give the show time to find its footing.
That's not a minor thing.
Nor is his starring (again) in a popular TV series.
Post Friends, the former Chandler Bing has struggled.
Since Friends ended, Jennifer Aniston has become a bonafide movie star, Courtney Cox has starred in the long running sitcom Cougar Town, Lisa Kudrow's found success with Web Therapy and The Comeback, David Schwimmer's directed multiple episode of TV shows and two films, and even Matt LeBlanc bounced back from the disaster that was Joey with Episodes.
But Perry?
He starred in NBC's bomb comedy-drama hybrid Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip which audiences fled with, followed that with the grossly unfunny Mr. Sunshine and, for his third strike, Go On which set new lows for NBC and for Perry when it came to ratings.
So to be starring in an actual hit is no minor thing.
The hit is CBS' The Odd Couple which has already been a play, a 1968 film and 1998 sequel, an animated Saturday morning offering and two prior TV shows.
All that's come before is felt in the latest incarnation which feels too often like a bald tire.
Why efforts weren't made to update or challenge the formula are obvious questions until one remembers we're talking about CBS.
Matthew Perry plays Oscar Madison -- the slob -- and Thomas Lennon plays Felix -- the priss.
And hilarity ensues -- sometimes.
Often as a result of Yvette Nicole Brown or Leslie Bibb who take the show in a different (and fresh) direction any time they show up (as Dani and Casey, respectively).
The show has a strong cast but you have to wonder what would happen if, for example, Geoff Stults had been cast as Felix instead of Thomas Lennon or if Wendell Pierce had been cast as Felix instead of Lennon.
Or if Lennon's Felix had been written gay.
(The hint's always been there, even before Tony Randall played the part in the first TV version.)
Lennon's the real problem here.
He's not good looking which wasn't a problem in the 70s but, 30 years later, even CBS realized you had to offer good looking leads (yes, they thought Jon Cryer was good looking when they ordered the pilot for Two and A Half Men).
Is Lennon funny enough to overcome his looks?
On Sean Saves The World, he frequently was.
On The Odd Couple?
Not so much.
He's playing the priss.
The problem there is that was Matthew Perry's role on Friends: Matt LeBlanc was the Oscar to Perry's Felix. So when Perry's given the opposite role, for the show to work, you either screw with the formula or you cast far enough away from Perry for the two actors to be actual opposites.
Lennon hasn't found his footing yet to portray something diametrically opposed to Perry's Oscar -- an Oscar which is much softer and milder than what Walter Matthau, Jack Klugman and Demond Wilson offered.
Lennon's still struggling characterization would be a problem if this were another lame single-camera whimsical-comedy.
Luckily, it's a sitcom as Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez saw sitcoms: recorded before a live audience.
As a result, each episode has seen Lennon's characterization improve as he and the creative team has seen what works and what doesn't.
Were this another lame, single-cam whim-com, he'd be as dull and one-note as Julie Bowman's Claire on Modern Family.
Instead, Lennon has the opportunity to shape a real character.
The studio audience has already helped Matthew Perry immensely.
Did he need drugs to be funny?
That's what some insiders wondered as he went through his post-Friends career giving one tired and listless performance after another.
What was missing from Perry's performance wasn't drugs.
It was an audience to play to.
Perry, who is also producing the show, showed up in the pilot projecting more confidence and humor than anyone could have expected.
As we've long documented, the idiots who think these single-camera whim-coms are 'amazing' are not real fans of comedy. They're idiots -- artistically ignorant idiots -- who say things like, "I don't like a show that tells me when to laugh."
Of course you don't like laughter from a studio audience.
It reminds you that you just don't laugh.
It underscores how sour you are and how joyless.
These idiots like to claim that sitcoms with studio audiences are unnatural -- as if they've never been to a play before?
Maybe they haven't.
Maybe when you're that stupid, you've never been to a theater to see a play performed?
You have to be pretty stupid to assume the whim-com is something new.
As if substandard comedy hadn't already been done on The Courtship of Eddie's Father, My Three Sons and assorted other mildly amusing shows.
TV's comedy greats have always depended on the spark a studio audience can provide performers with -- I Love Lucy, Roseanne, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Jeffersons, Murphy Brown, Seinfeld, Will & Grace, Good Times, News Radio, The Nanny, Gimmie A Break, Laverne & Shirley, Cheers, Newhart, 227, etc.
Breakout characters -- including Jimmie Walker's JJ, Julia Duffy's Stephanie, George Wendt's Norm and Jackee Harry's Sandra -- were singled out first by studio audiences.
Studio audience reaction acted as a gauge for Megan Mullally's creation of Karen in the first episodes of Will & Grace in the same way that studio audience reaction helped Ted Knight develop his character on the early episodes of The Mary Tyler Moore Show.
And Mary Tyler Moore?
One of TV's most gifted comedy actors?
She was lifeless and dull in 1988's single-camera Annie McGuire but in front of a studio audience -- even in a nonsense role like Christine St. George on That '70s Show -- she comes alive.
Sitcoms very roots go to live audience -- in terms of plays and in terms of stand up.
The return of single-camera half-hour shows has really just been notable for the return of empty moralizing.
Ditching the genre has allowed Matthew Perry to exhibit a joy that many had feared he had lost.
So the good news is that Perry's resumed his role as one of TV's most talented comedic actors. And the better news is that viewers are so thrilled to have Perry back that they're willing to give the show time to find its footing.
Hillary's e-mails
Friday, Queen Bob Approximately showed up to insist that Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal isn't a real scandal and nothing to be concerned over.
Hey, remember the last time Bob told us something wasn't a real scandal?
The outing of Valerie Plame wasn't a real scandal.
The administration (Bully Boy Bush's administration) outed a CIA agent.
Bob thought it was nonsense.
Bob forgot to explain that one of the collaborators with the administration -- 'journalist' Matthew Cooper -- was his friend.
Bob forgot to tell readers that.
And that's why we never take Bob Somerby seriously on what is or isn't a scandal.
Do Hillary's e-mails matter to Benghazi?
We were all going to say "no" or most of us were.
Then Ava and C.I. piped up, "Is John Kerry giving Congress a wrong answer on the record important?"
See long before Hillary turned over some of her e-mails to the State Department, John Kerry appeared before Congress and was asked about Hillary's e-mails and said they'd been turned over -- they'd all been turned over.
At a subsequent appearance, he began shouting that they'd been turned over.
Does John Kerry want to stick with that answer now?
We doubt it.
It's a scandal, it's a genuine and real scandal.
Hillary wasn't supposed to use a private account unless she was immediately turning business e-mails over to the State Department.
She didn't do that.
Some have whined that Colin Powell did something similar.
Is Powell trying to run for president?
If Hillary wants to announce she's not running for president, this whole nightmare can go away.
But if she's planning on running for president, her latest attempt to circumvent transparency?
It matters.
It is a character issue.
If she wants to be president, the claim that she did the same thing that Colin Powell did doesn't cut it.
She ran for president in 2008.
She always knew she might in 2016.
She needs to be above board.
Instead, she's crafty and craven and lying yet again.
Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic) noted earlier this month that "the episode already confirms what attentive observers have long known: If the Clintons return to the White House, we can expect more suspicious secrets, stonewalling, and opaqueness, much as we've seen in the past. Voters have been given ample warning."
-----------
Illustration is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Got War?"
Hey, remember the last time Bob told us something wasn't a real scandal?
The outing of Valerie Plame wasn't a real scandal.
The administration (Bully Boy Bush's administration) outed a CIA agent.
Bob thought it was nonsense.
Bob forgot to explain that one of the collaborators with the administration -- 'journalist' Matthew Cooper -- was his friend.
Bob forgot to tell readers that.
And that's why we never take Bob Somerby seriously on what is or isn't a scandal.
Do Hillary's e-mails matter to Benghazi?
We were all going to say "no" or most of us were.
Then Ava and C.I. piped up, "Is John Kerry giving Congress a wrong answer on the record important?"
See long before Hillary turned over some of her e-mails to the State Department, John Kerry appeared before Congress and was asked about Hillary's e-mails and said they'd been turned over -- they'd all been turned over.
At a subsequent appearance, he began shouting that they'd been turned over.
Does John Kerry want to stick with that answer now?
We doubt it.
It's a scandal, it's a genuine and real scandal.
Hillary wasn't supposed to use a private account unless she was immediately turning business e-mails over to the State Department.
She didn't do that.
Some have whined that Colin Powell did something similar.
Is Powell trying to run for president?
If Hillary wants to announce she's not running for president, this whole nightmare can go away.
But if she's planning on running for president, her latest attempt to circumvent transparency?
It matters.
It is a character issue.
If she wants to be president, the claim that she did the same thing that Colin Powell did doesn't cut it.
She ran for president in 2008.
She always knew she might in 2016.
She needs to be above board.
Instead, she's crafty and craven and lying yet again.
Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic) noted earlier this month that "the episode already confirms what attentive observers have long known: If the Clintons return to the White House, we can expect more suspicious secrets, stonewalling, and opaqueness, much as we've seen in the past. Voters have been given ample warning."
-----------
Illustration is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Got War?"
Album news of the month
2015 has yet to be a promising year for music lovers. Three months in, no new release has yet to excite.
It may get better, we certainly hope it will.
But at present, the only thing that's excited us is the news that an album from 2000 is about to be re-released.
Carly Simon's The Bedroom Tapes was released May 16, 2000 to mass praise.
Accomplished singer/songwriter Carly Simon gets back to where it all started on her first brand new release of original material in six years, The Bedroom Tapes.
She taps into the realm of traditional American music, continuing to
draw inspiration from Broadway show tunes, jazz blues standards,
folk-pop, and rock & roll. She is as a raw as she was on 1975's Playing Possum and just as sweet as 1987's Coming Around Again, but Simon is fresh.
Mojo offered, "Forced to
re-evaluate what really matters to her by a life-threatening fight
to survive breast cancer, Simon has returned with what's arguably
the finest album of her career so far. The first real hint comes with
the gorgeous melody of So Many Stars, wherein she travels across New
York tearing herself apart by wondering about the nature of true love,
then slips into the revealingly witty Big Dumb Guy, a lust song thinly
disguising her longing for a simpler life, before delivering the sucker
punch with Scar, as strong and unsentimental a song about cancer surgery
as it's possible to imagine."
Karen Schoemer (US weekly) declared, Classy work from one of pop's original confessors."
Carly's album was released May 16, 2000 -- fourteen days after it was announced Clive Davis was being forced out as the president of Arista.
Carly's album was lost in the shuffle.
Available for pre-order March 23rd, it's a chance to revisit a classic or to discover one you missed for the first time.
Ty's Corner
Last week, Ava and C.I. offered "TV: The only thing worse than bad TV is the Water Cooler Set That Praises It" which set a new record for first seven day views. No surprise, it also resulted in a few e-mails from people insisting they were longterm readers and couldn't believe Ava and C.I. were, in the words of Milo, "dissing Shonda."
Ava and C.I. have praised Shonda Rhimes -- show runner of Scandal, How To Get Away With Murder, Grey's Anatomy and the now gone Private Practice.
But the last months have not seen praise. Last month, for example, they offered "TV: Off the rails" about the problems in Shonda Land.
Milo took Ava and C.I. to task for "missing the point. Critics loved the episode!"
Yes, The Water Cooler Set did love the episode.
That was acknowledged in the piece. Hell, it was acknowledged in the headline.
But Ava and C.I. called it bad TV and noted that the episode set aside the main storyline and the viewers were getting tired of Shonda's inability to write a conclusion to Olivia's see-saw between Jake and Fitz.
Who was right?
As Friday morning's headline at Variety demonstrates, Ava and C.I.
Shonda's running off viewers.
And as an African-American man let me weigh in on Olivia's sex life.
If Olivia Pope (played by Kerry Washington) wanted to sleep with both men, fine.
If the storyline had her enjoying sleeping with Fitz and Jake, no problem.
But instead, she's portrayed as indecisive and rushing back and forth between Fitz and Jake repeatedly, unable to make a decision and usually settling on one of them because the other has ticked her off.
She comes off weak and weak minded.
Shonda really should be held accountable.
There were also e-mails praising last Sunday's article including an overwhelming majority who agreed with Ava and C.I. that (a) Shonda's shows do not feature enough African-Americans in the main cast and (b) that she seems more intent on firing African-American men than on hiring them.
As Joylene pointed out, "This is the same Shonda who slammed Bunheads for its lack of diversity but she thinks it's fine to refuse to cast Black men."
Shonda better hope the walk-away last Thursday was temporary.
If this Thursday's episode fails to see a significant increase in ratings, ABC may be talking to her about new rules for her shows.
I find it interesting that Shonda not only refuses to cast African-American men in the regular casts of the bulk of her shows but also that she treats White idiots like they're so damn important.
Meaning?
She wrote a nothing role for Marla Gibbs.
Marla Gibbs who was nominated for five Emmys and who starred in two successful sitcoms.
It was a nothing role and there was no effort to promote Gibbs.
But Lena Dunham is the focal point of advertising for Thursday's episode.
Even though Lena Dunham is divisive and stars in the very low rated HBO show Girls.
Even though many African-Americans consider Lena a racist. Even though we tend to see her as the new KKK Grand Dragon.
A TV legend does a guest spot on Scandal and Shonda can't go to bat for her but a TV nothing like Lena Dunham -- who is White -- does a guest shot and it's treated like something amazing?
Shonda needs to be checked and then some.
She's gotten a pass for far too long.
At her level of success, she should have been able to do something with that power.
Instead, she's wasted it with bad soap opera that can even resolve basic plot points.
Ava and C.I. have praised Shonda Rhimes -- show runner of Scandal, How To Get Away With Murder, Grey's Anatomy and the now gone Private Practice.
But the last months have not seen praise. Last month, for example, they offered "TV: Off the rails" about the problems in Shonda Land.
Milo took Ava and C.I. to task for "missing the point. Critics loved the episode!"
Yes, The Water Cooler Set did love the episode.
That was acknowledged in the piece. Hell, it was acknowledged in the headline.
But Ava and C.I. called it bad TV and noted that the episode set aside the main storyline and the viewers were getting tired of Shonda's inability to write a conclusion to Olivia's see-saw between Jake and Fitz.
Who was right?
As Friday morning's headline at Variety demonstrates, Ava and C.I.
Shonda's running off viewers.
And as an African-American man let me weigh in on Olivia's sex life.
If Olivia Pope (played by Kerry Washington) wanted to sleep with both men, fine.
If the storyline had her enjoying sleeping with Fitz and Jake, no problem.
But instead, she's portrayed as indecisive and rushing back and forth between Fitz and Jake repeatedly, unable to make a decision and usually settling on one of them because the other has ticked her off.
She comes off weak and weak minded.
Shonda really should be held accountable.
There were also e-mails praising last Sunday's article including an overwhelming majority who agreed with Ava and C.I. that (a) Shonda's shows do not feature enough African-Americans in the main cast and (b) that she seems more intent on firing African-American men than on hiring them.
As Joylene pointed out, "This is the same Shonda who slammed Bunheads for its lack of diversity but she thinks it's fine to refuse to cast Black men."
Shonda better hope the walk-away last Thursday was temporary.
If this Thursday's episode fails to see a significant increase in ratings, ABC may be talking to her about new rules for her shows.
I find it interesting that Shonda not only refuses to cast African-American men in the regular casts of the bulk of her shows but also that she treats White idiots like they're so damn important.
Meaning?
She wrote a nothing role for Marla Gibbs.
Marla Gibbs who was nominated for five Emmys and who starred in two successful sitcoms.
It was a nothing role and there was no effort to promote Gibbs.
But Lena Dunham is the focal point of advertising for Thursday's episode.
Even though Lena Dunham is divisive and stars in the very low rated HBO show Girls.
Even though many African-Americans consider Lena a racist. Even though we tend to see her as the new KKK Grand Dragon.
A TV legend does a guest spot on Scandal and Shonda can't go to bat for her but a TV nothing like Lena Dunham -- who is White -- does a guest shot and it's treated like something amazing?
Shonda needs to be checked and then some.
She's gotten a pass for far too long.
At her level of success, she should have been able to do something with that power.
Instead, she's wasted it with bad soap opera that can even resolve basic plot points.
Look how they lie to themselves
Justin Raimondo, the sexist in chief at Antiwar.com, is forever twisting facts in an attempt to argue his own pet issues.
He's at it again this week as he insists:
The final straw was Sen. Tom Cotton’s "open letter" to Iran’s leaders – which was really a letter to the American people, telling them that in any conflict between Washington and Tel Aviv GOP hard-liners would side with the latter. The backlash against this open attempt to sabotage American diplomacy in the interests of a foreign power provoked outraged cries of "treason" and calls for the 47 Senators to be charged under the Logan Act. While Cotton’s letter hardly falls under the restrictions imposed by the Logan Act – and the call itself is a dangerous not to mention stupid invocation of the growing authoritarian impulse in American politics – this kind of reaction is telling. It shows that the American people are waking up to the inordinate – and inappropriate – influence wielded by the Israeli government on our domestic political scene, and that Bibi’s playing of this particular card no longer trumps the President’s hand.
It shows nothing of the sort.
What it demonstrates is the continuing pattern of the so-called left to rush to take personal offense on Barack's behalf.
This was not seen as outrageous -- read the columns by those outraged -- because of Israel or feelings towards that government.
It was seen as outrageous because it was supposedly a personal affront to the Lord and Savior Barack Obama.
There's nothing wrong (or right) about Raimondo's opinion about the Israeli government.
It's just his opinion and he's entitled to have whatever opinion he wants.
But there is something obscenely wrong about his distorting facts in order to insist that the bulk of Americans are moving to his side.
You may recall that Justy's latest big 'antiwar' move was to call out Hillary for her war on Libya.
He's at it again this week as he insists:
The final straw was Sen. Tom Cotton’s "open letter" to Iran’s leaders – which was really a letter to the American people, telling them that in any conflict between Washington and Tel Aviv GOP hard-liners would side with the latter. The backlash against this open attempt to sabotage American diplomacy in the interests of a foreign power provoked outraged cries of "treason" and calls for the 47 Senators to be charged under the Logan Act. While Cotton’s letter hardly falls under the restrictions imposed by the Logan Act – and the call itself is a dangerous not to mention stupid invocation of the growing authoritarian impulse in American politics – this kind of reaction is telling. It shows that the American people are waking up to the inordinate – and inappropriate – influence wielded by the Israeli government on our domestic political scene, and that Bibi’s playing of this particular card no longer trumps the President’s hand.
It shows nothing of the sort.
What it demonstrates is the continuing pattern of the so-called left to rush to take personal offense on Barack's behalf.
This was not seen as outrageous -- read the columns by those outraged -- because of Israel or feelings towards that government.
It was seen as outrageous because it was supposedly a personal affront to the Lord and Savior Barack Obama.
There's nothing wrong (or right) about Raimondo's opinion about the Israeli government.
It's just his opinion and he's entitled to have whatever opinion he wants.
But there is something obscenely wrong about his distorting facts in order to insist that the bulk of Americans are moving to his side.
You may recall that Justy's latest big 'antiwar' move was to call out Hillary for her war on Libya.
This edition's playlist
1) Roberta Flack's Let It Be Roberta: Roberta Flack Sings The Beatles.
2) The Beatles' Abby Road.
3) The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band.
4) The Beatles' Revolver.
5) The Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour.
6) The Beatles' The Beatles (aka The White Album).
7) The Beatles' Let It Be.
8) The Supremes' A Bit Of Liverpool.
9) The Beatles' Rubber Soul.
10) Richie Havens' Sings Beatles and Dylan.
House of Cards - A political thriller of murder, corruption and deceit
This is repost from Great Britain's Socialist Worker:
This star-spangled series features US Democrat Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) on a ruthless climb to the top of US politics.
It’s also a comment on the Democratic Party’s “triangulations”. At the begining of series three Underwood appears to have achieved his goal.
It’s an imaginative but perfectly plausible portrayal of deception, corruption and murder. The first season kicked off with president-elect Garrett Walker (Michel Gill) snubbing congressional majority whip Underwood for the prized secretary of state job.
Underwood and his equally ruthless wife Claire (Robin Wright) plot to get their revenge and climb to the top.
He recruits ambitious but overlooked reporter Zoe Barnes as a mole. Then he contacts Pennsylvania congressman Peter Russo (Corey Stoll) and gets him off a drink driving charge.
After Underwood gets him off the charge he convinces him to clean up his act and run for governor.
But when Russo’s plans clash with his lobbying interests, Underwood plots to derail his campaign.
Through a series of ruthless and violent manoevres Underwood makes it to the presidency.
But with many powerful enemies and murder to hide, there’s a long way to fall.
House of Cards - A political thriller of murder, corruption and deceit
by Robbie Shaw
Published Tue 3 Mar 2015
Issue No. 2443
Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood
It’s also a comment on the Democratic Party’s “triangulations”. At the begining of series three Underwood appears to have achieved his goal.
It’s an imaginative but perfectly plausible portrayal of deception, corruption and murder. The first season kicked off with president-elect Garrett Walker (Michel Gill) snubbing congressional majority whip Underwood for the prized secretary of state job.
Underwood and his equally ruthless wife Claire (Robin Wright) plot to get their revenge and climb to the top.
He recruits ambitious but overlooked reporter Zoe Barnes as a mole. Then he contacts Pennsylvania congressman Peter Russo (Corey Stoll) and gets him off a drink driving charge.
After Underwood gets him off the charge he convinces him to clean up his act and run for governor.
But when Russo’s plans clash with his lobbying interests, Underwood plots to derail his campaign.
Through a series of ruthless and violent manoevres Underwood makes it to the presidency.
But with many powerful enemies and murder to hide, there’s a long way to fall.
ACLU Sues NSA to Stop Mass Internet Spying
The ACLU issued the following yesterday:
Wikimedia, Rutherford Institute, Amnesty Among 9 Plaintiffs
March 10, 2015
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
BALTIMORE – The American Civil Liberties Union filed a major new lawsuit today on behalf of a broad group of organizations challenging the National Security Agency’s mass interception and searching of Americans’ international Internet communications, including emails, web-browsing content, and search-engine queries.
The plaintiffs are the Wikimedia Foundation, the conservative Rutherford Institute, The Nation magazine, Amnesty International USA, PEN American Center, Human Rights Watch, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Global Fund for Women, and Washington Office on Latin America.
At issue is the NSA’s “upstream” surveillance, which involves the NSA’s tapping into the internet backbone inside the United States – the physical infrastructure that carries Americans’ online communications with each other and with the rest of the world. The NSA conducts this spying under a law called the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which allows the agency to target the communications of foreigners abroad.
In the course of its surveillance, the NSA copies and combs through vast amounts of Internet traffic, which it intercepts inside the United States with the help of major telecommunications companies. It searches that traffic for keywords called “selectors” that are associated with its targets. The surveillance involves the NSA’s warrantless review of the emails and Internet activities of millions of ordinary Americans.
“This kind of dragnet surveillance constitutes a massive invasion of privacy, and it undermines the freedoms of expression and inquiry as well,” said ACLU Staff Attorney Patrick Toomey. “Ordinary Americans shouldn’t have to worry that the government is looking over their shoulders when they use the Internet.”
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Maryland where the NSA is headquartered, argues that the NSA is violating the plaintiffs’ privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment and infringing on their First Amendment rights. The complaint also argues that upstream surveillance exceeds the authority granted by Congress under the FISA Amendments Act.
“By tapping the backbone of the Internet, the NSA is straining the backbone of democracy,” said Lila Tretikov, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, one of the most visited websites in the world. “Wikipedia is founded on the freedoms of expression, inquiry, and information. By violating our users’ privacy, the NSA is threatening the intellectual freedom that is a central to people’s ability to create and understand knowledge.”
The plaintiffs include human rights, legal, media, and information organizations whose work requires them to engage in sensitive communications with people outside the United States, such as colleagues, clients, journalists, and victims of human rights abuses. The lawsuit argues that upstream surveillance interferes with the groups’ abilities to do their jobs by violating the confidentiality of their communications and by making it more difficult to obtain crucial information from contacts and sources who communicate with them, often at significant personal risk.
The lawsuit is in some ways a successor to a previous ACLU lawsuit challenging the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, Clapper v. Amnesty. The Supreme Court dismissed that case in February 2013 in a 5-4 vote on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove that they had been spied on. Edward Snowden has said that the ruling contributed to his decision to expose certain aspects of the NSA’s surveillance activities a few months later.
Among the Snowden disclosures were documents relating to upstream surveillance, which has since been confirmed by the government. Unlike the surveillance considered by the Supreme Court in Clapper, upstream surveillance is not limited to the communications of NSA targets. Instead, as we have since learned, the NSA is searching the content of nearly all text-based Internet traffic entering or leaving the country – as well as many domestic communications – looking for thousands of keywords such as email addresses or phone numbers.
One of the NSA documents revealed by Snowden included a slide that named Wikipedia, among other major websites, as a good surveillance target for monitoring what people do on the Internet.
The new case is Wikimedia v. NSA. The attorneys are Toomey, Jameel Jaffer, Alex Abdo, and Ashley Gorski from the ACLU; David Rocah and Deborah Jeon from the ACLU of Maryland; and Charles Sims, David Munkittrick, and John Browning from the law firm Proskauer Rose LLP.
Today’s complaint is at:
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/wikimedia-v-nsa-complaint
March 10, 2015
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
BALTIMORE – The American Civil Liberties Union filed a major new lawsuit today on behalf of a broad group of organizations challenging the National Security Agency’s mass interception and searching of Americans’ international Internet communications, including emails, web-browsing content, and search-engine queries.
The plaintiffs are the Wikimedia Foundation, the conservative Rutherford Institute, The Nation magazine, Amnesty International USA, PEN American Center, Human Rights Watch, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Global Fund for Women, and Washington Office on Latin America.
At issue is the NSA’s “upstream” surveillance, which involves the NSA’s tapping into the internet backbone inside the United States – the physical infrastructure that carries Americans’ online communications with each other and with the rest of the world. The NSA conducts this spying under a law called the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which allows the agency to target the communications of foreigners abroad.
In the course of its surveillance, the NSA copies and combs through vast amounts of Internet traffic, which it intercepts inside the United States with the help of major telecommunications companies. It searches that traffic for keywords called “selectors” that are associated with its targets. The surveillance involves the NSA’s warrantless review of the emails and Internet activities of millions of ordinary Americans.
“This kind of dragnet surveillance constitutes a massive invasion of privacy, and it undermines the freedoms of expression and inquiry as well,” said ACLU Staff Attorney Patrick Toomey. “Ordinary Americans shouldn’t have to worry that the government is looking over their shoulders when they use the Internet.”
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Maryland where the NSA is headquartered, argues that the NSA is violating the plaintiffs’ privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment and infringing on their First Amendment rights. The complaint also argues that upstream surveillance exceeds the authority granted by Congress under the FISA Amendments Act.
“By tapping the backbone of the Internet, the NSA is straining the backbone of democracy,” said Lila Tretikov, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, one of the most visited websites in the world. “Wikipedia is founded on the freedoms of expression, inquiry, and information. By violating our users’ privacy, the NSA is threatening the intellectual freedom that is a central to people’s ability to create and understand knowledge.”
The plaintiffs include human rights, legal, media, and information organizations whose work requires them to engage in sensitive communications with people outside the United States, such as colleagues, clients, journalists, and victims of human rights abuses. The lawsuit argues that upstream surveillance interferes with the groups’ abilities to do their jobs by violating the confidentiality of their communications and by making it more difficult to obtain crucial information from contacts and sources who communicate with them, often at significant personal risk.
The lawsuit is in some ways a successor to a previous ACLU lawsuit challenging the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, Clapper v. Amnesty. The Supreme Court dismissed that case in February 2013 in a 5-4 vote on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove that they had been spied on. Edward Snowden has said that the ruling contributed to his decision to expose certain aspects of the NSA’s surveillance activities a few months later.
Among the Snowden disclosures were documents relating to upstream surveillance, which has since been confirmed by the government. Unlike the surveillance considered by the Supreme Court in Clapper, upstream surveillance is not limited to the communications of NSA targets. Instead, as we have since learned, the NSA is searching the content of nearly all text-based Internet traffic entering or leaving the country – as well as many domestic communications – looking for thousands of keywords such as email addresses or phone numbers.
One of the NSA documents revealed by Snowden included a slide that named Wikipedia, among other major websites, as a good surveillance target for monitoring what people do on the Internet.
The new case is Wikimedia v. NSA. The attorneys are Toomey, Jameel Jaffer, Alex Abdo, and Ashley Gorski from the ACLU; David Rocah and Deborah Jeon from the ACLU of Maryland; and Charles Sims, David Munkittrick, and John Browning from the law firm Proskauer Rose LLP.
Today’s complaint is at:
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/wikimedia-v-nsa-complaint
Afghan Girls Need Your Support Today (Feminist Majority)
The Feminist Majority issued the following last week:
Today
is International Women's Day, which is a day we call attention not only
to the achievements of women but to the fight for equality around the
world. The Feminist Majority has been standing shoulder-to-shoulder with
Afghan women and girls in the fight against Taliban oppression for 18
years. Since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, many Afghan women
and girls are going to school, have entered the paid workforce, and have
benefited from a significantly reduced maternal mortality rate. But the
Taliban has not gone entirely away and is threatening constantly women
and girls' advancement and security. We must remain shoulder-to-shoulder with Afghan women and girls.
Many
Afghan women leaders as well as ordinary Afghans are saying their
number one concern is security, and they want the remaining U.S. support
troops to stay. We support the Afghan women's groups concerns. This is
no time to leave Afghanistan completely when women and girls are making
progress and the new unity government, pledged to women's empowerment,
is trying to move forward.
President
Obama is right now reviewing his decision to withdraw 5,000 U.S. troops
from Afghanistan by the end of 2015 and ALL troops by the end of 2016.
Afghan women and girls have come too far to be turned back now. If the
Taliban returns, too many of the women who have gone to work and school
and who have taken on leadership in government or in the several hundred
established Afghan women's groups, will be killed. We must stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with these courageous women.
This
International Women's Day, tell President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and
Congress that the U.S. must not abandon Afghan women and girls who need
and want security. Let’s help Afghan women protect the gains they have won.
For women's lives and equality,
Eleanor Smeal
President, Feminist Majority
President, Feminist Majority
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.
"Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," “Iraq snapshot,” "Is there a bigger bitch than John Kerry (Wally)," "How afraid of us is the US government?," "John Kerry's become a bully and a bore (Ava)," "I honestly feel sorry for Barack Obama," "About the hearing coverage" and "John Kerry has a hissy" and "THIS JUST IN! AND THE HUFFY BIKE HE RODE IN ON!" -- C.I., Wally, Ann, Ava, Kat and Cedric report on Congressional hearings.
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary's Camp...," "Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary Teache..." and "Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary's E-ma..." -- Isaiah offered three comics last week.
"If I were a lawyer for the Iranian government . . ." -- Betty at the bar!
"The 2,000 Mark" -- Isaiah dips into the archives.
"I never watched Glee and I didn't miss a damn thing," "Arrow (he's going to become 'brooding')," "can some 1 do an intervention on nicholas brenden?," "Seinfeld what?" "The so-called Good Wife,"
"Fox really has nothing for me this summer," "Why Brian Williams shouldn't return to NBC Nightly News," "margaux's bugger and a dumb plot point (revenge)," "Fat men always get TV shows," “Who's following The Following?,” “The Originals” and “Hart of Dixie does better in ratings than Jane The Virgin” -- Marcia, Stan, Rebecca, Ann, Elaine, Rebecca, Mike and Ruth cover TV.
"What do you know about Tikrit?," "Iran in Iraq" and "Continued War Crimes in Iraq" -- Elaine, Mike and Ruth cover Iraq.
"Idiot of the Week" -- Mike picks the idiot of the week.
"The CIA spent a million on what?" -- Trina notes the outrage.
"Hillary has another explanation" and "THIS JUST IN! HILLARY EXPLAINS THE EXPLANATION!," "Hillary's e-mails," "Hillary thinks we're stupid," "Well it's her idea of fun" and