Under the regimes of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, millions of civilians in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen have been slaughtered, wounded, displaced and made desperately ill with the effects of toxins such as depleted uranium: the "gift" that never ends, literally---it has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
-- Cindy Sheehan, "George W. Bush and Barack Obama: Kings of Pain" (CINDY SHEEHAN'S SOAPBOX).
Monday, October 30, 2017
Truest statement of the week II
In the past, America has witnessed “McCarthyism” from the Right and even complaints from the Right about “McCarthyism of the Left.” But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called “Establishment McCarthyism,” traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives.
This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about “Russian propaganda” and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin’s “hordes of Twitter bots,” but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington’s “groupthinks” by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as “disputed” or “rated false” by mainstream “fact-checking” organizations like PolitiFact.
-- Robert Parry, "Russia-gate Breeds ‘Establishment McCarthyism’" (CONSORTIUM NEWS).
This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about “Russian propaganda” and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin’s “hordes of Twitter bots,” but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington’s “groupthinks” by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as “disputed” or “rated false” by mainstream “fact-checking” organizations like PolitiFact.
-- Robert Parry, "Russia-gate Breeds ‘Establishment McCarthyism’" (CONSORTIUM NEWS).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Still Sunday here on the west coast.
Let's 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.
And what did we come up with?
See you next week.
Peace,
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Still Sunday here on the west coast.
Let's 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.
And what did we come up with?
Cindy Sheehan gets another truest.
Robert Parry gets one as well.
We're just not into the end-of-the-world reports, sorry.
Ava and C.I. weren't sure what they were going to cover this week and ended up going with this.
But it was this piece that had them saying, "This better go up before we go to sleep. We did not work our asses off on this piece to have it wait all week before going up."
Ann made some important points and we wanted to combine them with other observations.
Another list piece. They are proving very popular.
To get this up "before we go to sleep," we've covered Iraq by reposting two pieces by C.I. This is one.
That really says it all, doesn't it?
C.I.'s other piece.
What we listened to while writing.
Repost from Great Britain's SOCIALIST WORKER.
From The Party for Socialism and Liberation.
See you next week.
Peace,
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Calm the f**k down already
Ronald Reagan.
Oh, he was a horror – if, like us, you were on the left.
“He was a lousy actor and he’ll make a worse president,” Bette Davis said to cheers from many of us on the left.
And some of us on the left swore the world would end.
It didn’t.
Yes, the Contras were backed. Yes, there were Dirty Wars. Yes, a lot of good people are dead who shouldn’t be – but isn’t that the reality for every US presidency?
We’re not being flippant or sarcastic.
You can call us cynical.
Or even jaded.
But, to crib from Aerosmith, American presidents, “you’re the one who jaded me!”
Granted, some won’t know about this period. They are too young (that includes some of us writing this editorial).
You can forgive them.
But these people who should know better?
We’re not getting them at all.
And even to the younger, WTF?
You’ve never lost before?
Your refusal to grow the hell up is very embarrassing and makes it appears as though the carping about trophies being handed out just for showing up really was the defining moment of your childhoods.
As to those of you old enough to know better, shame, shame on you.
TV: True crime
The best reason to watch LAW & ORDER: TRUE CRIME is Edie Falco.
The Emmy winner is playing defense lawyer Leslie Abramson in NBC's re-telling of the Menendez trial -- where Erik and Lyle Menendez were tried for killing their parents Kitty and Jose Menendez. Leslie Abramson and Jill Lansing (Julianne Nicholson in this series) defended their clients with the argument that the murders were in response to the two boys being molested by their father at an early age and their mother's complicity in Jose's actions.
Leslie Abramson was not seen as a sympathetic character by the press in real time.
Nor were the boys seen as sympathetic.
Part of that was sexism and part of that was the refusal by our culture to address child abuse.
You can see both play out in the trial as the judge attacks both Leslie and the defense she and Lansing offer.
The judge, by the way, is played by Anthony Edwards.
Falco is the stunning lead performance, no question. But Edwards is among the supporting actors who are serving up surprisingly rich performance. To that list, you can also add Constance Marie (as Marta Cano), Josh Charles (as Dr. Jerome Oziel) and Heather Graham (as Judalon Smyth).
Charles and Graham manage to pull off the chemistry required to convince you they could be a couple as well as the nastiness needed to make you believe they could be out to destroy one another when it all went sour.
For Judalon, that's when the doctor ends their affair. That's what prompts her to go to the police and tell them that the Menendez brothers confessed to Jerome that they killed their parents.
Even in reaction shots, Graham sells you on Judalon's thrill at bringing the unethical doctor down. And Josh Charles is playing a character unlike any he's played before -- and delivering completely.
He doesn't try to sweeten Jerome's actions. He plays the man who destroys everything in his path and, in the end, his own career.
In January of 1997, CNN reported:
A psychologist who allegedly leaked information to his girlfriend and police about the Menendez brothers' shotgun slayings of their wealthy parents surrendered his medical license to the California Department of Consumer Affairs on Friday.
The Consumer Affairs Board of Psychology said Leon Jerome Oziel violated the professional confidence of his clients, Erik and Lyle Menendez.
The brothers were sentenced in July 1996 to life in prison without parole for the murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. Prosecutors said Erik and Lyle shot their parents in August 1989 to gain their fortune. The brothers claimed they were victims of years of sexual abuse and thought they were acting in self-defense when they killed their parents.
The board accused Oziel in 1993 of sharing confidential information with a patient who was also his girlfriend. It said Oziel allowed Judalon Smyth to listen to and reproduce audiotapes of his therapy sessions with the Menendez brothers. Smyth later turned over the tapes to police.
Jerome Oziel is a creep and Josh Charles goes to the mat with this role.
The Menendez brothers?
They really are "there" more than they "are."
Present.
Part of it is the focus, but a lot of it is, frankly, that Miles Gaston Villanueva (Lyle) and Gus Halper (Erik) haven't really thought through their roles. They are the weakest part of the series -- their acting.
But Edie Falco's performance more than makes up for that void. She's so good that she just might take home Emmy number five for this performance.
The Emmy winner is playing defense lawyer Leslie Abramson in NBC's re-telling of the Menendez trial -- where Erik and Lyle Menendez were tried for killing their parents Kitty and Jose Menendez. Leslie Abramson and Jill Lansing (Julianne Nicholson in this series) defended their clients with the argument that the murders were in response to the two boys being molested by their father at an early age and their mother's complicity in Jose's actions.
Leslie Abramson was not seen as a sympathetic character by the press in real time.
Nor were the boys seen as sympathetic.
Part of that was sexism and part of that was the refusal by our culture to address child abuse.
You can see both play out in the trial as the judge attacks both Leslie and the defense she and Lansing offer.
The judge, by the way, is played by Anthony Edwards.
Falco is the stunning lead performance, no question. But Edwards is among the supporting actors who are serving up surprisingly rich performance. To that list, you can also add Constance Marie (as Marta Cano), Josh Charles (as Dr. Jerome Oziel) and Heather Graham (as Judalon Smyth).
Charles and Graham manage to pull off the chemistry required to convince you they could be a couple as well as the nastiness needed to make you believe they could be out to destroy one another when it all went sour.
For Judalon, that's when the doctor ends their affair. That's what prompts her to go to the police and tell them that the Menendez brothers confessed to Jerome that they killed their parents.
Even in reaction shots, Graham sells you on Judalon's thrill at bringing the unethical doctor down. And Josh Charles is playing a character unlike any he's played before -- and delivering completely.
He doesn't try to sweeten Jerome's actions. He plays the man who destroys everything in his path and, in the end, his own career.
In January of 1997, CNN reported:
A psychologist who allegedly leaked information to his girlfriend and police about the Menendez brothers' shotgun slayings of their wealthy parents surrendered his medical license to the California Department of Consumer Affairs on Friday.
The Consumer Affairs Board of Psychology said Leon Jerome Oziel violated the professional confidence of his clients, Erik and Lyle Menendez.
The brothers were sentenced in July 1996 to life in prison without parole for the murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. Prosecutors said Erik and Lyle shot their parents in August 1989 to gain their fortune. The brothers claimed they were victims of years of sexual abuse and thought they were acting in self-defense when they killed their parents.
The board accused Oziel in 1993 of sharing confidential information with a patient who was also his girlfriend. It said Oziel allowed Judalon Smyth to listen to and reproduce audiotapes of his therapy sessions with the Menendez brothers. Smyth later turned over the tapes to police.
Jerome Oziel is a creep and Josh Charles goes to the mat with this role.
The Menendez brothers?
They really are "there" more than they "are."
Present.
Part of it is the focus, but a lot of it is, frankly, that Miles Gaston Villanueva (Lyle) and Gus Halper (Erik) haven't really thought through their roles. They are the weakest part of the series -- their acting.
But Edie Falco's performance more than makes up for that void. She's so good that she just might take home Emmy number five for this performance.
Put The Bitch In Her Place (Ava and C.I.)
David Yaffe has a new book entitled RECKLESS DAUGHTER: A PORTRAIT OF JONI MITCHELL but it reads like the unofficial title is PUT THE BITCH IN HER PLACE.
Joni Mitchell is one of America's premier singer-songwriters. Her career is a story of artistic triumphs in a system not given to acknowledging art produced by women. BLUE is her masterpiece but it's one of many classic albums she produced. (FOR THE ROSES, COURT & SPARK, THE HISSING OF SUMMER LAWNS, HEIJIRA, SHINE, DOG EAT DOG, LADIES OF THE CANYON, TURBULENT INDIGO and NIGHT RIDE HOME would be among her other classics.) Listing the classic songs she's written would require an essay in and of itself. But it's worth noting that she created her own melodies and didn't graft her lyrics onto public domain songs only to then put her name to the music she'd stolen. In addition, to those credits, Joni's also an original guitar player whose use of open tunings have influenced many over the years.
A pioneer, an artist, she's accomplished more than most.
And for David Yaffe, the "she" appears to be the sticking point.
Yaffe's got problems with women -- they go far beyond his failed marriage. They probably include his being in his early teens when Annette Strauss became Dallas' first elected female mayor. They certainly include coming of age in a very sexist time period and being known for his dismissive put-downs -- at his arty high school -- of female recording artists.
All of this -- and more -- comes down on Joni Mitchell in his book which is a blend of hack writing and sexism.
Yaffe loathes Joni and that comes through on page after page.
It also comes through in interviews.
If you want to pimp your book and lie these days, where do you go?
CJR, of course.
So to CJR's Elon Green, Yaffee trashes Joni as follows:
So Joni had told me a story about how Judy had offered to take her to the Newport Folk Festival, which was a big deal. Joni had never been! It was a big break. And Joni said that Judy Collins stood her up and that, the next day, she had a change of heart and sent for a car to pick her up. I think the word that Judy Collins used to characterize this story was "horsepucky." She said it was ridiculous; they'd met in April, so why would she make arrangements for something in August? I ask Judy if she thought Joni believed it. She said, I don't know, but I can tell you where this rotten story came from. It came from the fact that Joni couldn't get over that somebody did something wonderful for her. Since then, every time Joni came out with an album, Judy would send her love letters about these wonderful albums. She'd send gifts. Joni wouldn't take her calls, never wrote her back. It was decades of not getting calls returned.
CJR is nothing but crap and that they printed that nonsense goes to why.
That Yaffe repeated it goes to his own stupidity, ignorance and general laziness.
Let's start off first with Judy Collins.
Did she tell that to Yaffe? With her wet brain remembrances?
Go read our "Trapped in an AA meeting with Judy Collins" (a review of her lieography entitled SWEET JUDY BLUE EYES). Judy's not a very honest person, she never has been.
We wrote from our own knowledge about the biggest issue between Joni and Judy -- Judy's worship of the cock has led her to repeatedly downgrade Joni Mitchell's talents in public discussions (as well private ones).
This is not a one time thing, this is a long, long history of rushing to praise this man or that man over Joni. Even asked about a song Joni wrote ("Both Sides Now" -- Judy's only real hit song), Judy will avoid praising Joni and rush to mention some male songwriter instead. (As we noted in our example with Larry King, Judy gave the impression that Leonard Cohen wrote the song.)
Judy Collins was a mean drunk. And she's tried to pretend otherwise in the years since.
But she was a nasty and mean drunk.
It's part of the reason she failed her son (who ended up taking his own life).
Why in the world would you take the word of a drunk over Joni's word?
Especially when this story of Newport did not begin in the 2000s, nor in the 1990s, nor in the 1980s, nor in the 1970s but all the way back in real time when it happened. Joni has consistently and repeatedly told this story as she tells it today.
It is only Judy Collins who has rewritten history.
She's a damn liar and Yaffe's a damn fool.
If you're presented with conflicting stories, you first acknowledge that both can be right. People have different perspectives and that's why eye witness testimony -- even when witnesses tell the whole truth -- can contradict.
You then look to see who is more believable.
Has one person stuck to the same story for decades?
Okay, then they usually get the benefit of the doubt.
This is especially true when, for years, Judy publicly credited Tom Rush with calling her up and telling her he was with a songwriter and she had to hear this song ("Both Sides Now") that the songwriter had written.
For years, Judy told that.
She even printed that in a book.
Only after Tom Rush publicly made a point to note (repeatedly) that it was not him, it was Al Kooper, did Judy 'remember' it correctly.
Wet brain.
If two stories conflict, you investigate.
Judy did not meet Joni Mitchell in April of 1967.
That's a flat out lie.
Was that too much for Yaffe to check out?
Or how about this little fact: The event at Newport wasn't in August, as Judy tells Yafee.
It was July 16, 1967.
Where was Joni in April and May?
Detroit.
With soon to be ex-husband Chuck Mitchell.
Was that too hard for Yaffe to check out.
Al Kooper. That's who called Judy, remember?
Joni met him in the summer of 1967 -- that would be after the "April" in Judy Collins' latest 'recovered memory.'
Most importantly, there is one witness to the Judy-Joni phone call: Al Kooper.
And he has publicly backed Joni's version. "I asked her [Judy Collins] to take Joni in her car with her to Newport, listen to Joni sing her songs on the ride, and see if she could find a spot on the bill for her," he told Sheila Weller for her book GIRLS LIKE US: CAROLE KING, JONI MITCHELL, CARLY SIMON -- AND THE JOURNEY OF A GENERATION.
Not content to call Joni a liar, Yaffe also takes Joni to task for not liking Judy's version of "Both Sides Now." He huffs that she took the money for it. Yes, and David Bowie took his royalties for copies of Barbra Streisand's BUTTERFLY but he still didn't care for her cover of his "Life On Mars." (To ROLLING STONE's Cameron Crowe, Bowie stated, "Bloody awful. Sorry, Barb, but it was atrocious.")
Joni's just despicable, in Yaffe's mind. She's even lying about Woodstock! This despite the fact that all involved tell the same story. Dick Cavett does offer a variation, prompted by Yaffe (fed by him), Cavett insists that Joni was never supposed to be the only guest on the program.
Strangely, Joni's never made the claim that she was supposed to be the only guest.
While we're talking Dick and sexism, could he apologize for harassing Diana Ross? She was in the middle of performing a concert when he snuck out on stage (as a 'prank') and pinched her ass. Is that really appropriate behavior because it strikes us as harassment and we're damn tired of being the only people in the world holding Dick Cavett accountable for his harassment of women (the Diana story is only one example).
Dick and Yaffe are convinced that Dick did Joni a huge favor by having her on his show in August of 1969.
What a prize moment, a failing TV show -- in the days before Tivo and YOUTUBE -- meaning only those watching the last hour of ABC -- the third rated network out of three networks -- prime time were going to catch it.
Failing? It would be cancelled exactly 30 days later. Dick would then resurface with a late night talk show.
ABC?
Two months earlier, she'd been seen by many more viewers as a guest on THE MAMA CASS TELEVISION PROGRAM (she performed "Both Sides Now" and, with Cass and Mary Travers, "I Shall Be Released").
How do you miss that?
Oh, that's right, you're a pig who's pimping the Cavett appearance as the end all be all and Joni's big TV debut.
Even though it wasn't.
You're the same pig who writes, on page 136, "Mama Cass to everyone who knew her."
No, piggie, Cass.
Not "Mama Cass."
Michelle Phillips did not call her "Mama Cass," nor did Cass call Michelle "Mama Michelle."
Only in your uneducated and uninformed fan boi mind did the people who knew Cass as friends call her "Mama Cass."
Russ Kunkel shows up a lot.
We're not sure why.
He played drums on some of Joni's work. He was her employee, yes.
But long before that she knew Cass and, yes, Cass' sister Leah Kunkel.
Where's Leah in the book?
Where are the bulk of women in the book?
No where to be found.
Leah, Joellen Lapidus, etc.
Even Joni's meeting with Georgia O'Keeffe goes unmentioned.
But the author does make time to refer to Joni Mitchell as "a broad."
He also makes time to treat Larry Klein as a gospel of truth.
Why are we believing her second husband -- her now ex-husband -- over Joni herself?
And why all the attention and justification for Klein to begin with.
It's an established fact -- one not argued by either Joni or Larry -- that their marriage died when she miscarried.
Why the non-stop sentences of the authors and of Klein's about how he didn't realize how important that event was?
She's pregnant, she miscarries.
The author finds plenty of time to blame Joni for it -- as does Larry (she smoked horror!).
But we're supposed to excuse the fact that she has to count on a friend to take her to the hospital because days of bleeding do not seem significant to Larry Klein?
We're supposed to excuse the fact that he then leaves her to go to Europe?
No.
What Klein and Yaffe argue is offensive.
So is much of the book. For example, prepare to recoil in horror as Yaffe describes "Cherokee Louise" as a song about "a horrifying introduction to adult sex."
Cherokee Louise is raped by her foster-dad.
Who the hell would call that an "introduction to adult sex"?
Rape isn't about sex. Is Yaffe really that stupid?
RECKLESS DAUGHTER is nothing but a pig playing in a pig pen and calling his droppings a book.
It's not just that Joni deserves better, it's that womankind deserves better.
Joni Mitchell is one of America's premier singer-songwriters. Her career is a story of artistic triumphs in a system not given to acknowledging art produced by women. BLUE is her masterpiece but it's one of many classic albums she produced. (FOR THE ROSES, COURT & SPARK, THE HISSING OF SUMMER LAWNS, HEIJIRA, SHINE, DOG EAT DOG, LADIES OF THE CANYON, TURBULENT INDIGO and NIGHT RIDE HOME would be among her other classics.) Listing the classic songs she's written would require an essay in and of itself. But it's worth noting that she created her own melodies and didn't graft her lyrics onto public domain songs only to then put her name to the music she'd stolen. In addition, to those credits, Joni's also an original guitar player whose use of open tunings have influenced many over the years.
A pioneer, an artist, she's accomplished more than most.
And for David Yaffe, the "she" appears to be the sticking point.
Yaffe's got problems with women -- they go far beyond his failed marriage. They probably include his being in his early teens when Annette Strauss became Dallas' first elected female mayor. They certainly include coming of age in a very sexist time period and being known for his dismissive put-downs -- at his arty high school -- of female recording artists.
All of this -- and more -- comes down on Joni Mitchell in his book which is a blend of hack writing and sexism.
Yaffe loathes Joni and that comes through on page after page.
It also comes through in interviews.
If you want to pimp your book and lie these days, where do you go?
CJR, of course.
So to CJR's Elon Green, Yaffee trashes Joni as follows:
So Joni had told me a story about how Judy had offered to take her to the Newport Folk Festival, which was a big deal. Joni had never been! It was a big break. And Joni said that Judy Collins stood her up and that, the next day, she had a change of heart and sent for a car to pick her up. I think the word that Judy Collins used to characterize this story was "horsepucky." She said it was ridiculous; they'd met in April, so why would she make arrangements for something in August? I ask Judy if she thought Joni believed it. She said, I don't know, but I can tell you where this rotten story came from. It came from the fact that Joni couldn't get over that somebody did something wonderful for her. Since then, every time Joni came out with an album, Judy would send her love letters about these wonderful albums. She'd send gifts. Joni wouldn't take her calls, never wrote her back. It was decades of not getting calls returned.
CJR is nothing but crap and that they printed that nonsense goes to why.
That Yaffe repeated it goes to his own stupidity, ignorance and general laziness.
Let's start off first with Judy Collins.
Did she tell that to Yaffe? With her wet brain remembrances?
Go read our "Trapped in an AA meeting with Judy Collins" (a review of her lieography entitled SWEET JUDY BLUE EYES). Judy's not a very honest person, she never has been.
We wrote from our own knowledge about the biggest issue between Joni and Judy -- Judy's worship of the cock has led her to repeatedly downgrade Joni Mitchell's talents in public discussions (as well private ones).
This is not a one time thing, this is a long, long history of rushing to praise this man or that man over Joni. Even asked about a song Joni wrote ("Both Sides Now" -- Judy's only real hit song), Judy will avoid praising Joni and rush to mention some male songwriter instead. (As we noted in our example with Larry King, Judy gave the impression that Leonard Cohen wrote the song.)
Judy Collins was a mean drunk. And she's tried to pretend otherwise in the years since.
But she was a nasty and mean drunk.
It's part of the reason she failed her son (who ended up taking his own life).
Why in the world would you take the word of a drunk over Joni's word?
Especially when this story of Newport did not begin in the 2000s, nor in the 1990s, nor in the 1980s, nor in the 1970s but all the way back in real time when it happened. Joni has consistently and repeatedly told this story as she tells it today.
It is only Judy Collins who has rewritten history.
She's a damn liar and Yaffe's a damn fool.
If you're presented with conflicting stories, you first acknowledge that both can be right. People have different perspectives and that's why eye witness testimony -- even when witnesses tell the whole truth -- can contradict.
You then look to see who is more believable.
Has one person stuck to the same story for decades?
Okay, then they usually get the benefit of the doubt.
This is especially true when, for years, Judy publicly credited Tom Rush with calling her up and telling her he was with a songwriter and she had to hear this song ("Both Sides Now") that the songwriter had written.
For years, Judy told that.
She even printed that in a book.
Only after Tom Rush publicly made a point to note (repeatedly) that it was not him, it was Al Kooper, did Judy 'remember' it correctly.
Wet brain.
If two stories conflict, you investigate.
Judy did not meet Joni Mitchell in April of 1967.
That's a flat out lie.
Was that too much for Yaffe to check out?
Or how about this little fact: The event at Newport wasn't in August, as Judy tells Yafee.
It was July 16, 1967.
Where was Joni in April and May?
Detroit.
With soon to be ex-husband Chuck Mitchell.
Was that too hard for Yaffe to check out.
Al Kooper. That's who called Judy, remember?
Joni met him in the summer of 1967 -- that would be after the "April" in Judy Collins' latest 'recovered memory.'
Most importantly, there is one witness to the Judy-Joni phone call: Al Kooper.
And he has publicly backed Joni's version. "I asked her [Judy Collins] to take Joni in her car with her to Newport, listen to Joni sing her songs on the ride, and see if she could find a spot on the bill for her," he told Sheila Weller for her book GIRLS LIKE US: CAROLE KING, JONI MITCHELL, CARLY SIMON -- AND THE JOURNEY OF A GENERATION.
Not content to call Joni a liar, Yaffe also takes Joni to task for not liking Judy's version of "Both Sides Now." He huffs that she took the money for it. Yes, and David Bowie took his royalties for copies of Barbra Streisand's BUTTERFLY but he still didn't care for her cover of his "Life On Mars." (To ROLLING STONE's Cameron Crowe, Bowie stated, "Bloody awful. Sorry, Barb, but it was atrocious.")
Joni's just despicable, in Yaffe's mind. She's even lying about Woodstock! This despite the fact that all involved tell the same story. Dick Cavett does offer a variation, prompted by Yaffe (fed by him), Cavett insists that Joni was never supposed to be the only guest on the program.
Strangely, Joni's never made the claim that she was supposed to be the only guest.
While we're talking Dick and sexism, could he apologize for harassing Diana Ross? She was in the middle of performing a concert when he snuck out on stage (as a 'prank') and pinched her ass. Is that really appropriate behavior because it strikes us as harassment and we're damn tired of being the only people in the world holding Dick Cavett accountable for his harassment of women (the Diana story is only one example).
Dick and Yaffe are convinced that Dick did Joni a huge favor by having her on his show in August of 1969.
What a prize moment, a failing TV show -- in the days before Tivo and YOUTUBE -- meaning only those watching the last hour of ABC -- the third rated network out of three networks -- prime time were going to catch it.
Failing? It would be cancelled exactly 30 days later. Dick would then resurface with a late night talk show.
ABC?
Two months earlier, she'd been seen by many more viewers as a guest on THE MAMA CASS TELEVISION PROGRAM (she performed "Both Sides Now" and, with Cass and Mary Travers, "I Shall Be Released").
How do you miss that?
Oh, that's right, you're a pig who's pimping the Cavett appearance as the end all be all and Joni's big TV debut.
Even though it wasn't.
You're the same pig who writes, on page 136, "Mama Cass to everyone who knew her."
No, piggie, Cass.
Not "Mama Cass."
Michelle Phillips did not call her "Mama Cass," nor did Cass call Michelle "Mama Michelle."
Only in your uneducated and uninformed fan boi mind did the people who knew Cass as friends call her "Mama Cass."
Russ Kunkel shows up a lot.
We're not sure why.
He played drums on some of Joni's work. He was her employee, yes.
But long before that she knew Cass and, yes, Cass' sister Leah Kunkel.
Where's Leah in the book?
Where are the bulk of women in the book?
No where to be found.
Leah, Joellen Lapidus, etc.
Even Joni's meeting with Georgia O'Keeffe goes unmentioned.
But the author does make time to refer to Joni Mitchell as "a broad."
He also makes time to treat Larry Klein as a gospel of truth.
Why are we believing her second husband -- her now ex-husband -- over Joni herself?
And why all the attention and justification for Klein to begin with.
It's an established fact -- one not argued by either Joni or Larry -- that their marriage died when she miscarried.
Why the non-stop sentences of the authors and of Klein's about how he didn't realize how important that event was?
She's pregnant, she miscarries.
The author finds plenty of time to blame Joni for it -- as does Larry (she smoked horror!).
But we're supposed to excuse the fact that she has to count on a friend to take her to the hospital because days of bleeding do not seem significant to Larry Klein?
We're supposed to excuse the fact that he then leaves her to go to Europe?
No.
What Klein and Yaffe argue is offensive.
So is much of the book. For example, prepare to recoil in horror as Yaffe describes "Cherokee Louise" as a song about "a horrifying introduction to adult sex."
Cherokee Louise is raped by her foster-dad.
Who the hell would call that an "introduction to adult sex"?
Rape isn't about sex. Is Yaffe really that stupid?
RECKLESS DAUGHTER is nothing but a pig playing in a pig pen and calling his droppings a book.
It's not just that Joni deserves better, it's that womankind deserves better.
The age we're living in
Friday, Ann noted this Tweet:
Dr. Jill SteinVerified account @DrJillStein
Jill Stein's Tweet linked to Rupert Neate Wealth's GUARDIAN report which opened:
The world’s super-rich hold the greatest concentration of wealth since the US Gilded Age at the turn of the 20th century, when families like the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts controlled vast fortunes.
Billionaires increased their combined global wealth by almost a fifth last year to a record $6tn (£4.5tn) – more than twice the GDP of the UK. There are now 1,542 dollar billionaires across the world, after 145 multi-millionaires saw their wealth tick over into nine-zero fortunes last year, according to the UBS / PwC Billionaires report.
Ann observed:
The saddest thing about this new gilded age?
Most people won't even admit to it.
You can expect the robber (barons) to refuse to admit it, but so many of the people being robbed won't even admit to what's happening.
It is happening.
And so many outlets are failing to talk about this reality.
There is so much happening because of this age of corruption.
Never one to stay silent, Glen Ford (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) explains:
U.S. rulers also have grand plans -- not for raising domestic or global living standards, but for war. As servants of the Lords of Capital, both corporate political parties promise their citizenry nothing but austerity. The political hegemony of the oligarchs is so complete -- especially since the Clinton years in the White House -- the very idea of governmental intervention on the side of the non-rich has become foreign to much of the public, including the Black political class. Corporate media define “left” and “right” based mainly on so-called “social,” non-economic issues, as if the argument over economic justice has already been settled -- in the oligarchs’ favor.
The people’s representatives grovel at the feet of the rich, begging for crumbs that might fall from on high. As of last week, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world with a net worth of $90 billion, has received 238 proposals from local governments across North America begging for a chance to host a second headquarters for his Seattle-based corporation. Nearly every city worthy of name recognition, and some you’ve never heard of, has positioned itself booty-up for Bezos and the prospect of 50,000 jobs. The only states from which no applications have been received are North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Vermont, Arkansas and Hawaii.
Bezos is an extortionist. Amazon has already gotten more than $1 billion in local and state subsidies for its warehouse centers around the country, where workers are paid 15 percent less , on average, than other warehouses in the region. According to a recent study, Amazon’s business model has destroyed nearly 150,000 more jobs in retail stores than have been created in its warehouses.
Evan Blake (WSWS) just reported:
The grotesque enrichment of capitalists such as Bezos expresses the profoundly unequal character of the capitalist system. While Bezos “earned” nearly $7 billion practically in his sleep, tens of thousands of Amazon warehouse workers around the world assigned to graveyard shifts labored under sweatshop conditions, gearing up for the “peak season” of high volume sales during the upcoming holidays.
It would take the average Amazon warehouse worker in the US earning $12 per hour roughly 416,667 years to earn as much money as Bezos did in less than 24 hours. Or, to put if differently, Bezos reportedly made more money in a single day than his entire global warehouse workforce of over 300,000 employees earns in a year.
In a rational society organized along socialist principles, the wealth funneled to Bezos would instead be put to use for the benefit of society as a whole. With $10.4 billion, clean water and sanitation could be provided to the entire world’s population, roughly 40 percent of which lacks access to these basic human necessities.
The real source of Bezos’ wealth stems from exploiting the labor of his workers, who are currently facing intense speed-up and exploitation as Amazon begins stocking up its warehouses prior to the Cyber Monday and Christmas holidays. The company is engaged in a hiring frenzy of thousands of part-time and temporary workers, many of whom will be fired around the start of the new year.
Last week, Dean Baker (COUNTERPUNCH) observed:
The United States pays more than twice as much per person for health care as other wealthy countries. We tend to blame the high prices on things like drugs and medical equipment, in part because the price tag for many life-saving drugs is less than half the U.S. price in Canada or Europe.
But an unavoidable part of the high cost of U.S. health care is how much we pay doctors — twice as much on average as physicians in other wealthy countries. Because our doctors are paid, on average, more than $250,000 a year (even after malpractice insurance and other expenses), and more than 900,000 doctors in the country, that means we pay an extra $100 billion a year in doctor salaries. That works out to more than $700 per U.S. household per year. We can think of this as a kind of doctors’ tax.
Doctors and other highly paid professionals stand out in this respect. Our autoworkers and retail clerks do not in general earn more than their counterparts in other wealthy countries.
We're in the period where the center cannot hold, to quote Yeats.
Not for long anyway.
How many people will be caught by surprise?
Dr. Jill SteinVerified account @DrJillStein
The rich buy off politicians, who rig the system so the rich get richer and can buy off more politicians... And now:
Jill Stein's Tweet linked to Rupert Neate Wealth's GUARDIAN report which opened:
The world’s super-rich hold the greatest concentration of wealth since the US Gilded Age at the turn of the 20th century, when families like the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts controlled vast fortunes.
Billionaires increased their combined global wealth by almost a fifth last year to a record $6tn (£4.5tn) – more than twice the GDP of the UK. There are now 1,542 dollar billionaires across the world, after 145 multi-millionaires saw their wealth tick over into nine-zero fortunes last year, according to the UBS / PwC Billionaires report.
Ann observed:
The saddest thing about this new gilded age?
Most people won't even admit to it.
You can expect the robber (barons) to refuse to admit it, but so many of the people being robbed won't even admit to what's happening.
It is happening.
And so many outlets are failing to talk about this reality.
There is so much happening because of this age of corruption.
Never one to stay silent, Glen Ford (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) explains:
U.S. rulers also have grand plans -- not for raising domestic or global living standards, but for war. As servants of the Lords of Capital, both corporate political parties promise their citizenry nothing but austerity. The political hegemony of the oligarchs is so complete -- especially since the Clinton years in the White House -- the very idea of governmental intervention on the side of the non-rich has become foreign to much of the public, including the Black political class. Corporate media define “left” and “right” based mainly on so-called “social,” non-economic issues, as if the argument over economic justice has already been settled -- in the oligarchs’ favor.
The people’s representatives grovel at the feet of the rich, begging for crumbs that might fall from on high. As of last week, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world with a net worth of $90 billion, has received 238 proposals from local governments across North America begging for a chance to host a second headquarters for his Seattle-based corporation. Nearly every city worthy of name recognition, and some you’ve never heard of, has positioned itself booty-up for Bezos and the prospect of 50,000 jobs. The only states from which no applications have been received are North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Vermont, Arkansas and Hawaii.
Bezos is an extortionist. Amazon has already gotten more than $1 billion in local and state subsidies for its warehouse centers around the country, where workers are paid 15 percent less , on average, than other warehouses in the region. According to a recent study, Amazon’s business model has destroyed nearly 150,000 more jobs in retail stores than have been created in its warehouses.
Evan Blake (WSWS) just reported:
On Friday morning, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos awoke in one of his luxurious mansions nearly $7 billion richer, after Amazon stock rose more than 8 percent as a result of a strong third quarter earnings report released Thursday. Over the course of trading Friday, Amazon’s stock value continued to rise, finishing roughly 13 percent higher than the day before, propelling Bezos’ wealth by $10.4 billion and making him the world’s richest person. His net worth now stands at $93.8 billion, a solid $5.1 billion ahead of Bill Gates.
The grotesque enrichment of capitalists such as Bezos expresses the profoundly unequal character of the capitalist system. While Bezos “earned” nearly $7 billion practically in his sleep, tens of thousands of Amazon warehouse workers around the world assigned to graveyard shifts labored under sweatshop conditions, gearing up for the “peak season” of high volume sales during the upcoming holidays.
It would take the average Amazon warehouse worker in the US earning $12 per hour roughly 416,667 years to earn as much money as Bezos did in less than 24 hours. Or, to put if differently, Bezos reportedly made more money in a single day than his entire global warehouse workforce of over 300,000 employees earns in a year.
In a rational society organized along socialist principles, the wealth funneled to Bezos would instead be put to use for the benefit of society as a whole. With $10.4 billion, clean water and sanitation could be provided to the entire world’s population, roughly 40 percent of which lacks access to these basic human necessities.
The real source of Bezos’ wealth stems from exploiting the labor of his workers, who are currently facing intense speed-up and exploitation as Amazon begins stocking up its warehouses prior to the Cyber Monday and Christmas holidays. The company is engaged in a hiring frenzy of thousands of part-time and temporary workers, many of whom will be fired around the start of the new year.
Last week, Dean Baker (COUNTERPUNCH) observed:
The United States pays more than twice as much per person for health care as other wealthy countries. We tend to blame the high prices on things like drugs and medical equipment, in part because the price tag for many life-saving drugs is less than half the U.S. price in Canada or Europe.
But an unavoidable part of the high cost of U.S. health care is how much we pay doctors — twice as much on average as physicians in other wealthy countries. Because our doctors are paid, on average, more than $250,000 a year (even after malpractice insurance and other expenses), and more than 900,000 doctors in the country, that means we pay an extra $100 billion a year in doctor salaries. That works out to more than $700 per U.S. household per year. We can think of this as a kind of doctors’ tax.
Doctors and other highly paid professionals stand out in this respect. Our autoworkers and retail clerks do not in general earn more than their counterparts in other wealthy countries.
We're in the period where the center cannot hold, to quote Yeats.
Not for long anyway.
How many people will be caught by surprise?
Top ten ice cream flavors
Who screams for ice cream?
We scream for these flavors.
And you can stop by Baskin-Robbins on Halloween where they'll be serving up $1.50 scoops.
1) Chocolate
2) Vanilla
3) Rocky Road
4) Chocolate Mint
5) Cookies & Cream
6) Peppermint
7) Butter Pecan
8) Chocolate Marshmallow
9) Cherry
10) Cookie Dough
We scream for these flavors.
And you can stop by Baskin-Robbins on Halloween where they'll be serving up $1.50 scoops.
1) Chocolate
2) Vanilla
3) Rocky Road
4) Chocolate Mint
5) Cookies & Cream
6) Peppermint
7) Butter Pecan
8) Chocolate Marshmallow
9) Cherry
10) Cookie Dough
Iraq: Massoud Barzani
We're reposting two pieces by C.I. to make sure Iraq is covered this edition. I (Jim) thought this one was especially important.
Looks like a victory for Massoud Barzani despite the pack mentality of the press
All these outlets and they all sing from the same hymnal?
I'm referring to Masoud Barzani's announcement.
The 'independent' analysis from western media goes like this: He held a referendum and it was a failure now he's stepping down.
Or as Zaid al-Ali (ALJAZEERA) gushes excitedly, "The punditry world has never been as united as it is today: virtually everyone agrees that the independence referendum that was organised on 25 September in Iraqi Kurdistan was an unmitigated disaster."
Maybe that's correct.
It's also possible that it's wrong.
I'd argue the better reading is that Massoud Barzani has shored up his legacy and his latest move just furthers that.
Outside of the western media today, who thought the September 25th referendum was going to bring independence to Kurdistan?
It was a non-binding referendum.
Do American journalists no longer understand basic English?
Raya Jalabi and Maher Chmaytelli (REUTERS) maintain that the referendum "backfired."
Sebastian Usher (BBC) insists that the referendum "backfired dramatically."
On and on it goes.
92% of Kurds voted for independence.
How is that a failure?
They want independence.
That's not an unknown.
Massoud brought them closer to it than anyone else ever has.
That's a win.
What was the big criticism of Massoud?
That he overstayed his terms, that this was disrespectful of democracy.
What did he say in his announcement?
I refuse to continue the position of president of the Kurdish region after November 1. Changing the law on the presidency of Kurdistan or prolonging the presidential term is not acceptable.
I believe that addresses that issue.
Barzani is a hero.
Nabih Bulos (LOS ANGELES TIMES) misses that point even while reporting:
Local news outlets reported his supporters, many armed with sticks, broke into the parliament to insist that he remain in power. They also attacked an opposition member of parliament who had criticized Barzani, according to the Alsumaria news channel.
Just as everyone seems to have pre-agreed how to report the events, they also appear to have pre-agreed not to name names. Rabun Maroof is the MP who was attacked. He's a member of the CIA-backed Goran Party.
They also apparently agreed to ignore Barzani's critique of the US. RT leads with what the others ignore:
The US has failed to back the Kurds, who were their close allies in the fight against ISIS terrorists, and has allowed Baghdad to use American weapons in its attack on Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani, the Iraqi Kurdish President, has said after resigning his post.
“Nobody stood up with us other than our mountains,” Barzani said in a televised address Sunday after the Kurdish parliament endorsed his resignation request.
He was referring to Baghdad’s military operation launched on October 16 following the Kurdish referendum. The vast majority had supported the region’s independence from Iraq in the September plebiscite.
The departing Kurdish leader denounced the US for abandoning the Kurds and allowing American Abrams tanks, which were supplied to Iraqi forces to fight Islamic State, to be deployed against them. “Without the help of Peshmerga(Kurdish fighters), Iraqi forces could not have liberated Mosul from ISIS (Islamic State, IS) alone,” he pointed out as cited by Reuters.
“Our people should now question, whether the US was aware of Iraq's attack and why they did not prevent it,” Barzani said.“Why would Washington want to punish Kurdistan?” he reflected in disbelief.
In his speech, he also noted that "treason" (his word) was committed. He's referring to the spawn of Jalal Talabani.
Two weeks ago, we noted the development -- treason being used to describe the Talabani actions (for a few coins, they refused to allow the Peshmerga to defend Kirkuk -- and, yes, that action is indeed treason).
I don't see the downside for Massoud Barzani.
He's 71-years-old.
Do you really think he's got the stamina or future to continue leading?
He stood up to the world. The US, the UK, France, everybody (except Israel) insisted the September 25th referendum had to be cancelled.
He didn't back down.
The Kurdish people got to have their say.
What followed?
It makes Barzani a martyr, a hero.
This is the perfect time to bow out.
Now it's on someone else to carry the baton to the next step.
He delivered more than any Kurdish leader ever has.
That's his legacy.
It's a legacy his family will stand on.
The Talabanis?
The trashy family that sold out their own in order to get some more coins? The ones who held the post of president while Jalal was unable to serve for two years -- held it by lying about his stroke and his inability to serve?
This is a win.
The press?
I can't figure if they're idiots or whores?
The RAND Corporation, years ago, before Barack was even president, identified the issues involved as a powder keg with many saying they needed to be resolved sooner than later.
All these years later, these issues are still not resolved.
To shut down the discussion, Hayder al-Abadi used the military and militias against the Kurdish people.
That's not a win.
And only a stupid or whorish press could ignore that.
But this is the same press that ignored what Nouri al-Maliki was doing until Barack Obama finally spoke out against Nouri.
I'm referring to Masoud Barzani's announcement.
The 'independent' analysis from western media goes like this: He held a referendum and it was a failure now he's stepping down.
Or as Zaid al-Ali (ALJAZEERA) gushes excitedly, "The punditry world has never been as united as it is today: virtually everyone agrees that the independence referendum that was organised on 25 September in Iraqi Kurdistan was an unmitigated disaster."
Maybe that's correct.
It's also possible that it's wrong.
I'd argue the better reading is that Massoud Barzani has shored up his legacy and his latest move just furthers that.
Outside of the western media today, who thought the September 25th referendum was going to bring independence to Kurdistan?
It was a non-binding referendum.
Do American journalists no longer understand basic English?
Raya Jalabi and Maher Chmaytelli (REUTERS) maintain that the referendum "backfired."
Sebastian Usher (BBC) insists that the referendum "backfired dramatically."
On and on it goes.
92% of Kurds voted for independence.
How is that a failure?
They want independence.
That's not an unknown.
Massoud brought them closer to it than anyone else ever has.
That's a win.
What was the big criticism of Massoud?
That he overstayed his terms, that this was disrespectful of democracy.
What did he say in his announcement?
I refuse to continue the position of president of the Kurdish region after November 1. Changing the law on the presidency of Kurdistan or prolonging the presidential term is not acceptable.
I believe that addresses that issue.
Barzani is a hero.
Nabih Bulos (LOS ANGELES TIMES) misses that point even while reporting:
Local news outlets reported his supporters, many armed with sticks, broke into the parliament to insist that he remain in power. They also attacked an opposition member of parliament who had criticized Barzani, according to the Alsumaria news channel.
Just as everyone seems to have pre-agreed how to report the events, they also appear to have pre-agreed not to name names. Rabun Maroof is the MP who was attacked. He's a member of the CIA-backed Goran Party.
They also apparently agreed to ignore Barzani's critique of the US. RT leads with what the others ignore:
The US has failed to back the Kurds, who were their close allies in the fight against ISIS terrorists, and has allowed Baghdad to use American weapons in its attack on Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani, the Iraqi Kurdish President, has said after resigning his post.
“Nobody stood up with us other than our mountains,” Barzani said in a televised address Sunday after the Kurdish parliament endorsed his resignation request.
He was referring to Baghdad’s military operation launched on October 16 following the Kurdish referendum. The vast majority had supported the region’s independence from Iraq in the September plebiscite.
The departing Kurdish leader denounced the US for abandoning the Kurds and allowing American Abrams tanks, which were supplied to Iraqi forces to fight Islamic State, to be deployed against them. “Without the help of Peshmerga(Kurdish fighters), Iraqi forces could not have liberated Mosul from ISIS (Islamic State, IS) alone,” he pointed out as cited by Reuters.
“Our people should now question, whether the US was aware of Iraq's attack and why they did not prevent it,” Barzani said.“Why would Washington want to punish Kurdistan?” he reflected in disbelief.
In his speech, he also noted that "treason" (his word) was committed. He's referring to the spawn of Jalal Talabani.
Two weeks ago, we noted the development -- treason being used to describe the Talabani actions (for a few coins, they refused to allow the Peshmerga to defend Kirkuk -- and, yes, that action is indeed treason).
I don't see the downside for Massoud Barzani.
He's 71-years-old.
Do you really think he's got the stamina or future to continue leading?
He stood up to the world. The US, the UK, France, everybody (except Israel) insisted the September 25th referendum had to be cancelled.
He didn't back down.
The Kurdish people got to have their say.
What followed?
It makes Barzani a martyr, a hero.
This is the perfect time to bow out.
Now it's on someone else to carry the baton to the next step.
He delivered more than any Kurdish leader ever has.
That's his legacy.
It's a legacy his family will stand on.
The Talabanis?
The trashy family that sold out their own in order to get some more coins? The ones who held the post of president while Jalal was unable to serve for two years -- held it by lying about his stroke and his inability to serve?
This is a win.
The press?
I can't figure if they're idiots or whores?
The RAND Corporation, years ago, before Barack was even president, identified the issues involved as a powder keg with many saying they needed to be resolved sooner than later.
All these years later, these issues are still not resolved.
To shut down the discussion, Hayder al-Abadi used the military and militias against the Kurdish people.
That's not a win.
And only a stupid or whorish press could ignore that.
But this is the same press that ignored what Nouri al-Maliki was doing until Barack Obama finally spoke out against Nouri.
Spot on media critique in one Tweet
Please support the @guardian, so they can continue to breathlessly report what they saw on TV and Twitter ...
Iraq: The media bias
This repost from THE COMMON ILLS is the most requested highlight of the week. We're including it for that reason. C.I. wasn't keen on two of her pieces being reposted saying there were other things to share but agreed if we'd continue the post through the links to other community sites.
Patrick Cockburn exposes his hatred of Arabs yet again
Patrick Cockburn is such utter trash. It was years ago that we stopped trusting his 'reporting.' Arab social media posters were noting how biased it was, how anti-Sunni he was, how wrong he was.
Those who doubted what Arab voices saw need only read his latest garbage which is rah-rah Baghdad
Rah-rah about Baghdad attacking the Kurds.
Sad and pathetic enough but he also writes this:
The Sunni, a fifth of the population, have lost comprehensively because Isis became their main vehicle for opposition to the central government. Justly or unjustly, they share in its defeat.
There are so many responses to those two sentences -- none of them kind.
First, how outrageous that he likens Sunnis to terrorists.
How is that different from some Americans branding all Muslims terrorists?
It's not.
Patrick Cockburn has just labeled Sunnis as terrorists.
It's the sort of hatred so many Arabs have sensed in his writing for years now.
It's outrageous and goes to both Cockburn's lack of ethics and lack of basic fairness.
"Justly or unuslty," the group ISIS did not become the Sunnis "main vehicle for opposition to the central government."
Sunnis were protesting.
ISIS only became bigger than the protests when Nouri al-Maliki began attacking the protesters.
ISIS was not championed by the Sunnis and for Patrick Cockburn to claim otherwise is just for him to expose the deceitful and dishonest core at the center of Patrick's very being.
It is a lie and a slander.
His hatred allows him to lie and slander Arabs.
He's been doing this for some time and it's past time the left stopped going along with him.
Reality, Patrick's covered Iraq for 14 years -- what did he ever expose?
Did he expose Abu Ghraib?
No.
Did he expose Nouri's torture chambers?
No.
Fourteen years of so-called independent 'reporting' and he has nothing to show for it but one Tiger Beat filing over a Shi'ite after another.
He's not a reporter.
He's an anti-Arab propagandist who should be shunned by any educated reader.
The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan -- updated:
Those who doubted what Arab voices saw need only read his latest garbage which is rah-rah Baghdad
Rah-rah about Baghdad attacking the Kurds.
Sad and pathetic enough but he also writes this:
The Sunni, a fifth of the population, have lost comprehensively because Isis became their main vehicle for opposition to the central government. Justly or unjustly, they share in its defeat.
There are so many responses to those two sentences -- none of them kind.
First, how outrageous that he likens Sunnis to terrorists.
How is that different from some Americans branding all Muslims terrorists?
It's not.
Patrick Cockburn has just labeled Sunnis as terrorists.
It's the sort of hatred so many Arabs have sensed in his writing for years now.
It's outrageous and goes to both Cockburn's lack of ethics and lack of basic fairness.
"Justly or unuslty," the group ISIS did not become the Sunnis "main vehicle for opposition to the central government."
Sunnis were protesting.
ISIS only became bigger than the protests when Nouri al-Maliki began attacking the protesters.
ISIS was not championed by the Sunnis and for Patrick Cockburn to claim otherwise is just for him to expose the deceitful and dishonest core at the center of Patrick's very being.
It is a lie and a slander.
His hatred allows him to lie and slander Arabs.
He's been doing this for some time and it's past time the left stopped going along with him.
Reality, Patrick's covered Iraq for 14 years -- what did he ever expose?
Did he expose Abu Ghraib?
No.
Did he expose Nouri's torture chambers?
No.
Fourteen years of so-called independent 'reporting' and he has nothing to show for it but one Tiger Beat filing over a Shi'ite after another.
He's not a reporter.
He's an anti-Arab propagandist who should be shunned by any educated reader.
The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan -- updated:
This edition's playlist
1) Tori Amos' NATIVE INVADERS.
2) Alicia Keys' HERE.
3) Aretha Franklin's ARETHA SINGS THE GREAT DIVA CLASSICS.
4) Janet Jackson's UNBREAKABLE.
5) Sam Smith's IN THE LONELY HOUR DROWNING SHADOW EDITION.
6) Tori Amos' LITTLE EARTHQUAKES.
7) Tori Amos' UNDER THE PINK.
8) Tori Amos' FROM THE CHOIRGIRL HOTEL.
9) Tori Amos' SCARLET'S WALK
10) Tori Amos' BOYS FOR PELE.
I Am Not a Witch: The cruel humour behind a mix of tradition and money
Repost from Great Britain's SOCIALIST WORKER:
In the film, a young girl is accused of witchcraft in Africa
and is drawn into a world of corruption and sexism, writes Charlie
Kimber
I Am Not a Witch is a highly unusual film that will make you think and wonder.
Made by Zambian-born Rungano Nyoni, it is part satire, part documentary and part fairy tale.
And like many fairy tales, it has elements of violence and darkness.
At its heart this is a film about the oppression of women, and how they are controlled and used.
The basic story is simple. A young girl is blamed for unusual happenings in her village.
She’s denounced as a witch and shipped off to a witch camp.
This camp serves both as a dumping ground for older women who are seen as a burden on society, and as a freak show for tourists.
The women are also used as forced labour. The women are attached to spools of ribbon—“to stop them flying away”, say the authorities.
Venal
It is a place that brings together a certain sort of cultural belief and the most venal money-making opportunity.
The young girl, named Shula by her fellow “witches”, is more than a victim. She retains a certain strength and does not follow advice to “do as you are told”.
Spotted by Mr Banda, a corrupt public servant with an eye for a quick buck, she is soon employed for her “special powers”.
She picks criminals from a suspects’ line-up, appears as an exotic oddity on a television show, and seeks to break a drought.
And throughout it all she never gives the slightest indication that she believes she is a witch. She is just trying to survive.
Director Nyoni has said, “What I was interested in was this idea of how people impose rules, however absurd, on other people and how difficult it is to break away from the rules, even if they unspoken ones relating to society or tradition.”
The film doesn’t try to explain why quite large numbers of people in Africa believe in witchcraft.
I was sometimes worried that people watching the film might laugh in a supposedly superior way at the “stupid Africans”.
Belief in witches is a form of scapegoating and a search for meaning often rooted in desperate poverty, fear and insecurity.
Those of us in Europe watch the media and politicians peddle the most irrational myths about, say, refugees.
We should not be surprised that other forms of wild belief can take hold of a society.
There are sections of the film that are hard to understand, and scenes that seem to go on too long.
But it’s a film you should see, not least for the last ten minutes.
This is a combination of desperate sadness, extraordinary images and powerful singing that you will remember for a long time.
I Am Not a Witch: The cruel humour behind a mix of tradition and money
Shula is more than a victim and retains a certain strength
Made by Zambian-born Rungano Nyoni, it is part satire, part documentary and part fairy tale.
And like many fairy tales, it has elements of violence and darkness.
At its heart this is a film about the oppression of women, and how they are controlled and used.
The basic story is simple. A young girl is blamed for unusual happenings in her village.
She’s denounced as a witch and shipped off to a witch camp.
This camp serves both as a dumping ground for older women who are seen as a burden on society, and as a freak show for tourists.
The women are also used as forced labour. The women are attached to spools of ribbon—“to stop them flying away”, say the authorities.
Venal
It is a place that brings together a certain sort of cultural belief and the most venal money-making opportunity.
The young girl, named Shula by her fellow “witches”, is more than a victim. She retains a certain strength and does not follow advice to “do as you are told”.
Spotted by Mr Banda, a corrupt public servant with an eye for a quick buck, she is soon employed for her “special powers”.
She picks criminals from a suspects’ line-up, appears as an exotic oddity on a television show, and seeks to break a drought.
And throughout it all she never gives the slightest indication that she believes she is a witch. She is just trying to survive.
Director Nyoni has said, “What I was interested in was this idea of how people impose rules, however absurd, on other people and how difficult it is to break away from the rules, even if they unspoken ones relating to society or tradition.”
The film doesn’t try to explain why quite large numbers of people in Africa believe in witchcraft.
I was sometimes worried that people watching the film might laugh in a supposedly superior way at the “stupid Africans”.
Belief in witches is a form of scapegoating and a search for meaning often rooted in desperate poverty, fear and insecurity.
Those of us in Europe watch the media and politicians peddle the most irrational myths about, say, refugees.
We should not be surprised that other forms of wild belief can take hold of a society.
There are sections of the film that are hard to understand, and scenes that seem to go on too long.
But it’s a film you should see, not least for the last ten minutes.
This is a combination of desperate sadness, extraordinary images and powerful singing that you will remember for a long time.
I Am Not a Witch is in selected cinemas now
Denounce the massacre of campesinos in Tumaco, Colombia
From LIBERATION NEWS:
Denounce the massacre of campesinos in Tumaco, Colombia
Oct 09, 2017
Navy
Admiral Kurt W. Tidd, commander of U.S. Southern Command, meets with
Colombian military leadership in Tumaco, Colombia, in April 2016
The Party for Socialism and Liberation
denounces the massacre of campesinos in the municipality of Tumaco,
Colombia on October 5th, 2017 by part of Colombian National Police,
Escuadron Movil Antidisturbios ESMAD and the Colombian National Army.
These government and military groups violently attacked farmers in Alto
Mira, Frontera del Corregimiento de Llorente and left between nine and
16 dead and over 50 injured.
Farmers in the area have been peacefully protesting since thursday September 28th, demanding that the Colombian government comply with Section 4 of the peace agreement. Section 4 of the peace agreement deals with the voluntary substitution of illicit crops. These farmers and agricultural workers were attacked because of their political organizing and participation, continuing the legacy of political repression in Colombia. Such attacks have been conducted by right wing, Uribistas, fascist, state military and paramilitary groups who are funded and directly trained by the government of the United States.
The U.S. government has continuously pressured the Colombian government to conduct forced eradication programs and violate Section 4 of the Peace Accords, which work to minimize coca production via voluntary substitution programs. These forced eradication programs instruct military officers to go into farmers’ homes, terrorize them and destroy all of their crops. Furthermore, forced eradication programs include the aerial fumigation of illicit crops with the toxic Monsanto’s RoundUp Ultra, which has been linked to causing cancer among agricultural communities, and have also completely killed off legally grown crops. The massacre in Tumaco is not a random act, but instead an extension of the forced eradication programs that the U.S. is promoting.
In 2016, the President of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos won the Nobel Peace Prize, but has time and again failed to follow through on the peace deal. He has ignored the attacks on the people of Colombia by right-wing groups. He dragged his feet in releasing former combatants, leading to a massive prison hunger strike. While insisting on FARC disarmament, he has remained silent when armed right-wing terrorist groups move into the zones that the FARC vacates.
We demand that the U.S. government stop undermining and sabotaging the Peace Accords. We join with Colombia’s popular and left-wing forces to demand an immediate investigation of the attacks that took place on October 5th, 2017; that all officials who are involved in the attacks be held accountable; and that the Colombian government truly comply with the Peace Accords.
We further call for justice and protection for grassroots, union, political and human rights organizations of Colombia and an end to the repression, attacks and murders targeting people due to their political activity.
Farmers in the area have been peacefully protesting since thursday September 28th, demanding that the Colombian government comply with Section 4 of the peace agreement. Section 4 of the peace agreement deals with the voluntary substitution of illicit crops. These farmers and agricultural workers were attacked because of their political organizing and participation, continuing the legacy of political repression in Colombia. Such attacks have been conducted by right wing, Uribistas, fascist, state military and paramilitary groups who are funded and directly trained by the government of the United States.
The U.S. government has continuously pressured the Colombian government to conduct forced eradication programs and violate Section 4 of the Peace Accords, which work to minimize coca production via voluntary substitution programs. These forced eradication programs instruct military officers to go into farmers’ homes, terrorize them and destroy all of their crops. Furthermore, forced eradication programs include the aerial fumigation of illicit crops with the toxic Monsanto’s RoundUp Ultra, which has been linked to causing cancer among agricultural communities, and have also completely killed off legally grown crops. The massacre in Tumaco is not a random act, but instead an extension of the forced eradication programs that the U.S. is promoting.
In 2016, the President of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos won the Nobel Peace Prize, but has time and again failed to follow through on the peace deal. He has ignored the attacks on the people of Colombia by right-wing groups. He dragged his feet in releasing former combatants, leading to a massive prison hunger strike. While insisting on FARC disarmament, he has remained silent when armed right-wing terrorist groups move into the zones that the FARC vacates.
We demand that the U.S. government stop undermining and sabotaging the Peace Accords. We join with Colombia’s popular and left-wing forces to demand an immediate investigation of the attacks that took place on October 5th, 2017; that all officials who are involved in the attacks be held accountable; and that the Colombian government truly comply with the Peace Accords.
We further call for justice and protection for grassroots, union, political and human rights organizations of Colombia and an end to the repression, attacks and murders targeting people due to their political activity.