Obama was a protégé of Bill Clinton, who ravaged the social safety
net for poor women and children while hiring 100,000 more cops and
setting the bankers free to blow up the economy eight years later. As
the presumptive corporate Democratic nominee in 2016, Hillary Clinton
was eager to deepen the bipartisan austerity regime. Bernie Sanders’
push for Medicare For All would cause “a terrible, terrible national
debate,” she said ,
and would “never, ever come to pass.” Although Clinton prevailed in the
primaries, the anti-austerity genie was out of the bottle.
Now Sanders is back, hawking a raft of austerity-busting measures
that have not only garnered super-majority support among Democrats, but
are attractive to half of Republicans!
The corporate Democrats’ duty is to save the oligarch’s dream of
global austerity from unraveling. Terrified that Sanders might sweep the
2020 primaries, the Democratic Party bum-rushed the Vermont Senator,
flooding the field with 24 candidates, outdoing the Republican
establishment’s 16-candidate bid to stop Donald Trump, in 2016. The game
plan was to throw every type of candidate into the mix, appealing to
every “identity” constituency, to fragment a Democratic primary base
that was as much as 90-percent in favor of Sanders’ campaign planks. The
bottom line: prevent Sanders from arriving at the Democratic National
Convention with enough delegates to win on the first ballot. On the
second ballot, the corporate-dependable “super delegates” would kick in
to derail the self-styled socialist.
-- Glen Ford, "The Ruling Class Will Not Tolerate the Sanders-Led Assault on Austerity" (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Truest statement of the week II
My message on Twitter and on my public Facebook wall: If Joe Biden
wants to boast about his relationship with a racist, he is not who we
need to succeed the racist in the White House.
-- Connie Schultz, "'He Never Called Me Boy...'" (CREATORS.COM).
-- Connie Schultz, "'He Never Called Me Boy...'" (CREATORS.COM).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Monday night here on the west coast -- already Tuesday morning on the east.
Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
And what did we come up with?
Peace,
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Monday night here on the west coast -- already Tuesday morning on the east.
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.
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?
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- Editorial: Don't get it twisted
- TV: Oh, those summer nights
- We can't do better than this guy?
- Tiny House Living (Dona)
- The 13 best singer-songwriters
- Tweet of the week (Truth)
- Jim's World
- Tweet of the week (Humor)
- This edition's playlist
- As Alarming Reports Emerge That Trump Administrati...
- Statement by GP-US Peace Action Committee on the M...
- Senator Murray Stands with Women and LGBTQIA+ Comm...
- Some Tweets about Dario Hunter
- Rep. Susan Davis and Sen. Patty Murray Introduce L...
- Some Tweets from Howie Hawkins
- Highlights
Peace,
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Don't get it twisted
As various voices step forward proclaiming no to war on Iran, we raise a skeptical eyebrow at some.
The Iraq War is ongoing.
Do the White women of CODEPINK not grasp that?
They've had years to notice. When Barack Obama was in the White House for eight years, the Iraq War wasn't even a concern to them. And Afghanistan? Well they tried to rush forward with support for it.
We don't need war with Iran.
Absolutely not.
But don't mistake us for friends of CODESTINK or others who walked away from the ongoing Iraq War because we're not.
Unlike them and others, we didn't write books about Iraq or do documentaries or try to fundraise off an illegal war.
The Amy Goodmans did. They used an illegal war to enrich their own pockets.
Amy didn't donate that money to help the Iraqi people. No Iraqi refugees benefited.
They made money off the Iraq War the same as any weapons manufacturer.
So, no, they are not our friends and we do not stand beside them.
The Iraq War is ongoing.
Do the White women of CODEPINK not grasp that?
They've had years to notice. When Barack Obama was in the White House for eight years, the Iraq War wasn't even a concern to them. And Afghanistan? Well they tried to rush forward with support for it.
We don't need war with Iran.
Absolutely not.
But don't mistake us for friends of CODESTINK or others who walked away from the ongoing Iraq War because we're not.
Unlike them and others, we didn't write books about Iraq or do documentaries or try to fundraise off an illegal war.
The Amy Goodmans did. They used an illegal war to enrich their own pockets.
Amy didn't donate that money to help the Iraqi people. No Iraqi refugees benefited.
They made money off the Iraq War the same as any weapons manufacturer.
So, no, they are not our friends and we do not stand beside them.
TV: Oh, those summer nights
On NBC's new summer show THE INBETWEEN, Paul Blackthorne has really bad indigestion. We're not surprised nor do we blame him as he powers through burp after burp. He does it in every scene, with nearly every line. We think Rolaids should probably underwrite the program.
Again, we're not blaming him nor are we really sure that it's a conscious acting choice. Considering the bad dialogue, indigestion might just be a natural side effect.
THE INBETWEEN offers bad writing galore. In fact, it may be one of the ugliest shows to ever grace summer TV.
Over at ABC, they're offering Poppy Montgomery's new show THE REEF BREAK and it's the perfect summer show. Crime and drama and romance set on the beach. Poppy's a surfer, she's a bit shady, got caught back in the day when she ended up married to Jake and didn't realize he was FBI. She knows the reef, she knows the people, good and bad and in between.
She's playing her role with as much confidence as the sun streaming and pouring down on the beach. She's a complete natural and fits in with her surroundings. Watching her in action brings a smile to the face.
And that's what a summer series should do. It should be the equivalent of a day at the beach, enjoyable and fun.
THE INBETWEEN is neither enjoyable or fun. Watching, you wonder how did this ever get on the air? You can almost hear Richard E. Grant in THE PLAYER saying, "If I'm really honest, this isn't even an American movie."
That would explain how Charlotte Sieling ended up as an executive producer. She's worked on a number of TV shows including the Danish version (the original version) of THE KILLING. THE INBETWEEN is dark and, honestly, hollow. Harriet Dyer -- a name no one ever thought would end up with stardom (and, based on THE INBETWEEN, that's still a good hunch) plays the lead named Cassie Beford. NBC promotional material insists that she "was born with a gift, though she may call it a curse." Oh, the drama!
Cassie's basically the little boy in THE SIXTH SENSE -- she sees dead people. She helps them resolve their problems -- which makes her a little like THE GHOST WHISPERER as well though she lacks Jennifer Love Hewitt's winning personality. Honestly, she lacks personality period.
The show can really be seen as a bad children's water color painting and Harriet's Cassie as the water that the paint brushes were left in before the water was splashed onto the painting causing a dark, blurry muddle.
With three episodes aired thus far (the next episode will air next week), NBC is seeing a steady erosion in the ratings with each episode. This isn't NBC's fault. They're promoting it like it's the return of FRIENDS.
Meanwhile over at ABC, where's the promotion for REEF BREAK? On Friday's MARVEL AGENTS OF SHIELD, they repeatedly aired commercials for the summer soap opera GRAND HOTEL. (GRAND HOTEL does not impress in episode one. Few soap operas do. We plan to review the show but are trying to give it an episode or two to find its footing.) Now if you are someone tuning into MARVEL AGENTS OF SHIELD, we have a few questions.
Our first question: Would you be more likely to watch an action show like REEF BREAK or a soap opera like GRAND HOTEL? Because we'd assume you'd be a better match with REEF BREAK; however, ABC aired no advertisement for REEF BREAK (again, while airing three for GRAND HOTEL). That confused us.
Our second question? Why are you watching the show still?
Last week was another episode of mental masturbation. Nothing happened. This is an action show, right? But we were (yet again) in a simulation of sorts so nothing taking place -- for Fitz and Gemma -- was really taking place.
Does the audience enjoy being jerked around like this? Now that this is a summer show, the episode order has been drastically reduced. Thirteen episodes for this season and thirteen for next. You'd think they wouldn't need to pad out episodes with that short of a season.
Our third question would be: How much do you enjoy being jerked around? Clearly, you must enjoy it some to put with non-action storylines that go nowhere. But we're referring to fan fave Deke, for example. He's barely been on this season. And, of course, the season started with Fitz missing and Gemma and Fitz apart. Isn't that how every season is starting to kick off -- Gemma and Fitz apart? It all gets a bit redundant after awhile.
But back to the characters. Deke's barely on. Gregg Clark's Coulson thankfully died. However, they've kept Clark on the show, now as a bad guy. If Clark was never believable as a team leader, he's even less believable as a bad guy.
But here's the thing: If they can bring him on as a new character, why can't they bring back Bobbi and Lance? It's not Adrianna Palicki's fault that Bobbi was written off and it's not Nick Blood's fault that Lance was written off. The plan was to star the two in a spin-off. But, in the end, ABC took a pass.
When that happens, most show runners say, "Let's bring them back!" And not for a single episode (the way Nick Blood was brought back) but as regular characters.
'B-b-b-but the storyline won't allow it, we wrote them out in such a way --'
Oh, get real. The universe has been created, recreated, destroyed and recreated again on MARVEL AGENTS OF SHIELD. It could easily be reconfigured to allow Bobbie and Lance to return. That is if they care about pleasing the audience. But maybe they don't care?
It's still more than a little stunning that so many faceless characters remain on the show after they were so quick to rush Brett Dalton off the show (first as Ward, than as Hive). What is the point of Piper or Davis being on the show? This is not meant as an insult to either Briana Venskus or Maximilian Osinski. With heroic efforts, they've brought their vastly underwritten roles to life. But if there are no storylines for Piper or Davis, why are the characters on the show?
Summer shows raise a lot of questions these days and maybe that's not a good thing. Hasn't the American school system conditioned us to put off all heavy thinking until fall?
Again, we're not blaming him nor are we really sure that it's a conscious acting choice. Considering the bad dialogue, indigestion might just be a natural side effect.
THE INBETWEEN offers bad writing galore. In fact, it may be one of the ugliest shows to ever grace summer TV.
Over at ABC, they're offering Poppy Montgomery's new show THE REEF BREAK and it's the perfect summer show. Crime and drama and romance set on the beach. Poppy's a surfer, she's a bit shady, got caught back in the day when she ended up married to Jake and didn't realize he was FBI. She knows the reef, she knows the people, good and bad and in between.
She's playing her role with as much confidence as the sun streaming and pouring down on the beach. She's a complete natural and fits in with her surroundings. Watching her in action brings a smile to the face.
And that's what a summer series should do. It should be the equivalent of a day at the beach, enjoyable and fun.
THE INBETWEEN is neither enjoyable or fun. Watching, you wonder how did this ever get on the air? You can almost hear Richard E. Grant in THE PLAYER saying, "If I'm really honest, this isn't even an American movie."
That would explain how Charlotte Sieling ended up as an executive producer. She's worked on a number of TV shows including the Danish version (the original version) of THE KILLING. THE INBETWEEN is dark and, honestly, hollow. Harriet Dyer -- a name no one ever thought would end up with stardom (and, based on THE INBETWEEN, that's still a good hunch) plays the lead named Cassie Beford. NBC promotional material insists that she "was born with a gift, though she may call it a curse." Oh, the drama!
Cassie's basically the little boy in THE SIXTH SENSE -- she sees dead people. She helps them resolve their problems -- which makes her a little like THE GHOST WHISPERER as well though she lacks Jennifer Love Hewitt's winning personality. Honestly, she lacks personality period.
The show can really be seen as a bad children's water color painting and Harriet's Cassie as the water that the paint brushes were left in before the water was splashed onto the painting causing a dark, blurry muddle.
With three episodes aired thus far (the next episode will air next week), NBC is seeing a steady erosion in the ratings with each episode. This isn't NBC's fault. They're promoting it like it's the return of FRIENDS.
Meanwhile over at ABC, where's the promotion for REEF BREAK? On Friday's MARVEL AGENTS OF SHIELD, they repeatedly aired commercials for the summer soap opera GRAND HOTEL. (GRAND HOTEL does not impress in episode one. Few soap operas do. We plan to review the show but are trying to give it an episode or two to find its footing.) Now if you are someone tuning into MARVEL AGENTS OF SHIELD, we have a few questions.
Our first question: Would you be more likely to watch an action show like REEF BREAK or a soap opera like GRAND HOTEL? Because we'd assume you'd be a better match with REEF BREAK; however, ABC aired no advertisement for REEF BREAK (again, while airing three for GRAND HOTEL). That confused us.
Our second question? Why are you watching the show still?
Last week was another episode of mental masturbation. Nothing happened. This is an action show, right? But we were (yet again) in a simulation of sorts so nothing taking place -- for Fitz and Gemma -- was really taking place.
Does the audience enjoy being jerked around like this? Now that this is a summer show, the episode order has been drastically reduced. Thirteen episodes for this season and thirteen for next. You'd think they wouldn't need to pad out episodes with that short of a season.
Our third question would be: How much do you enjoy being jerked around? Clearly, you must enjoy it some to put with non-action storylines that go nowhere. But we're referring to fan fave Deke, for example. He's barely been on this season. And, of course, the season started with Fitz missing and Gemma and Fitz apart. Isn't that how every season is starting to kick off -- Gemma and Fitz apart? It all gets a bit redundant after awhile.
But back to the characters. Deke's barely on. Gregg Clark's Coulson thankfully died. However, they've kept Clark on the show, now as a bad guy. If Clark was never believable as a team leader, he's even less believable as a bad guy.
But here's the thing: If they can bring him on as a new character, why can't they bring back Bobbi and Lance? It's not Adrianna Palicki's fault that Bobbi was written off and it's not Nick Blood's fault that Lance was written off. The plan was to star the two in a spin-off. But, in the end, ABC took a pass.
When that happens, most show runners say, "Let's bring them back!" And not for a single episode (the way Nick Blood was brought back) but as regular characters.
'B-b-b-but the storyline won't allow it, we wrote them out in such a way --'
Oh, get real. The universe has been created, recreated, destroyed and recreated again on MARVEL AGENTS OF SHIELD. It could easily be reconfigured to allow Bobbie and Lance to return. That is if they care about pleasing the audience. But maybe they don't care?
It's still more than a little stunning that so many faceless characters remain on the show after they were so quick to rush Brett Dalton off the show (first as Ward, than as Hive). What is the point of Piper or Davis being on the show? This is not meant as an insult to either Briana Venskus or Maximilian Osinski. With heroic efforts, they've brought their vastly underwritten roles to life. But if there are no storylines for Piper or Davis, why are the characters on the show?
Summer shows raise a lot of questions these days and maybe that's not a good thing. Hasn't the American school system conditioned us to put off all heavy thinking until fall?
We can't do better than this guy?
Joe Biden.
That's the best we can hope for?
Seriously?
That's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Bad Biden." Every few days, it's another Biden moment where the tone police rush in to insist that this doesn't really matter and look the other way. However, as noted in Monday's "Iraq snapshot:"
Joe's running a play it safe campaign. He thinks that will work in the primaries. And, with so much of the press propping him up, it may work -- in the primaries.
But when it's head to head time with Donald Trump in the general election, Donald's not going to back down. As some idiotic Kos-Kos hisses, "We need to get along!," Donald Trump's not going to say, "Oh, okay, then I won't emphasize this stupid thing that Joe just said."
As history demonstrates, over and over, Joe Biden always says some stupid thing.
His supporters and enablers last week did him no good. Many people were outraged by his statements. Bob can quibble over what the wording was. US House Rep Tulsi can say his rivals are making political hay out of the situation. None of that matters.
What matters is that people had a serious response to this and they were ignored. The candidate dismissed them and so much of the opinion shaping public did. (Which, pay attention, is how you lose the ability to shape opinion.)
Joe Biden already suffered from an enthusiasm gap. Everything that took place last week only ensured that the enthusiasm gap grew.
The message that's shaping up from Campaign Biden is that Joe's not Donald Trump.
Got it.
And We The People got that message in 2016 when Hillary campaigned on not being Donald Trump as well.
The first day of 2016, we looked back at the previous year with "2015: The Year of the Ass." And that piece concluded with:
2015 will lead into 2016. So is it any surprise that, as the year ends, it appears very likely that the two major party candidates who'll be competing next year will be Hillary and Donald Trump?
What else, honestly, what else could The Year of the Ass produce but a match off between each major party's biggest ass?
Right now the tone police are trying to control the conversation from the center-left to the left. They may or may not be able to do that throughout the primaries. Come the general election, however, they won't stand a chance of doing it. The GOP will not look the other way on one of Biden's many gaffes because Kos-Kos whines, "Can't we all just get along!"
As Mike noted in "Go away, Joe," "He destroys everything."
So we're all just going to let him? If the 2020 election matters at all then it's time to hold Joe Biden to real standards because we don't need Crazy Uncle Joe losing it in the general election.
That's the best we can hope for?
Seriously?
That's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Bad Biden." Every few days, it's another Biden moment where the tone police rush in to insist that this doesn't really matter and look the other way. However, as noted in Monday's "Iraq snapshot:"
Joe's running a play it safe campaign. He thinks that will work in the primaries. And, with so much of the press propping him up, it may work -- in the primaries.
But when it's head to head time with Donald Trump in the general election, Donald's not going to back down. As some idiotic Kos-Kos hisses, "We need to get along!," Donald Trump's not going to say, "Oh, okay, then I won't emphasize this stupid thing that Joe just said."
As history demonstrates, over and over, Joe Biden always says some stupid thing.
His supporters and enablers last week did him no good. Many people were outraged by his statements. Bob can quibble over what the wording was. US House Rep Tulsi can say his rivals are making political hay out of the situation. None of that matters.
What matters is that people had a serious response to this and they were ignored. The candidate dismissed them and so much of the opinion shaping public did. (Which, pay attention, is how you lose the ability to shape opinion.)
Joe Biden already suffered from an enthusiasm gap. Everything that took place last week only ensured that the enthusiasm gap grew.
The message that's shaping up from Campaign Biden is that Joe's not Donald Trump.
Got it.
And We The People got that message in 2016 when Hillary campaigned on not being Donald Trump as well.
The first day of 2016, we looked back at the previous year with "2015: The Year of the Ass." And that piece concluded with:
2015 will lead into 2016. So is it any surprise that, as the year ends, it appears very likely that the two major party candidates who'll be competing next year will be Hillary and Donald Trump?
What else, honestly, what else could The Year of the Ass produce but a match off between each major party's biggest ass?
Right now the tone police are trying to control the conversation from the center-left to the left. They may or may not be able to do that throughout the primaries. Come the general election, however, they won't stand a chance of doing it. The GOP will not look the other way on one of Biden's many gaffes because Kos-Kos whines, "Can't we all just get along!"
As Mike noted in "Go away, Joe," "He destroys everything."
So we're all just going to let him? If the 2020 election matters at all then it's time to hold Joe Biden to real standards because we don't need Crazy Uncle Joe losing it in the general election.
- "Joe Biden Doesn’t Look So Electable in Person" by Michelle Goldberg via NYT https://nyti.ms/2Y9VZvV pic.twitter.com/5KjH2fuIaG
Tiny House Living (Dona)
Our house . . . is a very, very tiny house. Okay, not mine. But my younger brother is doing tiny house living. The shows on this type of home insist that this is a movement and it's sweeping the nation.
For my brother, it's a way for him to save on rent. He got very lucky and found one for $23,000. It was used -- but in good condition. And, from the shows, he could have paid between $25,000 to $40,000 for the one he purchased so he got a great deal.
Our folks loaned him the money. So right now, he owes $12,000 (that's what he borrowed from our parents). And he's paying them $750 a month (that's what he was paying in rent). He'll be done with that soon.
He also has bills. For water. For electricity. And because it's a much smaller space, his electric bill is so much smaller. He's saving money all around. (He bought small parcel of land so he's not even renting land.)
But there is the issue of the kitchen. While some tiny homes can have kitchens, full kitchens, not all do. His has a sink, two range burners and a small fridge.
So how is he going to cook beyond that?
Well that's when his sister came to his rescue: InstaPot.
He can do a pot of beans or a 15 bean soup easily with the InstaPot. He also knows how to make rice with the InstaPot. He used the cookbook that came with it to teach himself how to do boiled eggs.
My mother taught him this:
Step-by-Step How to Cook Chicken in the Instant Pot
1.Add 1 cup of water to the 6-quart Instant Pot. Insert the trivet. Add the chicken to the pot. If frozen, make sure the pieces are broken apart and not in a solid mass. (See above for the correct water amount if using a 3-quart or 8-quart Instant Pot.)
2.Season your chicken, if desired. (See blog post below for suggestions.)
3.Set the Instant Pot to cook on high pressure for the number of minutes specified above, depending upon the type of chicken you’re cooking.
4.After the cook time has finished, vent to release any remaining pressure. (If natural release is specified above for the type of chicken you’re cooking, let it natural release for 5 minutes and then vent any remaining pressure).
5.Carefully open the lid and check the chicken’s internal temperature with an instant-read thermometer. The chicken should register 165 degrees F at the thickest part, and the thermometer should not touch the bone. (See below for what to if the chicken isn’t done if your chicken is below 165 degrees F.)
6.Once cool enough to handle, shred or dice as desired. (See the above mixer tip for a quick way to shred.)
If he's doing tacos or a sandwich, he shreds the chicken. Otherwise, he doesn't and it's chicken pieces like they came out of the oven.
He also uses Trina's recipe for black eyed peas in the Instapot.
He says that was the first thing he cooked in the InstaPot all by himself without any help and that he hopes Trina does more Instapot recipes.
The InstaPot can be used in place of the oven and in place of the range with many items -- including desert. Because it is portable, it can also be in a cabinet when not in use freeing up counter space. He really did not think he was going to make it with just those burners. And it was just those burners because as soon as he moved, his microwave died. Jim and I sent him a new one via Amazon (prime, so there the next day) and that helps but he really can do pretty much everything in the InstaPot. If you have a small space and do not have an oven, this really is a life saver.
For my brother, it's a way for him to save on rent. He got very lucky and found one for $23,000. It was used -- but in good condition. And, from the shows, he could have paid between $25,000 to $40,000 for the one he purchased so he got a great deal.
Our folks loaned him the money. So right now, he owes $12,000 (that's what he borrowed from our parents). And he's paying them $750 a month (that's what he was paying in rent). He'll be done with that soon.
He also has bills. For water. For electricity. And because it's a much smaller space, his electric bill is so much smaller. He's saving money all around. (He bought small parcel of land so he's not even renting land.)
But there is the issue of the kitchen. While some tiny homes can have kitchens, full kitchens, not all do. His has a sink, two range burners and a small fridge.
So how is he going to cook beyond that?
Well that's when his sister came to his rescue: InstaPot.
He can do a pot of beans or a 15 bean soup easily with the InstaPot. He also knows how to make rice with the InstaPot. He used the cookbook that came with it to teach himself how to do boiled eggs.
My mother taught him this:
Step-by-Step How to Cook Chicken in the Instant Pot
1.Add 1 cup of water to the 6-quart Instant Pot. Insert the trivet. Add the chicken to the pot. If frozen, make sure the pieces are broken apart and not in a solid mass. (See above for the correct water amount if using a 3-quart or 8-quart Instant Pot.)
2.Season your chicken, if desired. (See blog post below for suggestions.)
3.Set the Instant Pot to cook on high pressure for the number of minutes specified above, depending upon the type of chicken you’re cooking.
4.After the cook time has finished, vent to release any remaining pressure. (If natural release is specified above for the type of chicken you’re cooking, let it natural release for 5 minutes and then vent any remaining pressure).
5.Carefully open the lid and check the chicken’s internal temperature with an instant-read thermometer. The chicken should register 165 degrees F at the thickest part, and the thermometer should not touch the bone. (See below for what to if the chicken isn’t done if your chicken is below 165 degrees F.)
6.Once cool enough to handle, shred or dice as desired. (See the above mixer tip for a quick way to shred.)
If he's doing tacos or a sandwich, he shreds the chicken. Otherwise, he doesn't and it's chicken pieces like they came out of the oven.
He also uses Trina's recipe for black eyed peas in the Instapot.
He says that was the first thing he cooked in the InstaPot all by himself without any help and that he hopes Trina does more Instapot recipes.
The InstaPot can be used in place of the oven and in place of the range with many items -- including desert. Because it is portable, it can also be in a cabinet when not in use freeing up counter space. He really did not think he was going to make it with just those burners. And it was just those burners because as soon as he moved, his microwave died. Jim and I sent him a new one via Amazon (prime, so there the next day) and that helps but he really can do pretty much everything in the InstaPot. If you have a small space and do not have an oven, this really is a life saver.
The 13 best singer-songwriters
Singer-songwriters. What would the world be without them? A lot less musical, that's for sure. We're presenting a bakers' dozen, these are the 13 best singer-songwriters. This is a genre. So someone can write a song and they can sing but that doesn't mean that they are a singer-songwriter. The genre's been known by many other names -- folk-rock, art songs, etc.
The artists first truly emerged in the sixties. They flourished in the 70s. They are still around today. For our focus, we are picking the 13 best from the sixties and seventies. That means Tracy Chapman, Tori Amos, Ben Harper and other artists we love were not eligible for this list.
1) Joni Mitchell
2) Neil Young
3) Carly Simon
4) Laura Nyro
5) Cat Stevens
6) Stevie Wonder
7) Bob Dylan
8) Phil Ochs
9) Melanie
10) Dolly Parton
11) Van Morrison
12) Paul Simon
13) Jackie DeShannon
The artists first truly emerged in the sixties. They flourished in the 70s. They are still around today. For our focus, we are picking the 13 best from the sixties and seventies. That means Tracy Chapman, Tori Amos, Ben Harper and other artists we love were not eligible for this list.
1) Joni Mitchell
2) Neil Young
3) Carly Simon
4) Laura Nyro
5) Cat Stevens
6) Stevie Wonder
7) Bob Dylan
8) Phil Ochs
9) Melanie
10) Dolly Parton
11) Van Morrison
12) Paul Simon
13) Jackie DeShannon
Tweet of the week (Truth)
Margaret Kimberley Retweeted
You never challenged Obama once when his administration expanded drone warfare and escalated military operations in nations surrounding Iran.
Jim's World
So I got tattled on. Did you like that? I never did. I was of the opinion that there was nothing worse, in grade school, than a tattle tale. Now granted, there were no school shootings at my elementary school. So we recently did a feature ("Editorial: No to War on Iran") and, in it, we noted that Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign Twitter feed did not mention Iran going back X days.
And this led to a tattle tale running to C.I. with an e-mail prompting this response from C.I.:
An angry e-mail to the public account notes that Tweet and says THIRD should have included it in "Editorial: No to War on Iran." Should they have?
First, note my use of "they." I didn't help write that editorial. I was one of the reasons Jim included in his note to the readers that there was no piece on Julian Assange. I do not believe Julian should be persecuted. I also don't believe that after working hours and hours on the weekend, we should have to come back on a Monday or a Tuesday or a Wednesday night to finish the edition. I don't want to spend that kind of time. So if there's not a Julian article after we've worked forever, too bad.
Second, as I read the editorial, they are talking about "candidates" for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Yes, Bernie is a candidate. But that Tweets is not from his campaign Twitter feed, it's from his US Senator Twitter feed. They are clear that they are looking at the campaign Twitter feeds. If Bernie's posting on his Senator account, good. But if he's campaigning and he believes in what he's saying, he needs to carry it over to his campaign Twitter feed.
The angry e-mailer also feels that "You have done nothing to promote Bernie!"
I didn't realize it was my job to promote Bernie. Because it's not. He has been mentioned in snapshots. I will make an effort to include the female candidates when possible. But even they don't get as much attention here as I wish they did.
I haven't decided who I will support in the primaries. US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard's campaign comes closest to addressing the issues that matter to me. But I haven't endorsed her. I could easily and gladly vote for the following if they got the nomination: Tulsi, Bernie Sanders, Marianne Williamson, Kirsten Gillibrand, Beto O'Rourke and Mike Gravel. I could vote for a few others running without holding my nose. But I haven't decided who to support and don't know that I need to.
If, for example, Bernie's your candidate of choice, you probably don't want me supporting him. With the exception of John Kerry in 2004, no one I supported in the primary ever got the nomination. Bill Clinton beat Jerry, for example. Mondale wasn't my choice in the 1984 primary. Over and over, my choice never gets the nomination. I'll slide the e-mail over to Jim who -- I'm sure -- will respond to it. (And you can e-mail THIRD via the public account here, we have more people going through the e-mails. But, again, I had no part in that editorial.)
Our e-mail address here is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com and we do check it but you are probably better off e-mailing common_ills@yahoo.com because that account is worked by over ten people a day.
I think C.I. addressed the issues in her response. I'll address an issue she raised: Being very tired of weekends with never-ending writing sessions. Ava and C.I. got back this past weekend around noon Saturday and they were feeling more than a little under the weather having picked up a bug. After three hours of discussion about the edition, they stated they would have their piece written before noon on Monday (today). They were sick to their stomachs.
As it turned out, they did have their piece done by noon (and it's a great piece).
But the delays? I don't know how we address that. I know I'm the biggest part of the problem there. Dona's saying we need more list pieces and more short pieces. She's probably right.
This edition's playlist
1) Mavis Staples' WE GET BY.
2) Judy Garland's ALONE.
3) Elvis Costello's THIS YEAR'S MODEL (DELUXE EDITION).
4) Dionne Warwick's SHE'S BACK.
5) Chaka Khan's HELLO HAPPINESS.
6) Rhiannon Giddens' THERE IS NO OTHER.
7) Sam Smith's THE THRILL OF IT ALL.
8) Janet Jackson's UNBREAKABLE.
9) Ben Harper's CALL IT WHAT IT IS.
10) Cat Powers' WANDERER.
As Alarming Reports Emerge That Trump Administration Is Risking Unnecessary and Unauthorized War with Iran, Gillibrand Sends Urgent Letter to President Trump, Demands That No U.S. Armed Forces Are Sent To War with Iran without an Explicit Congressional Authorization per the Constitution
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's office issued the following:
June 20, 2019
Gillibrand’s
Letter to Trump Comes as Members of Administration and Congress –
Including Advocates of the Iraq War – Are Urging the President to Send
Americans to Fight in a War with Iran; Trump Administration Has Already
Begun Sending More U.S. Troops and Weapon Systems to Gulf Region; Latest
Escalation Follows Increased Nuclear Risks Exacerbated by President
Trump’s Ill-Considered Unilateral Withdrawal from Iran Nuclear
Agreement; Gillibrand: Such a War is Not Authorized, Would Unnecessarily
Risk the Lives of Americans and Our Allies, Cause Enormous Human
Suffering, and Destabilize the Economy
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
today wrote a letter to President Donald J. Trump demanding that he not
send U.S. armed forces into a war with Iran unless authorized by
Congress or proportionate and necessary to counter a direct attack
against the United States. Gillibrand’s urgent call comes after alarming
reports continue to emerge that National Security Advisor John Bolton,
one of the chief advocates of the Iraq War, and others in the Trump
Administration and Congress, are pushing the President to send American
men and women to fight in an unnecessary and unauthorized war with Iran.
“When you were sworn in as President,
you inherited an Iran whose nuclear weapons ambitions were verifiably
constrained for a decade or more by international agreement. You have
shattered the strong coalition aligned against Iran in 2015 that brought
Iran to the negotiating table,” Gillibrand wrote.
“Against the backdrop of your Administration’s historic missteps, your
and your administration’s problematic statements, and military
escalation in the Gulf region, I am very concerned that the nation could
be dragged into a war with Iran under your leadership. Such a war is
not authorized, would unnecessarily risk the lives of Americans and our
allies, cause enormous human suffering, and destabilize the economy. The
country has been here before. The U.S. began the Iraq War based on
inaccurate information from John Bolton and others who claimed Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Eighteen years after going into
Afghanistan, U.S. and allied troops are still there despite your
promise of withdrawal and long after completing their mission. I demand
that you not send U.S. armed forces into hostilities that are
disproportionate and unnecessary to counter a direct attack or not
authorized by Congress through a new AUMF.”
“From all indications, the Trump
administration appears determined to lead us down an escalatory path
towards a devastating, costly and completely avoidable war of choice
with Iran, a country three times the size of Iraq. It’s absolutely vital
that our congressional leaders stand up for America's interests and for
the US Constitution to make it clear that no military action against
Iran can be launched without congressional authorization,” said Dylan J. Williams, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, J Street.
“As we stand on the precipice of war
with Iran, Congress must send a clear warning of the danger, immorality
and illegality of another unnecessary and unauthorized war in the Middle
East. We appreciate Senator Gillibrand’s leadership to do just that,” said Diane Randall, Executive Secretary, FCNL.
In addition to Gillibrand’s demand that
President Trump not send American troops into an unnecessary and
unauthorized war, Gillibrand also called on the Trump Administration to
do the following:
a) Engage the international community in addressing the risks to navigation in the waterways close to Iran;
b) Return the United States to the JCPOA
if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors
continues to certify that Iran is in compliance with the agreement; and
c) Require your administration officials
to be clear that you are not advocating starting another war, which,
this time, would be with an adversary that is better equipped than the
Taliban, Saddam Hussein, or Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
Since taking office, President Trump and
his Administration have repeatedly taken steps to antagonize Iran,
undermine the international coalition that blocked Iran’s ability to
build a nuclear weapon, increase tensions to a dangerous level, and
potentially risk a war with Iran that would endanger American lives and
damage the American economy.
The full text of Senator Gillibrand’s letter is available here and below.
June 20, 2019
The Honorable Donald J. Trump
President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Trump,
As a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, I am deeply concerned that your administration’s stepped up
military presence in the Middle East, in conjunction with your dangerous
and confusing rhetoric, may lead the United States into a protracted,
costly, and unnecessary war with Iran. Such a war is not authorized,
would unnecessarily risk the lives of Americans and our allies, cause
enormous human suffering, and destabilize the economy.
Iran is undoubtedly an adversary that
engages in dangerous behavior and had a largely unrestrained nuclear
program prior to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). But
you must not ignore the Constitution and subvert democracy by waging a
war that does not have the support of the American people, is not
authorized by their representatives, and risks American lives.
When you were sworn in as President, you
inherited an Iran whose nuclear weapons ambitions were verifiably
constrained for a decade or more by international agreement. A diverse
coalition of countries worked together to block Iran’s ability to build a
nuclear weapon and install an intrusive inspection regime.
Unfortunately, in part due to your ill-advised decision to abandon the
JCPOA, Iran is now poised to breach certain limits in the deal by the
end of the month. What is more, our closest allies in Europe --
frustrated by the unilateral, unjustified nature of the withdrawal from
the JCPOA -- have sought to establish measures to work around U.S.
sanctions. You have shattered the strong coalition aligned against Iran
in 2015 that brought Iran to the negotiating table.
Against the backdrop of your
Administration’s historic missteps, your and your administration’s
problematic statements, and military escalation in the Gulf region, I am
deeply concerned that the nation could be dragged into a war with Iran
under your leadership. You have threatened “consequences the likes of
which few throughout history have ever suffered before.” Your national
security advisor, John Bolton, known for being one of the advocates of
the Iraq War, had reportedly ordered the Pentagon to develop an earlier
plan for a 120,000 troop surge in the region. He has also threatened
"unrelenting force" against Iran. These statements, combined with
recent deployments, raise the specter of a miscalculation and
disproportionate response to Iranian aggression that could lead to
another unnecessary war.
The country has been here before. The
U.S. began the Iraq War based on inaccurate information from John Bolton
and others who claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
They were mistaken then, at great cost to the nation. Eighteen years
after going into Afghanistan, U.S. and allied troops are still there,
despite your promise of withdrawal and long after completing their
mission. And now your administration is reportedly considering using the
2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed in response
to the attack on our homeland on 9/11, for a completely unrelated
military action against Iran, which clearly would be outside the scope
and intent of that law.
I demand that you not send U.S. armed
forces into hostilities that are disproportionate and unnecessary to
counter a direct attack or not authorized by Congress through a new
AUMF.
I further urge that rather than embroil the U.S. in another war, you:
a) Engage the international community in addressing the risks to navigation in the waterways close to Iran;
b) Return the United States to the
JCPOA if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of
Governors continues to certify that Iran is in compliance with the
agreement; and
c) Require your administration
officials to be clear that you are not advocating starting another war,
which, this time, would be with an adversary that is better equipped
than the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, or Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Gillibrand
United States Senator