The Third Estate Sunday Review focuses on politics and culture. We're an online magazine. We don't play nice and we don't kiss butt. In the words of Tuesday Weld: "I do not ever want to be a huge star. Do you think I want a success? I refused "Bonnie and Clyde" because I was nursing at the time but also because deep down I knew that it was going to be a huge success. The same was true of "Bob and Carol and Fred and Sue" or whatever it was called. It reeked of success."
We have been discussing the
embarrassing failure of the media to ask President-elect Joe Biden any
difficult questions throughout the campaign and creating a type of
protective journalistic cocoon around him. That pattern has continued
after the election with pre-selected reporters asking laughingly soft
ball questions to Biden while continuing a virtual blackout on such
stories as the Hunter Biden influence peddling controversy. Then
something bizarre happened yesterday. A reporter actually asked Biden a
real question. CBS News reporter Bo Erickson asked Biden about whether
he would support the CDC rather than the teacher’s union on closing
schools. Biden’s response was a personal attack on the reporter. This is
simply not done and will not be tolerated. After all, think of the
chaos: the entire press corps would be expected to ask questions and
Biden would be expected to answer them.
Bo Erickson previously drew a rebuke from Biden
when he asked for a response to the Hunter Biden scandal. He simply
asked ‘Mr. Biden, what is your response to the New York Post story about
your son, sir?’ Biden’s response
was again a personal attack: “I know you’d ask it. I have no response,
it’s another smear campaign, right up your alley, those are the
questions you always ask.”
Biden also blew up at a question that referred by the scandal by a NBC reporter and at a Fox reporter who asked about his son. Those are the only known cases where the cone of silence was violated around Biden . . . until yesterday.
In the United States, losing employment often means losing health
insurance. On top of the 30 million people who are already uninsured, it
is estimated that nearly
15 million people lost their health insurance due to becoming
unemployed as of June. The current number of people without health
insurance is not known, but as Biden takes office, it could surpass the
44 million who were uninsured when Obama took office in 2008.
Biden’s healthcare plan looks like a replay of the health reform
process of 2009-10 when the Democrats effectively divided the movement
in support of national improved Medicare for all and pushed through the
so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA), which passed without Republican
support. Health insurance and pharmaceutical corporate profits have
soared since then while people struggle to afford healthcare.
In a time of the COVID-19 pandemic when over 250,000 people have already died and the University of Washington predicts over
500,000 deaths by the end of February, we cannot allow a repeat of the
failed ACA. It is unconscionable to create anything less than a
universal single payer healthcare system.
How bad do they want war? The War Hawks want it so badly that they freak out over the prospect of 500 US troops leaving Iraq. That's all it is: 500. For Afghanistan, US President Donald Trump is proposing removing 2,500.
Everybody wants to talk about cancel culture lately but no one wants to recognize the mother of this movement, Olivia Newton-John.
Yes, we're being facetious, but bear with us. It was Olivia who, in 1975's "Please, Mr., Please," tried to ban a song because "It was our song, it was his song, but it's over." From there, it's just a short skip or two in order to arrive at: Fire them!
People lose jobs or they're threatened with losing a job. It's gotten so bad that, as legal scholar Jonathan Turley has pointed out, they're even attempting to prevent any attorney working for Donald Trump's current campaign from being employed ever again. There are dangerous people like CNNs Asha Rangappa who run around doxing students and trying to get Jonathan Turley and others fired. That's the mind-set of so many: I don't agree with you so you should be fired.
It's interesting because last week saw Whitney Cummings speak about cancel culture to THE DAILY BEAST. Whitney starred in the sitcom WHITNEY, among other things, and we were among the few who praised that show -- during the first season. (See "TV: The perverts still drool over Shirley Temple" from 2011.) Season two was a disaster but that's another story. But there she was bemoaning this man or that man being cancelled. This is a woman, please note, who has seen two friends cancelled this past summer over assault. And there she was defending men.
She's denied knowing of either man's history. Although more than one victim points out that they were around Whitney during some of this. But she denies it. She defends them. She wants us to understand.
And you know what, we can get behind that. If it was ever sincere.
But it's not sincere.
Roseanne Barr suffered. No one has suffered from cancel culture the way Roseanne has. And Whitney can't defend her other than to insist she doesn't think Roseanne always means what she Tweets and that Roseanne's "a contrarian."
Roseanne Tweeted what she thought was a joke. It was mean spirited. It wasn't racist. Roseanne didn't know Valerie Jarrett was African-American -- like many, she assumed that, being born in Iran, Valerie was Persian. She Tweeted that Valerie was what happens if the "Muslim Brotherhood and PLANET OF THE APES had a baby." When some people immediately called it racist, Roseanne lectured back that "Muslim is not a race." She did that because she didn't realize Valerie was African-American.
She then went into silent mode because ABC asked her to -- a big mistake. Entertainers need to learn not to ever do that. April Oliver (CNN) and Mary Mapes (CBS) are two people who made that mistake before. They were in the news departments of their networks. Their networks betrayed them. Roseanne was lied to -- she was told by ABC executives that they needed her to be silent and that they would handle it. Roseanne offered to apologize. She offered to do a sit-down interview on GOOD MORNING AMERICA. She was willing to do anything to address the issue.
ABC pretended that they were addressing it but they were stabbing her in the back. On THE JIMMY DORE SHOW last week, journalist Glenn Greenwald explained to Jimmy Dore that Betsy Reed and others at THE INTERCEPT were too busy focusing on what their friends at THE NEW YORK TIMES and elsewhere thought and not enough time on doing journalism, that Betsy Reed needed to be liked by her peers in the industry and that she would kill stories -- such as his column about Hunter Biden's laptop -- because of that.
The same is true of the entertainment industry. ABC had a huge hit -- like they hadn't seen in years, like no network had seen in years -- with the ROSEANNE reboot. The stockholders were thrilled but certain people in power weren't. A lot of people were attacking the show. They lied to Roseanne and stabbed her in the back. Then things got really bad. Knowing Roseanne was a Socialist and pro-worker, they then began saying that she had put people out of work -- by cancelling her own hit show? -- and that if she'd signed a waiver, giving away her rights to characters she created, the show could stay on the air and crew members could keep their jobs. If she didn't do that, many would be unemployed because hiring had already taken place for fall shows and it was too late for the crew of ROSEANNE to find new TV series jobs.
Roseanne did what was best for the workers. In doing so, she was stripped of her right to profit from her own writing, from her own creation. Make no mistake, that show was her life. From the first episode ever broadcast, that show was based on her life. And now she wasn't to profit from it.
Whitney loves to pretend in interviews that she's all against cancel culture but it really appears that she's just against her male friends -- who abuse, assault and rape women -- excuse us, girls and women -- being held accountable.
If she truly was against cancel culture, she'd be defending Roseanne.
Roseanne's not a racist. We've said it before and we'll continue saying it. We know her. She was an idiot for believing ABC would have her back but we've all done stupid things.
Her Tweet was coming from someone who is strongly pro-Israel, someone who believes that Israel is under attack from many countries and persons around the world. We don't see what she sees and we're huge supporters of the Palestinian people. But we do understand where she's coming from.
She's also a Donald Trump supporter and we disagree with her on that. But it's okay. Life doesn't end because we don't support the same politician as you. She sees Donald as someone who disrupts the status quo -- he does do that, she is correct -- and as a defender of children -- she points to various moves by the Justice Dept against pedophiles. She also likes that he is seen as a friend to the current government of Israel. Roseanne is entitled to her opinion. She's entitled to express those -- and any other -- opinions if she so desires. And we can agree or disagree and the world keeps turning.
What we've just noted? Whitney Cummings knows this too but she won't tell you that.
She won't say it. She will make a lot of comments we can agree with but she won't defend Roseanne and, frankly, she won't defend any woman. But her two male friends and any other man? She'll rush forward to defend them.
Truth be known, we were only bothered by one issue in the ROSEANNE reboot and that was the issue of undocumented immigrants. We weren't bothered that Dan was struggling with the issue. We were more than willing to see how that would play out in the next season and where it would go. But we did cringe, watching Dan refer to "illegal aliens" in an episode. That bothered us watching the episode.
Before the show premiered in 2018, Cummings said in an interview
that she sometimes felt like she had to be the “PC police” in the
writers room. “Ugh, that makes me hate myself,” she tells me a year
later. “It was more that we just really had to be careful in terms of
depicting how this family and these characters would actually talk and
actually behave. And if we were going to be offensive, it was for the
right reasons and on purpose.” She cites as one example a “big argument”
they had over whether John Goodman’s character Dan should use the term
“undocumented workers” or “illegals.”
“In the privacy of his kitchen, with his wife, sixtysomething years old,
he probably would not say ‘undocumented workers,’” she explains. “But
‘illegals’ is not the PC term. It’s a tough one. And people got angry on
the crew.” Cummings ended up having to defend the reality of the scene
against the objections of those who found the term offensive. She says
it was up to them to “get it right so we know how the characters get it
wrong.”
Would Dan use that term? Maybe Whitney was right and he would. But are we the only ones seeing problems in her explanation? He'd say that "in the privacy of his kitchen, with his wife"? Isn't she saying Dan's racist? That's how we interpret that remark. Dan wouldn't use it openly but in the privacy of his kitchen he will? How else do you interpret Whitney's explanation?
Overall, though, we applaud Whitney's efforts and the efforts of Rosanne and everyone involved in the season ten reboot. It was a good show and that's why people watched -- why so many people watched. It's funny how, before the Tweet, a few TV critics were finally getting honest about it.
Season ten now airs on COZI and it's a hit with viewers. It speaks for itself.
Donald Trump is most likely gone from the White House by the middle of January. Can we finally get honest about Roseanne?
Louis CK, who is addressed in her latest conversation with THE DAILY BEAST, lost a job. Just like Roseanne, he lost a job. He lost his TV show. His film also got shelved. But that film and that TV show? He hasn't had to sign the rights to the characters over to anyone else. ABC didn't just fire Roseanne, they stole her creation from her.
Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti host the series RISING. They often speak out against cancel culture. Last week, Krystal spoke out against "identity politics."
For those who don't know, Kamala Harris is Black (via her father) and Asian (via her mother). She's bi-racial. Krystal insisted that Kamala did nothing to help Joe Biden get votes and that this demonstrated that identity politics is wrong.
There are so many problems with Krystal's argument.
First off, Kamala being bi-racial? Isn't it a bit short-sighted -- possibly even racist -- for Krystal to assume that Kamala's racial status would only appeal to African-Americans? There are a number of people -- including Asians, Anglo Whites, bi-racial people, etc -- who might have voted for the Biden-Harris ticket due to Kamala being on it.
Why does Krystal just think it was an appeal to African-Americans?
Second, how do you know that she didn't bring votes -- African-American votes or other votes -- to the ticket? You're talking about a man, Joe Biden, who many see as racist, as a longterm racist. How do you know his votes wouldn't have been much lower without Kamala on the ticket? You don't. There is no data on that. So Krystal's argument can't be demonstrated at present but didn't she think she was making some sort of a point.
Was her point to attack men of color and all women?
Generally, that's what the cry of "identity politics'' has been used for.
Now we don't expect Krystal to know the history of that term. But it arises from the student left of the sixties. Women, for example, start noting that whether it's student liberation, Black Power, or what, women are time and time again not included. The norm is "male" -- that is the default setting.
Which is why the feminist movement takes off among young women in the late sixties and early seventies. Betty Friedan's unsatisfied home makers are not the ones fueling the movement. It's the women decrying racism, decrying war, decrying campus oppression, etc, it's those women fueling the Second Wave.
Marlo Thomas has spoken often of the breakthroughs that were made by the Second Wave including the recognition of domestic abuse -- what we now call terrorism and wish others would as well, that is terrorism. Equally true, the work of Susan Brownmiller and many other Second Wave feminists are responsible for raising awareness on rape. A lot of work is still needed, obviously -- look how Tara Reade was treated this year.
In fact, that shows what Ellen Willis and so many other women railed against. Yet again, liberals have betrayed women. Rape is not important enough, some 'feminists' insisted, to be reason not to vote for Joe Biden.
That's a lesson we want to teach? That women and girls can be sacrificed?
Krystal is a woman who co-hosts a program that, each week, fails to bring on an equal number of women as guests. So maybe she's the last to lecture about ''identity politics"?
Equally true, it's not smart politics to put a woman of color on the ticket with a racist Anglo White man, according to Krystal. It's "identity politics.'"
What an incredibly ahistorical call.
To give George H.W. Bush 'youth' (and, they said, to attract women voters), Dan Quayle was added to the GOP's 1988 presidential ticket. Was that "identity politics"? To balance the inexperience of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, Joe Biden and Dick Cheney were added to the tickets. Was that "identity politics"? Is Krystal aware that, back in 1992, some complained that the Democratic Party was making a huge mistake with the Bill Clinton and Al Gore ticket? That the complaint was both were from the south so there was no balance on the ticket? More typical was the 1988 Democratic Party presidential ticket where northerner Michael Dukakis was 'balanced' out with southern Lloyd Bentsen.
Is Krystal aware of any of that?
Why is it when people of color and/or women are used to balance a ticket, it's suddenly "identity politics"?
Cancel culture is about exclusion. It's saying that the public square can't take a free fight. It's saying that we can't defend our own opinions and beliefs so we need to silence others.
We don't agree with that. But we also don't agree with exclusion based on gender, race or sexual orientation. Most of the people who rail against cancel culture can't say the same.
J.K. Rowling keeps getting into trouble for her remarks about transgender persons. Now John Cleese has stepped into it with remarks that attack the trans community. He thought he was being clever but he wasn't. The problem with hiring non-trans performers for trans roles or, look at Sia's new project, non-autistic people for autistic roles? What roles are these actors going to play?
These are roles about their lives, their lived experiences. If they're shut out of these roles, what roles are they allowed?
We've called out LOVE, VICTOR. It's a dull and soggy HULU TV show but what's even worse is that they've cast an adult actor in the lead role and he's not gay -- or, if he is gay, he's not out of the closet. Why is that a problem? Their promotional material and the whole point of the TV show is that it's okay to be gay. We believe it is okay to be gay, to be a lesbian, to be transgender, to be bi, etc. But if the people behind LOVE, VICTOR believe it, why have they case a gay role with a straight actor?
Now what we just stated in the previous paragraph? E-mails will come in. They always do. "Ava and C.I., you didn't say straight was okay! You didn't say being straight was okay!" No, we didn't.
Nor do we have to. See, for centuries, the dominant cultural message has been that it's okay to be straight. No one needs reassuring of that. It's like when people whine that saying "Black Lives Matter" is saying that other lives don't. No, that's not what it's saying. "Black Lives Matter" is a needed cry in a world that has long maintained that White lives matter. "Black Lives Matter" is a slogan about inclusion about expansion.
And we believe in expansion and inclusion. That's how democracy remains vibrant, that's how societies grow. We debate in the public square. We make our argument, you make your argument, we hopefully find common ground.
We believe in free speech. A number of people today apparently do not agree with that. Say something someone disagrees with and you can be cancelled. Your entire life, your entire work will be disappeared.
We don't support that. We've been here for 15 years and counting and we've never praised the awful Bill Maher who we think is a sexist and a racist. We've called him out over and over. But, please note, we've said HBO needs to bring on other voices (they especially need to find a female host), we've never said, "Fire Bill Maher!"
We want more voices. That is always our cry.
But we don't get more voices and that's what's really sad.
Take that hideous 'gift' to women from TCM. TCM's airing WOMEN MAKE FILM -- a dull and boring, superficial look at the role of women in film. And we're supposed to be thrilled. Why? Fourteen hours 'dedicated' to women. Oh, honey, did we 'win' the vote?
We certainly didn't win anything with a documentary entitled WOMEN MAKE FILM when the documentary is directed . . . by a man.
Maybe it should have been titled WOMEN MAKE FILM BUT NOT THIS ONE?
Why is TCM unable to air a documentary made by a woman about women making film? There are plenty of them around and they don't have the smarmy feel that Mark Cousin's documentary does. For example, Rosanna Arquette's SEARCHING FOR DEBRA WINGER from 2002 makes stronger points and does so in far less running time. There's Janis Cole and Holly Dale's 1988 documentary CALLING THE SHOTS, Amy Adrion's HALF THE PICTURE and there's Ursula Macfarlane's UNTOUCHABLE about the way the industry made nice with Harvey Weinstein for years while he used his power in the industry to harass, assault and rape women. Those are just four documentaries -- made by women about women in the film industry. And instead of giving women a voice, TCM is wasting fourteen hours with a project about women filmmakers as seen by a male director.
Again, we argue for inclusion. Over and over, that's what we call for. Actually, that's what we demand. And maybe that's the problem? That we think we have a right to demand? Men always think they have that right, after all. But women? We tend to ask and tend to do so nicely. After all, when Olivia issued her call for cancel culture all those years ago, she didn't demand, she begged, and she used "please" repeatedly -- "Please, mister, please . . ."
Jim (Con't): So it's November 22nd and the president is still not declared. Any thoughts?
Wally: I believe C.I. has repeatedly noted that the electoral college meets on December 14th -- that's when the issue will be decided. I think the country can wait, we can all wait.
Jim: So anyone disagree?
Marcia: No. With Wally. Count votes. Be transparent. End it by following the process.
Jim: What about the press conference last week?
Rebecca: What about it? No media outlet covered it seriously. It became a joke about hair dye dripping down someone's face. The accusations themselves? Like something out of a SCANDAL episode -- in fact, like what the whole Fitzgerald Grant presidency turned on in that show. But that doesn't mean it's not accurate. I have no idea. There was no proof offered.
Jess: And while claims are made at press conferences, we expect evidence in court. And I do think the press -- including Tucker Carlson in that assessment. In the end, we may have nothing but claims. But that's what happens with press conferences.
Rebecca: And that's a good point. But in terms of the public opinion, you do need to present some sort of case in a press conference, some sort of supporting evidence, if you have it. I'm not trying to argue the law with you, Jess, you're an attorney, I'm not. But public relations was my field and that press conference never should have been held from a p.r. stand point. You're making what maybe truthful claims -- let's say, for the sake of argument, that they were. Even if they were truthful claims, you have to know that the bulk of the country is going to, at the very least, scratch their heads. And you have to know that those opposed to you -- a large number of people -- are waiting to ridicule you. That was amateur hour and a p.r. embarrassment. I'm not referring to legalities or to the truth of the claims, I'm saying everyone should have known, going in, the potential pitfalls but there is no indication that anyone did. The press conference had an impact. As C.I. said in Polly's Brew, it spooked the public and some of the people willing to wait for the process to carry out changed their minds as a result. It was a nightmare.
Trina: True or false, the claims came off as crazy talk -- the media coverage encouraged that. And I'm just not in the mood. I'm already having to still endure the crazy talk from WSWS. I assume it will continue until Donald Trump concedes.
Jim: Alright. From one fool to another, Nancy Pelosi. She's going to continue as Speaker of the House.
Cedric: And we're all going to suffer. How many times is she allowed to fail before the party says enough? She's not a leader.
Kat: Even in her better days, she was not a leader. In 2007, she couldn't handle a basic press conference. I watched as Steny Hoyer talked over her and then Rahm Emanuel had to rescue the press conference. She's unable to speak well. She's unable to fight successfully. She is someone who needs to go into retirement.
Betty: Can I jump in? C.I. did a great piece talking about an earlier Speaker ("The American people suffer, the Iraqi people suffer, who is the US Congress serving?") I don't know why the party pretends Nancy accomplishes anything unless it's that the party doesn't want to accomplish anything and is perfectly fine with doing nothing to help the American people in the midst of a pandemic.
Kat: I think that's what they want, collectively, they're fine with it. The could buck her, they could come up with legislation and demand a vote. They don't. At the end of the day, they're okay with doing nothing. Their passive/aggressive nature is responsible for a lot of suffering.
Betty: I wish I could say you were wrong but their actions back you up.
Jim: Any other observations about the elections?
Stan: I'm surprised that Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee only got 1% of the vote nationally.
Ann: The Green Party, my party, did even worse. Apparently, pandemic combined with fear mongering does not lead many to consider third party options.
Ruth: They are correct. To many people opposed to cancel culture do not also fight for inclusion. "Identity politics" is a very easy word to hide behind when you're not working for inclusion.
Isaiah: Agreed. And some are complaining that, for example, Joe Biden's team can 'only' find diversity on Wall Street. Of course, that's not true. But what is true is that, especially with regards to women, RISING, et al are not doing their part to elevate women.
Elaine: For example, when's the last time Margaret Kimberley was on RISING? Has she ever been invited on that program? Has Katie Halper ever had her on? I don't think so. It's a circle jerk and it's mainly men. There are so many people of color, so many women, so many LGBTQ persons who are never invited on. But these same programs want to hiss 'identity politics!'
Marcia: If they practiced inclusion, things would be different. It's on them.
Jim: Okay, with that we are winding down. This has been a rush transcript. E-mail us at thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com or common_ills@yahoo.com. Thank you.
The Biden folks are taking positions almost indistinguishable from Trump's strategy on covid. Let's see if press recognizes, but even more importantly, comments on that.
Last week, the edition consisted solely of Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Looking back" -- why?
We weren't done by Wednesday with anything else. Ava and C.I. had their piece finished early Sunday and they weren't in the mood to continue to wait day after day. It does make sense.
Were the rest of us thrilled?
Dona, Ty and Jess knew this was going to happen. I denied that it was going to happen and planned for us to regroup again. People are tired of regrouping.
Ava and C.I. are tired of working hard on a piece and having it wait and wait and having to hear about it in e-mails from community members who are complaining and having what they wrote that would have been fresh on Sunday grow stale as the week goes on.
I get it.
We're going to try to get it together and get our stuff up a lot sonner. Try.
#TaraReade, the woman who accused #JoeBiden of sexually assaulting her back in 1993 when she worked in his state Senate office, speaks to RT’s #PollyBoiko. Tara recounts the trauma of what she says happened in that Senate corridor, the mainstream media’s initial refusal to talk about her story, and the subsequent attacks against her.
Tara’s written a memoir called ‘Left Out: When The Truth Doesn’t Fit In’.
http://tarareadeauthor.com/https://twitter.com/ReadeAlexandrahttps://twitter.com/tarareadetruth/st...
E-book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M6BL66G?...
Hardcover preorder: https://tarareadeauthor.com
Facebook: https://facebook.com/TaraReadeAuthor
Instagram: https://instagram.com/tarareadeauthor/02:41 “It started off as him wanting me to serve drinks because he liked my legs and thought I was pretty”
03:47 “It was shocking to be objectified”
04:18 Image of ‘Grandpa Joe’ versus 1993 alpha male
05:15 Democratic party back then versus Democratic party now
6:40 The gym bag incident
6:55 “I said no and rejected someone who does not like rejection:”
7:45 The alleged assault
8:00 Biden: “Come on man, I heard you liked me”
8:25 Bad temper
8:51 He said “you’re ok, you’re ok”
09:11 “I complained: Not about the assault, but about the harassment:”
10:06 What happened to the complaint Reade made about Biden?
10:55 Tara talks about telling her mum, brother and friend about the assault at the time
11:33 “The police were there to protect the senators, not staff”
12:04 Biden was working on the Violence Against Women Act at the time!
13:00 The wolf in sheep’s clothing
13:33 Was Joe Biden.. handsy back then?
14:00 Biden’s lack of boundaries
14:40 “He felt privileged and protected enough to do what he wanted to do”
15:22 Why has Tara’s story come out in stages?
15:30 Why didn’t Reade come out with this when Biden was VP?
15:55 “My daughter was young and I was worried for our lives”
16:55 Lucy Flores’ claim about Biden
17:13 “I had a paper trail about sexual harassment and I thought I could come forward”
17:51 Time’s Up
18:06 SKD Knickerbocker
19:00 Why Time’s Up couldn’t help
20:00 Have female celebs reached out to Tara?
20:50 Rose McGowan’s support for Tara
22:46 John Cusak and Susan Sarandon’s fairweather support
24:00 Was Reade collateral in the drive to get rid of Donald Trump?
25:00 The personal toll of coming forward
26:40 Kamala Harris
27:28 Was Tara’s sexual assault claim made in an attempt to make Bernie Sanders the Democratic nominee?
28:00 The podcast with Katy Halpern
31:33 Hilary Rosen
32:16 The PR machine against Reade
32:30 Russian agent accusations
33:00 The NYT story about Tara
34:29 Those blog posts about Russia
36:00 Reade’s qualifications: accusations that she lied under oath as an expert witness in trials
37:40 “I didn’t have obvious issues - substance abuse or a criminal record”
38:30 Tara’s mum and that Larry King phone-in
41:01 They say my story’s changed but theirs has changed more
41:36 How Reade left the Biden office after alleged assault
42:18 Within days after of filing the sexual harassment report, she was sidelined
43:00 Did Biden interact with Reade after the alleged corridor incident?
43:26 “He looked straight ahead as if I wasn’t there”
43:55 Biden and shoulder rubs
44:16 “He’s a predator”
44:40 Was Reade a sacrificial lamb?
46:55 “I was politicized and weaponized but I chose to write my book to tell my story”
47:20 “I want a reckoning”
47:50 What happens now that Biden’s president?
48:30 Burisma, Greenwald
48:52 Hunter Biden
49:45 “I was part of the cult of the Democrat party”
50:22 “We need to look at other countries as allies but I’m scared that we’ll end up with another regime war”
51:10 Physical abuse at the hands of her father
51:40 “I didn’t know my boundaries because of the trauma”
52:42 “I think Biden was used to consensual encounters”
53:51 Does Reade regret coming forward?
54:16 “It’s slowly dying, to keep a secret like that”
55:33 Reade’s daughter
56:00 Who did Reade vote for
56:40 What would 2020 Tara say to 1993 Tara?
1:00:00 Reade on her book
Subscribe to RT! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpwv...
RT LIVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFAcq...
Check out http://rt.com
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on VK https://vk.com/rt_international
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt
Follow us on Soundcloud https://soundcloud.com/rttv#RT (Russia Today) is a global #news network broadcasting from Moscow, London, Paris and Washington studios to over 100 countries. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
Craig Gordon speaks with author and activist, Margaret Kimberley, about her new book: "Prejudential - Black America and the Presidents"
“This book is an effort to shed light on the truth. . . . To the extent that our leaders embody aspects of who we are as a people, studying how each president has participated in our nation’s complicated and often shameful treatment of black people is as good a place as any to start.”
— Margaret Kimberley from the Preface
Buy the book here https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...
Craig Gordon's new photo-documentary "Pandemic: the unmasking of America" pays witness to the dystopia revealed by the pandemic, and how the indignities of poverty and poor nutrition are spread between the New York City and rural upstate New York.
Learn more here: https://PandemicTheBook.com
DOUBLE YOUR IMPACT:We've just gotten the exciting news that a generous donor has pledged tomatch 20 donations of $500—if we raise $10,000 by Thanksgiving!This challenge grant will allow us to report on the damaging actions by the outgoing Trump administration during the lame duck period—but we need your help to make it to $10,000.
Dear Common Ills,
Though we have much to celebrate – including the election of Kamala Harris, the first woman and first Black and South Asian vice president – we also have no time to waste. Our opponents will use the lame duck period—the time between now and when the new President is inaugurated, and a new Congress convenes—to do as much damage as they can.
We want you to know that theMs.team has already hit the ground running in this critically important post-election period. We’ve moved swiftly on the digging, reporting and story assignments to prepare for what could—in all likelihood—be the most challenging and dangerous “lame duck” period for women and for equality in our nation’s history.
AsMs. writer Carrie Baker reported on theMs.website:
"With two months left in office, Trump is attempting to hobble the next administration by making it difficult for Biden and Harris to reverse some of Trump’s most harmful policies.
The Trump administration is rushing through last-minute regulations and signing contracts with Republican governors designed to prevent the incoming administration from restoring civil rights protections and expanding health care access...
Activists are organizing to block these new regulations, and if they are adopted they will surely be challenged in court. But legal challenges would take time…” (Read the full articlehere.)
Reporting on this critical post-election period, and in the early weeks of the new administration, is a herculean task.And we’re up to it.In fact, we can do no less because so much is at stake for women and for equality.
Frankly, we had no choice but to start this fund. Why? Because immediately after Joe Biden won the White House, we have seen that the defeated, reactionary Trump administration, on their way out of town, is doing all it can to turn back the clock on women’s rights and equality.
They are also attacking our democracy itself. Unlike every candidate in our nation’s history regardless of political party who lost the presidential election, Trump has refused to acknowledge his loss. He and many Republicans are instead sowing seeds of unrest and touting conspiracy theories. Trump has refused to allow departments and agencies to begin the transition process, and he is appointing right-wing ideologues to civilian positions that make it very difficult for President-elect Biden to remove them.
We must get ready right now.We must make sure you and our other readers get full, updated information each day online and in our daily newsletter, each week in our weekly digest and, of course, in our print edition and popular podcast,On The Issues with Michele Goodwin.
With your support, we’ll quickly alert our readers to the threats and opportunities during the lame duck period between now and when President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris are inaugurated and a new Congress is convened in January.
What’s more, we know there will be victories to celebrate in the days ahead. We’ll tell you about the massive turnout of women voters and the decisive role of the gender gap in the election outcome.
In short,togetherwomen made one hell of a winning difference.
This is why we’ve rushed to set up thespecialMs.Emergency Reporting Fund,and why I’m urging your immediate help with whatever size contribution you can make.
Although feminists can claim victories today, we don’t have a moment to lose in taking the critical next step and preparing for the Lame Duck Congress: whether it’s the Trump Administration’s continued attacks on Title IX aimed at gutting protections against sex discrimination and sexual assault and sexual harassment… or the Administration’s continued efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act… or Trump’s attack on the legitimacy of the election.
What every reporter, editor and digital expert here atMs. absolutely agrees on about this election is that there is much work to be done during the lame duck period as we prepare to move forward in 2021.
Our drive for guaranteeing equality starts with being as fully prepared and informed as possible. So, before you do anything else, please let us know you’lljoin with us in launchingMs.Emergency Reporting Fund.
