Third Estate Sunday Review

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."

Monday, December 05, 2022

Truest statement of the week

But Thomas, who has long played fast and loose with recusal laws, has finally gone too far. The issue came to a head last month, when the Supreme Court refused to block the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol from obtaining Arizona GOP Chair Kelli Ward’s phone records. In January 2021, Ward had orchestrated an alternative slate of electors (which included herself) in an effort to subvert the election of Joe Biden as president. Thomas participated in the court’s decision, casting a dissenting vote, even though his wife was intimately involved in these events.

Chances are you heard nothing about this. That’s because the decision was part of the court’s “shadow docket”—orders issued without hearing or written decision—and so it garnered little public attention.

But it should have, because Thomas’ participation in the case was a flagrant violation of the federal law requiring recusal from cases in which it is “known by the judge” that his spouse “ha[s] an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome.” His vote also transgressed that statute’s broader provision requiring disqualification in “any proceeding in which [a judge’s] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Ginni Thomas’ connection to the case is not in question. She has actively tried to overturn Biden’s election in Arizona and other states. In December 2020, Ginni Thomas sent letters to 29 Arizona lawmakers urging them to “fight back against fraud” and select a “clean slate of Electors” after Biden won the election. She also sent numerous text messages to President Trump’s chief of staff demanding he overturn the election, and attended the rally on the Ellipse on Jan. 6, though she left before the attack on the Capitol. This past September, the Jan. 6 committee subpoenaed and interviewed Ginni Thomas, and she repeated then her unfounded belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Without question, Ginni Thomas has an “interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome” of the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena of Ward’s phone records. Also, without question, Justice Thomas knew it when he cast his dissenting vote to bar disclosure.

-- Amanda Frost, "Clarence Thomas Keeps Undermining the Court. The Other Justices Could Stop Him" (SLATE).

A note to our readers

Hey --

Monday night.

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 K itchen,

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?

Peace,

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

Editorial: Pack the Court to save the Court

The Supreme Court is illegitimate.

That became reality when 50 years of settled law was overturned by the extremists who wanted to do away with ROE V WADE.

If we do not respect precedent, we are not a nation of laws.

Various members of the Court insisted to the US Senate in their confirmation hearings that they respected precedent, that settled law was settled law.

We now know this was either a lie or some great doofus has visited the Justices and converted their beliefs.

Regardless, it's time to, yes, pack the Court.

We've never supported it before. We even thought it was an over-reach when FDR tried it. But this is different and it goes beyond one case.

They have made clear, the illegitimate extremists, that they do not respect settled law and that they want to overturn various laws and make America something other than what the citizens want.

Their disrespect for precedent demands that the Court be immediately expanded and that justices be nominated who will stand by stare decisis.

This is what our entire system is built upon. Clearly, Clarence Thomas doesn't grasp that. He also wants to overturn marriage equality and various reproductive rights. He made that clear in his concurring opinion in DOBBS. If he's not going to be impeached for that (he should be), the least extreme measure is to provide new members on the court who will uphold the law.

It's time to pack the Court. Either that or you have to impeach the people who lied to the Court during their nominations.

TV: Where the similarities end

"But you'll will have no problem with SR.," a male friend insisted.

And he's right. We don't have a problem with SR.

We hadn't planned to write about it because we know Robert Downey Jr. and he's a friend. SR. is his NETFLIX documentary about his late father, the filmmaker Robert Downey Sr. who passed away last year. It's a moving story and riveting and we loved everything about it -- including Sean Hayes playing Billy Joel's "My Life" on piano.

It's everything a documentary about an artist should be.

PELOSI IN THE HOUSE though?

It's not the same thing. Our friend heard us talking about how HBO should never have commissioned the documentary to begin with.

Why, he wanted to know, if Robert Jr. could do a documentary about his father and his father's art, what was wrong with Alexandra Pelosi doing the same regarding her mother?

There's so much to unpack there.

The similarities are that Robert and Alexandra are approximately the same age (she's five years younger). They are both the children of pioneers. But Robert Sr. worked in entertainment and Nancy Pelosi, of course, is a politician.

A child of an artist making a documentary about their parent? We expect less. We expect the career to be covered and we expect a behind the scenes look at the artist.

A politician? If we're watching a documentary on a politician, we want to see them held accountable.

PELOSI IN THE HOUSE? We don't see accountability there because Nancy's never been held accountable. She blackmailed her way into party leadership (with the use of photos of drinking -- underage drinking -- at the campaign headquarters of one of the politicians who wanted to be the Minority Leader in 2002) and, unlike previous Speakers of the House, when she failed, she refused to step aside. In the 2010 mid-terms, tradition and custom dictated that she step aside. She refused.

She was never held accountable.

And now her daughter's going to get to spread further gloss and fluff?

America wanted Medicare For All. Congress won't deliver. Is the documentary going to delve into that?

Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House following the 2006 mid-terms. She was Speaker when then-Senator President Barack Obama, seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, promised that, if elected president, his first act would be to codify ROE V WADE into law to protect abortion rights. He got elected to one term. He got elected to a second term. He never made a move to make ROE law and Nancy, as the head of the House of Representatives, never pushed on it, never introduced legislation on it.

She'll be applauded in her daughter's documentary for being a first -- a woman Speaker of the House -- but she won't be held accountable for ROE being overturned when she was Speaker.

Again, Medicare For All is something she won't support. And in 2009, she didn't support the public option -- the thing that was supposed to make Barack's gift to the insurance companies palatable.

Time and again, she's failed.

"She raises money!"

Yes, Nancy's been a good whore. She's raised a lot of cash, worked a lot of rooms.

Her daughter has no career except the crumbs people have tossed her because she's Nancy's daughter. She is a lousy filmmaker. She lacks a visual sense and nothing she produces makes up for it because all she produces is fluff.

If a real documentary film maker covered Bully Boy Bush's 2000 campaign, they would have emerged with a riveting film. Instead, Alexandra produced the puff piece JOURNEYS WITH GEORGE.

"It won an Emmy!"

"It" didn't. Aaron Lubarsky did. He won an Emmy for editing JOURNEYS WITH GEORGE.

13 'documentary' 'films' have followed for Alexandra. Still no Emmy for Alexandra.

It's because she directs garbage. And, yes, we do include her omission of the dead Mossad porn actor's affair with one of the subjects of one of her documentaries -- no, we're not confused about the 'poet,' most people knew about the 'poet' having an affair with that man, it was the porn actor that they didn't know about -- two from Mossad on one US politician, that's be an amazing story for a documentary to explore. Needless to say, Alexandra wasn't up for it.

She's never up for anything except recording shallow observations and meaningless moments and insisting that makes a documentary.

"It's true!" she insists.

"It's boring," we shrug back with unconcealed yawns.

If Alexandra were doing a documentary entitled MY MOM, we'd quibble with HBO for wasting money on the nonsense but that would be it.

When they present Alexandra's nonsense as a documentary and a statement and political and blah blah blah?

It reminds of how useless Alexandra is and how, once upon a time, gals like her pretended to be photographers. They couldn't work as photographers so they took photos of broken tree limbs and grave sights and tried to pretend these photos were art and they were artists.

No.

They were just spoiled women who were born into money and, trying to find justification for their shallow lives, felt billing themselves as 'photographers' was a good cover.

Alexandra Pelosi is not Robert Downey Jr. Robert has a career that he created himself. He has not depended upon his father for favors. Without nepotism, Alexandra has no career. And Robert Downey Sr. was an artist. His art impacted, to be sure. But he was not Speaker of the House. His actions did not increase poverty, homelessness, war, etc. There's a big difference.

The Homophobes Head To Court

Professional Homophobe Jonathan Turley has confused the issues -- as he is prone to do. He -- and some others -- are insisting there is a freedom of religion issue at stake in a new case. The issue is equality, actually.

AP reports:

The Supreme Court is hearing the case Monday of a Christian graphic artist who objects to designing wedding websites for gay couples, a dispute that's the latest clash of religion and gay rights to land at the highest court.

The designer and her supporters say that ruling against her would force artists — from painters and photographers to writers and musicians — to do work that is against their faith. Her opponents, meanwhile, say that if she wins, a range of businesses will be able to discriminate, refusing to serve Black customers, Jewish or Muslim people, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants, among others.

[. . .]

Like Phillips, Smith says her objection is not to working with gay people. She says she'd work with a gay client who needed help with graphics for an animal rescue shelter, for example, or to promote an organization serving children with disabilities. But she objects to creating messages supporting same-sex marriage, she says, just as she won't take jobs that would require her to create content promoting atheism or gambling or supporting abortion.

Smith says Colorado’s law violates her free speech rights. Her opponents, including the Biden administration and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, disagree.

She says she'd work with a gay client on "an animal rescue shelter"? Then it's really not a valid objection, is it? Her refusing to work with a gay client on a wedding? The Bible, her source document, doesn't give her leeway like that, does it?

Would she also reject Marjorie Taylor Greene as a client? The House Republican has been rebuked by her former roll dog, White supremist Nick Fuentes who declares, "She wants to be the face of Christian nationalism. She's divorced, and she's actively an adulterer. How are you going to be the face of Christian nationalism when you're a divorced woman girlboss? It doesn't even make any sense. I'm so glad I don't have to pretend to support that anymore."

Would that be a 'religious' reason for rejecting Greene as a client?

She designs websites, that's what she needs to do. If she's not willing to serve the public, she should find another occupation and do so immediately. Allowing her to discriminate against this group or that group is a sliding slope. We are supposed to be all equal in the eyes of the law but Lorie wants to bend the law to make it state that it's okay for her to discriminate.

It's not okay.

The Court will likely find that it is okay -- because we have an illegitimate Court.

Meanwhile, as Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Lorie Smith's Special Rights" noted, Jonathan Turley can't take his goo-goo eyes off Lorie Smith.

Book Talk

Dona: Book talk time. We had another book review recently. Isaiah's "Trying to read about comics? " covered MARVEL SUPER HEROES UNKNOWN FACTS, X-MEN GRAND DESIGN and MARVEL COMICS GROUP AND THE SILVER AGE OF COMICS: VOLUME ONE: 1961-1965. What's your feeling regarding KINDLE?

Isaiah: I'm sure some people are served by the books I find disappointing. If you're in 3rd grade, for example, you might like . But it goes to the fact that KINDLE promises so many books but a number of them -- a large number -- just aren't worth reading.

Dona: And explain the criteria you're judging by.

Isaiah: I don't care about the books politics or partisan nature. And I'm not reading to be told I'm right. I'm reading to learn. If your 'book' is little more than photo captions passed off as writing, we have a problem. And, again, labeling those embarrassments as 'books for kids' might be better. Otherwise, that garbage needs to be pulled by KINDLE. I'm not trying to be mean, I just shouldn't have to wade through that garbage while attempting to find a book to read. I keep coming across these lousy 'books' that end up being about ten pages of writing. And don't think they're picture books. They might have one or two illustrations. These are not books and the people who get credit for them are not writers.

Dona: Are you keeping your KINDLE subscription?

Isaiah: So far. But things like this will make me think otherwise. There needs to be a way to filter out the garbage.

Ava: When C.I. and I finished up the weekly reports were doing on KINDLE, that complaint started coming in. Over and over. That there are a lot of substandard books. And, of course, there are poorly published versions on KINDLE. Rebecca read a Joan Collins autobiography that left out one word or one sentence after another.

Isaiah: That's a real issue with the books they have about comic book history -- words left out, sentences started that you go to the next page and it's something else. There's not a lot of effort to proof read these things.

Dona: Ava and C.I., there's talk that in 2023 we might go back to a review every week at a community website. If that happened, would you both agree to return to interviewing the week's book reviewer?

Ava: C.I. and I'd be find with that. But I do think the reviewers last time were feeling exhausted by the time the year wound down.

C.I.: That is correct. It became less exciting and more of a chore as the year drew to a close. That's one of the reasons it concluded at the end of 2021.

Isaiah: I'd agree with that.

Dona: Okay, readers want it back so how we can do it and improve it?

Ava: I'd say accept that their might not be a weekly review. That way people won't feel like they are being pressured to write a review -- or to read a book. There's a lot going on.

C.I.: I agree. I'd add something else. If they read a physical book, they shouldn't feel that's a penalty. We can discuss that book and contrast the physical with KINDLE, for example. Or not even compare it to KINDLE at all.

Ava: I'd also argue that at this site, 3RD, we could see more participation from Jim, Jess and Ty.

Dona: And me. If you two come back and do this, I'd gladly hand it over to you.

Ava: One thing I do want to clear up, Ty got a ton of e-mails about how there wasn't a wrap up on the KINDLE feature. C.I. and I did interviews each week on the status. The raw material was there for a THIRD piece. We -- C.I. and myself -- never said we'd write it.

Dona: That sort of thing does tend to get dropped at your door.

Ava: And we're as tired as everyone else. More so this week. We both have a nasty cold and just want to sleep all day as a result.

Dona: And let me deal with that because there are a lot of e-mails. Ava and C.I. usually have their media feature done by Sunday. Sometimes, event will force to rewrite it. But sick or well, they have their piece done. And sometimes to help us get an edition completed, they will then write a second piece. That's expecting a lot and we're trying to move away from that. Thank you to Isaiah, Ava and C.I. for participating in this discussion.

Where's the honor?

Thieves, liars, women beaters, war mongers, tax dodgers and corruption lackeys are being honored at what now passes for The Kennedy Center Honors.

George Clooney meets several of the criteria but mainly war monger. There's never been a war the fancy boy hasn't cheered on -- this despite his never having gone to war or served in the military in peace time. He just likes people to be killed and not just with boredom by his films but with actual bullets and bombs. Another 'winner' is U2. That tax cheat lads refuse to pay their homeland (Ireland) its owed taxes so they set up residences outside of Ireland. Bono shares with JFK the trait of being a serial adulterer. Maybe that's why the useless group was included. 2002 was the last time their music was embraced. Coincidence? Bono then wrapped his arms around Bully Boy Bush and refused to oppose the Iraq War. It sent a message and the group's never recovred.

Amy Grant? When her brief pop singing career collapsed, she set out to cheat Americans. As Ava and C.I. reported in 2005:

To some, 44 year-old Amy Grant is a joke known for her "rhythmic" bounding across the stage. To some, she's the popularizer of "Christian music" at the expense of gospel. To some, she's the road into Bully Boy country. Strange considering that we're speaking of a Vanderbilt University drop out which is hardly Texas A&M. "Get 'em Commodores" isn't exactly "Hook 'em horns!"

NBC thinks she's their Friday night manna. As reported in The New York Times, they've distributed copies of the show Three Wishes to clergy and passed around dollar bills at low-end chain stores. They see her as the entry point into the evagicals. A little strange if you think of the fact that not only do some evangicals see CCM (contemporary Christian music) as 'backsliding' but also that she's angered CCM loyalists over the year with her weak attempts to imitate Olivia Newton-John. A little strange as well if you grasp that 1999 is a year she still can't live down.

But there she was, with the widow's peak that makes her look like the evil queen in Snow White, on Friday night with Three Wishes. It's a really low-scale version of ABC's Extreme Makeover: Home Edition without Ty for beefcake lovers to ooh & aah over. Instead they offer an Andrew Shue look alike and a blond who likes to yell "Woo-hoo" and name check the Dukes of Hazard.

Which makes Amy Grant Daisy without the dukes?

NBC has Amy Grant and Three Wishes. Heavily made up and gushing like a woman half her age, speaking as though she just fell off the turnup truck. (She did choose to leave Vanderbilt, right? She wasn't asked to leave?)

There's a feeling on the part of some that she's as phoney as her sayings. (Dan Rather may be gone, but Rather-isms live on!) When not shucking the husks, Grant tries a little bit of sociology offering that word travels fast in a small town and that it reaches adults who couldn't believe that "uh, you know, I get to dream a little bit?"

Oh Amy, you're trying to pull in an audience, not chase them away. If she really represented the demographic NBC was going for, she'd probably be familiar with Glen Campbell's "The Dreams Of The Everyday Housewife" and she'd surely be aware that people continuing dreaming regardless of age, regardless of location. But she's got to con you into thinking that not only is she granting wishes, she's also dressing up the otherwise drab lives.

Here's what Grant's Three Wishes grants:

1) A man gets a new truck and to adopt his step-son.
2) A little girl gets her own rehab center and the medical bills are paid.
3) A school gets a new football field.

Three Wishes traffics in the three stereotypes. The most needy, gotta have a truck and what's Friday night without local football.

They must be so proud.

Grant gets another shot at redeeming herself, NBC gets a cheaply made "hit" (it could be top sixty and it will make money due to product placement and corporate sponsorhip) and AmericaQuest gets to push aside those pesky allegations of predatory lending. (Just in time as the head of the company attempts to become our ambassador to the Netherlands!)

Everyone's part of the con.

Sound harsh? A family is facing financial ruin as a result of the bills from a little girl's accident. There's no firey Helen Hunt, As Good As It Gets, HMO speech. It's treated as though it just happened. That's the con. These are "isolated" incidents, these are "personal problems."

Things just happen. And aren't we all lucky "music superstar" Amy Grant is on the way?

What a great service to the people.

While the band U2 is being inducted, the Pips are being sidelined. Gladys Knight will be inducted but not, apparently, the Pips. No offense but without the Pips, Gladys has no career.

The real truth about The Kennedy Family Honors? It has no honor.