TV: The Myths

 

Myths? Joseph Campbell spent a career exploring them. He wound up with a theory that they were all "variations of a single great story." We'd argue they're p.r. But we do see his point. We'd further argue, based on the work of Gore Vidal, that the US is Myth America. We do embrace our myths -- sometimes so tightly you'd think they were a body pillow.



Some years ago, AMAZON finally discovered women. Who knew that a show starring a woman (Rachel Brosnahan) could be a hit? Everyone except for AMAZON executives and SPIKE TV, that's who. AMAZON ended up with a hit show and an Emmy and Golden Globe winning show, THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL. See, there is more to the world than garbage like ALPHA HOUSE. Since we reviewed it, the show has continued with further seasons. Some complaints have come in according to Ty in the last year. Some e-mail to complain about the show, a few e-mail to complain about us. The gist of the latter e-mails is that we praised the show in 2017 and we're to blame for the latest season years later. Huh?

We understand the disappointment. When season two started, we spoke with a few people with the show and said, "No." Just no. That's not entertainment.

For those who've never watched, THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL is about a woman who leaves an unhappy marriage and becomes a comedian in the 1960s. This is a fictional story. We thought that they would root it in realtiy. With season two, it became clear that would not be the case.

Maisel is just too funny, too on and too incredible and met with that reaction. So they're basically screwing with history.

Ryan Murphy's HOLLYWOOD did as well. That was a single season series and it was a nice reworking. Something akin to MAVEL's WHAT IF . . . comic book series. HBO's MINX is another entry in this genre. We've held off noting it because other things kept coming up. It is set in the 70s and a feminist Joyce (Ophelia Lovibond) can't find any takers to publish her concept for a new feminist magazine. Along comes Doug, who publishes adult magazines (nudes) and he will take the chance as long as nudity is part of the publication. They end up with a hit magazine.

Can there be a season two?

That's getting ahead a bit. First, should there be one? Yes. Jake Johnson plays Doug and is also one of the producers. MINX is a strong show with a great cast. Care appears to have been taken with every role -- no matter how big or small. They should be nominated, the cast, for a SAG Award because they work so well together. Even the guest stars -- most recently Hope Davis. It is entertaining and it makes you think.

Maybe because it's set in adult entertainment, we aren't so concerned with reality? There was PLAYGIRL and other magazines. And Joyce isn't going to be leading the feminist movement. So we think this fictional story can continue and do so without having viewers thinking it jumped the shark.

But THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL has jumped the shark. We know Joan Rivers, Phyllis Diller and Moms Mabley were hugely successful in that period but still came up against the glass ceiling. Maisel's success feels both fictitious and insulting.

Myths, what you going to do?

How about explode them? Especially when they come presented as documentaries?

OUR GREAT NATIONAL PARKS.

A NETFLIX friend asked Sunday if we wanted to see it ahead of its premier on NETFLIX this Wednesday?

Sure. For those who don't know, former President Barack Obama, who has never created content for TV, signed a multi-million dollar contract with NETFLIX after leaving the White House. For those keeping track, true original John Waters can't catch a break, The great Allison Anders is sidelined as well. But by all means, let's give millions to a politician with no track record in the entertainment field instead of giving working artists the breaks that they actually deserve and need.

OUR GREAT NATIONAL PARKS?

In terms of artistry, it's garbage. NETFLIX spent millions for visuals that would be obvious and uninspiring in a child's VIEWMASTER. There is no sense of art, no sense of majesty. How do you do that? How do you have something as gorgeous as a national park and present it in a perfunctory manner? It's robotic and lacks wonder and amazement.

But then Barack's never been that entranced with the world of nature. It's cute to watch him try to do, post-presidency, what most try to do in the last year or two of their second term -- create a legacy.

There are many subjects Barack was qualified to make a documentary series on.

For example, he could have done with on drone murders. Barack oversaw the deaths of many (including American citizens) with drones. He appeared to have a special affinity for murdering guests at weddings.

How about HITCHED AND DITCHED where Barack picks out weddings and, after the I dos are exchanged, Barack takes out one of the spouses with a drone?

Human Rights Watch noted:

On December 12, 2013, a United States aerial drone launched four Hellfire missiles on a convoy of 11 cars and pickup trucks during a counterterrorism operation in rural Yemen. The strike killed at least 12 men and wounded at least 15 others, 6 of them seriously.
Yemen authorities initially described all those killed in the attack outside the city of Rad`a as “terrorists.” The US government never officially acknowledged any role in the attack, but unofficially told media that the dead were militants, and that the operation targeted a “most-wanted” member of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) who was wounded and escaped.
Witnesses and relatives of the dead and wounded interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Yemen said the convoy was a wedding procession. They said everyone in the procession was a civilian, including all of the dead and injured, and that the bride received a superficial face wound.

Or he could do a series about broken promises. NAME THAT BROKEN PROMISE! or HOW I LET US VETERANS DOWN could focus on Barack's promise to end veterans homelessness Remember that? Barack grandstanding in 2010 that he was going to end veterans homelessness by 2015? Never happened, did it? In fact, Jennifer McDermott (AP) reported at the start of 2017, "Pledges by President Barack Obama and a national nonprofit organization to end homelessness among veterans did not meet their goal."

Nope, another broken promise.

Just like closing Guantanamo Bay. Remember that? Barack, running for president, was going to restore the country's good name by closing the gulag that is Guantanamo Bay. He was going to do it in his first term as president.

He didn't.

He signed an executive order.

He never closed it.

In fact, at the start of this year, the ACLU's Hina Shamsi noted:

Twenty years have passed since the first detainees arrived in Guantánamo Bay, making it the longest-standing war prison in U.S. history. Since 2002, 779 Muslim men and boys have been held at Guantánamo, nearly all of them without charge or trial. Today, 39 men remain indefinitely detained there, and 27 of them have never even been charged with any crime. Fourteen of those 27 have been cleared for transfer or release, some for years. Many of the remaining men are torture survivors; the CIA formerly disappeared some of them at “black sites” before our government sent them to Guantánamo. All of the prisoners have been exposed to the physical and psychological trauma associated with prolonged indefinite detention.
Around the world, Guantánamo is a symbol of racial and religious injustice, abuse, and disregard for the rule of law. Our government’s embrace of systematic torture shattered lives, shredded this country’s reputation in the world, and compromised national security. To this day, it has refused to release the full details of the torture program or to provide justice and redress for all the many victims.
As we mark this 20th anniversary, it is worth pausing to reflect on the fact that all the teenagers and many young adults alive today have never known a United States without the stain of Guantánamo. They’ve seen three presidents pledge to close the prison without following through on that promise. Guantánamo is now embedded not only in our conscience, but in American culture, as recent critically-acclaimed films about torture and its impact, like “The Report” and “The Mauritanian,” show. Yet too many think Guantánamo is in our past or even that amends for abuses have been made, as a Jeopardy question and response last year showed. In response to the clue, “In 2015 Congress authorized payments of $4.44 million to each of these people, $10,000 for each day of their captivity,” a Jeopardy! contestant wrongly answered “Guantánamo Bay prisoners.” There has been no such redress, and this shameful chapter of our history is still being written.
President George W. Bush transferred over 500 prisoners out of Guantánamo. President Barack Obama transferred approximately 200 men, and said he would shut the prison down, but failed. President Donald Trump reversed course and kept the prison open. Now it’s up to President Joe Biden to fulfill his pledge to finally close Guantánamo.

Failure. Maybe that could have been what he offered with NETFLIX: WHO WANTS TO VOTE FOR A FAILURE? And he could have picked some of his voters to interview. We're sure that a number would hold his hand and tell him it's okay that he didn't keep his word. After all, The Cult of Saint Barack always had a lot of lunatics for members. But we're equally sure that a significant number would tell him exactly what a disappointment he was. They might note his efforts to destroy Occupy Wall Street (and his spying on those participating). Or maybe they'd emphasize that candidate Obama swore he'd be marching with workers for the right to organize but then he became president and could no longer seem to remember that promise?

Maybe they'd note that the man who claimed to be against dumb wars, destroyed Libya and what a stain it was that a bi-racial person was responsible for creating open slave markets in Libya?

David Welna (NPR) noted:


Among the many things President Obama will be handing off to his successor this week: stubborn wars in three separate countries.
Obama came to office eight years ago vowing to end U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet President-elect Trump stands to inherit the nation's longest war ever in Afghanistan, as well as renewed fighting in Iraq that has spread to Syria.
The outgoing president was reminded of the persistence of those wars at the pomp-filled farewell ceremony the Pentagon put on for him him earlier this month at a nearby military base.
"Mr. President, we've been at war throughout your tenure," said Gen. Joesph Dunford, chosen by Obama in 2015 to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "That's a period longer than any other American president."
That's right: Obama is the first president to serve eight years and preside over American wars during every single day of his tenure. That's not what Obama wanted or expected.

Well it's certainly not what he promised, David, it's certainly not what he promised.

Barack lied about Iraq constantly. In fact, that's why Samantha Power had to leave his campaign for president.

She told the truth. Oops! Shortly after coming under fire for telling a reporter that Hillary Clinton was a "monster," Samantha was out of Barack's 2008 campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. We remember. We covered it -- both here and at THE COMMON ILLS. We know all of his lies, all of his broken promises.

He never planned to end the war in 10 months as he said on the campaign trail. 'We want to end the war and we want to end it now!" Then in March of 2008, Sammy Power gave her interview to BBC NEWS. The Democrats had run in the 2006 mid-terms on the Iraq War. Give them one house of Congress, they insisted, and they'd have the power to end the war. The American people gave them both house of Congress. They did not end the war. Why would they? It had been a huge issue in 2006 and very effective at turning out the vote. Why end it when they wanted the White House in 2008? So they did nothing.

(Yes, that includes the benchmarks that they never enforced and that they quickly forgot. Remember, Congress was going to cut off funds to Iraq if the benchmarks weren't met. To this day, Congress funds Iraq and, no, those 2007 benchmarks were never, ever met.)

Samantha Power told the BBC that Barack's promise to the American people to end the war wasn't really a promise and that he couldn't be bound next January, if elected, by 'promises' he'd made on the campaign trail. No, she explained, once elected, once in office, he would look at all the information and then decide what to do.

A far cry from his hollering to one throng of admirers after another, "We want to end the war and we want to end it now!"

Samantha immediately parted with the campaign ahead of the interview airing. She and Barack were helped in lying to the American people by professional clown John Nichols who rushed to defend Sammy and insist she was fired for calling Hillary a monster and, goodness, they were friends. She left because of the BBC interview. She and Hillary were not friends. When we see Katie Halper bringing John Nichols on as a guest, we wonder if she's just another whore or if she just doesn't know his history. (Which is well documented at this site and also includes his backing off from impeachment because Nancy Pelosi didn't want it -- despite the fact that he was supposed to be promoting his book on impeachment and his lying about Barack and NAFTA)

But back to Barack. He gave an interview to Michael R. Gordon and another NYT scribe. They wrote it up. It was outrageous, the write up. The paper made the mistake of publishing a transcript of the interview. It was in the transcript that you learned Barack planned to remove troops from Iraq and then . . . possibly . . . put them back in. (Here for coverage at THIRD, here for coverage at THE COMMON ILLS.)

Which is, for the record, exactly what he would do.

The fraud didn't even make into office before he broke his word on Iraq for the first time. The SOFA was rammed through by Bully Boy Bush over the objections of various Democrats -- including Senators Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, everybody really that was a Democrat in the Senate. That included Barack and Joe Biden. And, don't worry, Barack said, if Bully Boy Bush pushed through a SOFA, it would not stand. They wouldn't let it stand.

Bully Boy Bush pushed it through on Thanksgiving of 2008 -- weeks after the election.

We all waited for the strong response from Barack. His response? He deleted the pledge to prevent the SOFA.

He was on huge disappointment after another.

BARACK AND HIS SISTER-WIVES? He could make a program entitled that. He's real good about reducing women's rights and denying them both access and opportunity.

Last month, President Joe Biden nominated Alina Romanowski to be US Ambassador to Iraq.

Barack never did that. He never did nominate a woman to be Ambassador of Iraq. We should note that. We met with the transition team. We argued that Iraqi women had suffered due to the war, that the US government had backed religious zealots who were trying to overturn the rights of women in Iraq. If only for symbolic reasons, appointing a high ranking woman might have some impact.

No one nominated as many people to be ambassador of a country as Barack did Iraq. He came in with Ryan Crocker still in office. Barack's nominees were Chris Hill, James Jeffrey, Brett McGurk, Robert S. Beecroft, Stuart Jones and Douglas Silliman. Six nominees, not one was a woman. Five were confirmed. (Brett wasn't confirmed.)

Women?

Barack was hailed by MS. MAGAZINE as our first feminist president. He was, we were told, what feminism looks like. Really? Because he used various events -- outside of the workplace -- as a way to network and women were always excluded from those events (such as basketball games). MS. hailed him as a feminist but we just saw Mr. Hart from 9TO 5 when we looked at him, we just heard Dabney Coleman's voice saying, "I like to think, if there's a word to describe my philosophy of business, it's teamwork. Everybody working together. You girls, of course, never got a chance to play football or baseball and I've always felts that' unfortunate . . ."

We think it's very unfortunate that Barack was misrepresented as a feminist. He would insist in April of 2016 that it was men's job to fight sexism. That was applauded by some. Why? He'd done nothing but sideline women in his administration, preventing them from being included. Feminist? More like a Queen Bee (as defined by Gloria Steinem in REVOLUTION FROM WITHIN).

We mentioned The Cult of Saint Barack earlier. Remember? Well Barack's temple prostitutes are out in full force. If you read through any review and see a comparison of Barack to David Attenborough, grasp that they're just repeating the press material (yeah, we got it too). So the temple prostitutes repeat it.

It's insulting on so many levels. First of all, the 95-year-old Attenborough has been producing, narrating, writing and presenting films since 1951. He is a professional. Barack is not. Nor is Barack responsible for any real duty other than narrating.

Did you really think the princess was going to have to work for his money? Oh, where have you been.

Emma Brennad, Sarah Conner and Patrick Evans are among the actual directors. Barack's reciting words. In that Leonard Nimoy like tone, he's reciting words written by others.

We get it, NETFLIX paid him millions. But they were crazy if they ever thought he was actually going to put in work.

Second, David Attenborough has an impressive body of work and it's a huge insult to that work to try to compare his work with debutante and dilettante will not end up with a body of work. As for a body of work on nature?

This is the man who 'helped' the nation's parks as president by resorting to big money donors ("to supplement federal funds" is how he liked to put it). It's all about the big money for Barack, always has been (those mythical small donors driving his 2008 campaign never existed -- NYT waited until after the 2008 election to blow the lid off that myth).

Geoffrey Lean (ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS) reported in 2009:

Now here's a wild card: Barack Obama is doing even less to protect wildlife than George W Bush did. As its first year nears an end, the President's administration has so far listed only two species – both plants – under the Endangered Species Act, compared with 11 at the same stage in the presidency of the "toxic Texan".
Admittedly, Bush's listing tailed off, averaging eight a year over his term in office, but that was four times what Obama has achieved. And both pale besides the averages of 65 and 58 listed under Bill Clinton and the elder Bush.
The current administration has angered conservationists even more by halving a proposed safe habitat for bighorn sheep, and in removing protection for the grey wolf in the Northern Rockies. "They are failing to grant badly needed protection to animals and plants on the brink," says Nicole Rosmarino, of WildEarth Guardians.
"There is no longer a clear ideological opposition to endangered species, but they have not exactly made it their priority either," adds Noah (great name for a conservationist) Greenwald, of the Centre for Biological Diversity.

In 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity issued the following:

WASHINGTON— In response to President Barack Obama’s press conference on actions he will take in response to the Gulf oil disaster, Center for Biological Diversity Senior Counsel Brendan Cummings said:
“While the decision to suspend Shell’s planned drilling this summer in the Arctic is an important first step, what we really need is revocation of the improperly issued leases and permanent protection of the Arctic. The fact that no technology exists to effectively clean up an oil spill in Arctic waters will not be changed in a year’s time.
“As the president recognized today and the Gulf disaster has tragically demonstrated, even in areas with existing infrastructure and significant spill response assets, containment and response capability to a large oil spill is wholly inadequate. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the Obama administration should not pretend that a six-month review of drilling procedures will change anything. Expanding offshore drilling to new areas needs to be permanently taken off the table.
“President Obama’s speech follows a month of half-steps and broken promises by the Interior Department since the Deepwater Horizon explosion in which a pledged ‘moratorium’ on oil drilling turned out to be largely a fiction, with multiple drilling plans approved after no environmental review, and drilling permits similar to those given to BP continuing to be issued.

 
In 2014, the Center for Biological Diversity released the following:

WASHINGTON— New rules unveiled today by President Barack Obama don’t do enough to cut planet-warming pollution from America’s power plants. Using the Clean Air Act, the president aims to reduce existing power plant emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels (or about 7.7 percent below 1990 levels, the base year for the international climate treaty) by 2030.
But international scientists warned years ago that developed countries like the United States must reduce their emissions 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid tipping the scales further toward a climate catastrophe.
“This is like fighting a wildfire with a garden hose — we’re glad the president has finally turned the water on, but it’s just not enough to get the job done,” said Kevin Bundy of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “President Obama’s draft power plant plan should be strengthened to achieve the global pollution cuts scientists recommend. He also has to quit stalling on reducing emissions from other sectors such as air travel and the oil and gas industry. If we keep kicking the can down the road, the cost and difficulty of averting catastrophe will skyrocket.”
The Obama administration has said the power plant rules will help meet the emission reduction pledge the president made at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference five years ago, but scientists agree the Copenhagen pledges are not enough to head off a climate crisis.
A May report from federal scientists found that global warming has already dangerously increased flood risk to America’s coastal cities and is delivering periods of intense heat that “last longer than any living American has ever experienced.” The National Climate Assessment predicts as much as 4 feet of sea-level rise and 10 degrees Fahrenheit of warming by 2100 unless deep cuts are made to carbon pollution.
Global warming is altering some ecosystems so rapidly, the report finds, that many species “may disappear from regions where they have been prevalent or become extinct, altering some regions so much that their mix of plant and animal life will become almost unrecognizable.”
The Clean Air Act is America’s leading tool for curbing greenhouse gas pollution, and 79 U.S. cities have joined the Center’s Clean Air Cities campaign urging the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to help reduce carbon in our atmosphere to no more than 350 parts per million, the level scientists say is needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.
“The Clean Air Act is a great tool for fighting power plant carbon pollution, but President Obama has to wield it more ambitiously to get the kind of emission reductions we really need to protect our planet,” Bundy said.

We could do this all day -- you know, the work required, the thing that The Water Cooler Set loves to avoid. Barack's ignoring reality and trying to suddenly become Earth Man. Remember when Al Gore used to claim that title? At least Al put in some work for the title. Barack worked against nature and then thinks this bad mini-series can refurbish his image.

Myths? THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL lost its way by attempting to 'happy end' Maisel when she can't succeed in that time period, not to the degree her talent warrants. If they'd have gone with the 70s, it wouldn't have been such a stretch. Not only did Joan build in prominence but Lily Tomlin emerged -- an honest to goodness concert draw, a regular guest on Johnny Carson's show. Of if they'd set it in the 80s, where Joan continues to build her large following and Lily maintains her own while Roseanne Barr emerges as a full blown comedy star and Gilda Radner and Whoopi Goldberg drew crowds on Broadway. Even the late 50s might have worked (Elaine May became a comedy superstar with partner Mike Nichols during the Eisenhower years). But they want to choose a very repressive period for women. And they don't really reference any women. Judy Henske would be an obvious reference but Maisel has, as a stand up, long surpassed Judy's success. It's a myth and it just doesn't work.

MINX? Again, this could do another season, possibly a third. It really is a beautiful show -- the look of it, the various grace notes from each performer. Jake Johnson has long impressed us but, no, we weren't prepared for this from him. When you have a talent and a vision, you can really make something wonderful.

Barack has neither talent nor a vision. And it shows by his tying himself to this second-rate program that has nothing to offer. It was put out this week for that reason, in fact. NETFLIX is embarrassed by it. That's why we got to see it early. And they put it on this week thinking it would have the best chance of finding an audience and maybe being in the top ten. As our friend at NETFLIX told us, next week, the only documentary the streamer expects people to be watching is the one on Abercrombie & Fitch -- "and that's got stronger visuals and a real point of view, plus it registers as a documentary." Poor Barack, all these years later, he still struggles to register. Maybe next time let NETFLIX spend that money on real projects with real artists?

The continued persecution of the Kurds

 

This week has an anniversary that many in the press will yet again ignore as they do each time this year.  April 14th is the Commemoration of Anfal Genocide against the Garmians (Chamchamal and Kalar) as the Kurdish Regional Government will be noting.  Again, most others will be ignoring it as usual.

What is this genocide?  Human Rights Watch explains:

 

Anfal--"the Spoils"--is the name of the eighth sura of the Koran. It is also the name given by the Iraqis to a series of military actions which lasted from February 23 until September 6, 1988. While it is impossible to understand the Anfal campaign without reference to the final phase of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Anfal was not merely a function of that war. Rather, the winding-up of the conflict on Iraq's terms was the immediate historical circumstance that gave Baghdad the opportunity to bring to a climax its longstanding efforts to bring the Kurds to heel. For the Iraqi regime's anti-Kurdish drive dated back some fifteen years or more, well before the outbreak of hostilities between Iran and Iraq.

Anfal was also the most vivid expression of the "special powers" granted to Ali Hassan al-Majid, a cousin of President Saddam Hussein and secretary general of the Northern Bureau of Iraq's Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party. From March 29, 1987 until April 23, 1989, al-Majid was granted power that was equivalent, in Northern Iraq, to that of the President himself, with authority over all agencies of the state. Al-Majid, who is known to this day to Kurds as "Ali Anfal" or "Ali Chemical," was the overlord of the Kurdish genocide. Under his command, the central actors in Anfal were the First and Fifth Corps of the regular Iraqi Army, the General Security Directorate (Mudiriyat al-Amn al-Ameh) and Military Intelligence (Istikhbarat). The pro-government Kurdish militia known as the National Defense Battalions, or jahsh, assisted in important auxiliary tasks.1 But the integrated resources of the entire military, security andcivilian apparatus of the Iraqi state were deployed, in al-Majid's words, "to solve the Kurdish problem and slaughter the saboteurs."2

 

The campaigns of 1987-1989 were characterized by the following gross violations of human rights:

· mass summary executions and mass disappearance of many tens of thousands of non-combatants, including large numbers of women and children, and sometimes the entire population of villages;

· the widespread use of chemical weapons, including mustard gas and the nerve agent GB, or Sarin, against the town of Halabja as well as dozens of Kurdish villages, killing many thousands of people, mainly women and children;

· the wholesale destruction of some 2,000 villages, which are described in government documents as having been "burned," "destroyed," "demolished" and "purified," as well as at least a dozen larger towns and administrative centers (nahyas and qadhas);

· the wholesale destruction of civilian objects by Army engineers, including all schools, mosques, wells and other non-residential structures in the targeted villages, and a number of electricity substations;

· looting of civilian property and farm animals on a vast scale by army troops and pro-government militia;

· arbitrary arrest of all villagers captured in designated "prohibited areas" (manateq al-mahdoureh), despite the fact that these were their own homes and lands;

· arbitrary jailing and warehousing for months, in conditions of extreme deprivation, of tens of thousands of women, children and elderly people, without judicial order or any cause other than their presumed sympathies for the Kurdish opposition. Many hundreds of them were allowed to die of malnutrition and disease;

· forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers upon the demolition of their homes, their release from jail or return from exile; these civilians were trucked into areas of Kurdistan far from their homes and dumped there by the army with only minimal governmental compensation or none at all for their destroyed property, or any provision for relief, housing, clothing or food, and forbidden to return to their villages of origin on pain of death. In these conditions, many died within a year of their forced displacement;

· destruction of the rural Kurdish economy and infrastructure.

Like Nazi Germany, the Iraqi regime concealed its actions in euphemisms. Where Nazi officials spoke of "executive measures," "special actions" and "resettlement in the east," Ba'athist bureaucrats spoke of "collective measures," "return to the national ranks" and "resettlement in the south." But beneath the euphemisms, Iraq's crimes against the Kurds amount to genocide, the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."3

 

In 2020, KRG Prime Minister Masrour  Barzani spoke of the genocide.

 

 

He declared of the travesty:

Today marks the 32nd anniversary of the worst genocide against the peoples of Kurdistan. The genocide was a series of massacres which aimed to eliminate the Kurdish identity and wipe out the Kurdistani nation.

This was an horrific crime, which the people of Kurdistan cannot forget. Thousands of innocent people were killed while the world watched. The profound pain will continue to live on in our memories. But this anniversary should not merely be a commemoration of our past suffering. We must work together to eradicate the evil and racist ideologies that drove the Anfal genocide.

The Kurdistan Regional Government will continue to strive for a global recognition of Anfal as genocide, and improve the living conditions of the families of the victims. The Iraqi government too should fulfil its moral and constitutional responsibility to compensate victims of this terrible crime and provide reassurances that it will not be repeated in the future.

 

 The Kurds have long been targeted.  And they're being targeted today by the government of Turkey which regularly bombs their villages, burns down or cuts down their trees, have set up military bases and much more.

This goes on with damn few ever bothering to note it.  The world has largely ignored the ongoing persecution of the Kurds.

 

 

 

Ty's Corner

I hate DELL.  I really, really hate DELL.

I was about to purchase a new laptop when C.I. stopped me.  

For years, I had purchased DELL, going back to the whole "Dude, you're getting a DELL."  Remember that?

Then in 2005, while in college, I switched to HEWLETT PACKARD.  Why?  My laptop broke and I needed a new one and Jim had created a dummy business with HP to get laptops at a business discount.  Every one we had classes with would go through Him and HP was getting hundreds of orders from each year -- they must have thought his accounting firm was the largest in New York.  

A few years back, my husband got me a DELL, a big one, heavy.  Way too much to spend for a gift  but I did appreciate it.  Sadly, it barely lasted a year.  I replaced it with a DELL.  I replaced the replacement with a DELL.  And I replaced the replacement's replacement with a DELL.

And all three of those replacements?  In the last 12 months.

Now I'm nowhere near as rough on a laptop as I was in college.  In college, I was forever banging it into a doorway and usually it would fall off the table in a class at least once a semester.  It traveled with me all over campus and surrounding areas.  

I was really ticked when the latest stopped working.  

My husband mentioned it to C.I.

I don't like to do that for two reasons.  One, C.I. will usually (and did this time) say, "You know I've got an account with ______.  Just call them up and tell them what you want them to send over.  It's not a problem."  Second, she will usually (and did this time) offer to try to fix it.  

She's been fixing my laptops for me since I moved into her house about 17 years ago.  And I appreciate it. 

But I know it can be frustrating (not to mention, I feel, unfair to expect her to fix it).

How does she know computers?

She can do a huge amount on computers.  When we're having issues with something we're trying to post or to insert into a post, she can usually look at it in HTML and figure out what the problem is.  She's also a pro at swapping out fans and hard drives and many other things.

She's self-trained.  Elaine explained to me long ago that in college, when C.I. would work at least two jobs, one of her jobs was part time, 32 hours a week, late night into early morning.  She was the overnight person for her university's computer.  It would be an assistant to the system analyst but back then they didn't have those titles yet.  

And she had no training but needed the job.  So she self-trained.  And learned networking and all these other computer tools back when no one had home computers.  

So anytime someone has an issue with a computer tower or a laptop, she'll insist "I probably won't be able to figure this out," but, once she starts examining it, she will.

She insisted on looking at my laptop after I turned down her offer of a new one on her.  So she's picked it up and I explain that it's done the same thing the last two did -- stopped charging.  And, no, it's not the battery, I added.

It's the DC port, she told me as she started unscrewing the bottom of the laptop and asked my husband to run to the music room where she had two spare DC ports in the piano bench.  He comes back with both as she's got the bottom panel removed and she has to remove some metal overlap (I'm not a computer person -- not trained, not self-taught), after that, she popped in the part (it was tiny, I took a picture of it on my phone to show how small it was -- I've placed it on the lp cover of a Diana Ross THANK YOU album). The whole thing took her less than five minutes.

So you might think, "Well, you should stick with DELL."

Nope.  

What it made clear is how shoddy DELL has gotten.  I'm not joking.  Again, in 12 months, I've bought three DELLS and every one was because of the same issue. Do they no longer conduct quality checks on the production line?  Are they using cheaper parts that fall apart more easily?  If so, is that so we'll have to buy laptops more often?

I have no idea.  C.I. says the part is less than 10 bucks and if you know someone like her or if you know computers like her, you can easily fix the problem.

But here's my thing.  I paid for three new laptops in 12 months.  I shouldn't have had problems with a ten dollar part over and over.  

I'm done with DELL.

Jim's World

 

 I'm back to again talk THE THING ABOUT PAM.  Ruth's "THE THING ABOUT PAM (episode five)" and Betty's "Real life Leah Chaney worse than she's portrayed in THE THING ABOUT PAM" covered last week's episode of the NBC limited-series.  It was episode five.  This Tuesday, the show airs it's sixth and final episode.  

Last week, I noted how the series had done something that dramas on network television are not doing lately.  For years now, a drama show debuts and the next week it loses viewers.  The week after, it loses more viewers.  The pattern continues.  

As I noted last week, THE THING ABOUT PAM did lose viewers in its second episode.  But something different happened with the third episode -- viewers increased.  The same thing happened with the fourth episode.

And now?  The fifth episode actually got more viewers than the first episode did.

That show has built on its audience and that is very rare. 

NBC gave up on it around episode three.  Imagine if the network were heavily promoting the series last week or if, this week, they were noting everything wraps up Tuesday night?

They have an actual hit on their hands and that has little to do with any marketing efforts on their part.  In fact, the fifth episode getting more viewers than the first episode would appear to indicate that NBC failed to market the show correctly from the start.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This edition's playlist

 

 

 

 

1) Fiona Apple's FETCH THE BOLT CUTTERS.

2) Pretenders' PIRATE RADIO.

3) Dolly Parton's RUN, ROSE, RUN.

4) Prince's ORIGINALS.

5) Diana Ross' THANK YOU.

 

6) Billy Joel's 52ND STREET.

 

7) Chase Rice's THE ALBUM.

 

 

8) Adele's 30.

 

9) Bob Dylan's ROUGH AND ROWDY WAYS.

 

10)  Ben Harper's BOTH SIDES OF THE GUN.

 

 

 

 

 

Media: Theater of the Absurd

Absurd.

WEBSTER's defines it as "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate." TV used to define it as MY MOTHER THE CAR, anything guest starring Charo and crooked public figures trying to pretend otherwise (see especially interviews with Watergate crooks Chuck Colson, G Gordon Liddy and Richard Nixon).

Use to.

Not anymore. These days what was once rightly considered absurd is now passed off as normal.



You saw it with the Academy Award broadcast last week where actor Will Smith ran up on stage as Best Documentary was being presented (SUMMER OF SOUL would win) to assault Chris Rock and then, once he'd taken his seat, to scream (more than once) curse words at Chris. It was absurd and it was appalling. As was Will Smith not being ejected from the proceeding immediately.

That latter part grew even more absurd.

Former actress and forever pushy, big mouth Whoopi Goldberg decided to weigh in -- and goodness knows that woman throws around a lot of weight despite doctor's orders to reduce (she's diabetic). She threw her weight around, in fact, all last week on THE VIEW. Now it's not uncommon for Whoopi to lecture at length. Not uncommon at all. It's not uncommon for her to have her facts wrong. It's not uncommon for her to be an embarrassment. And she certainly managed to live up to her bad reputation. She was outrageous as she minimized Will Smith's behavior and she was outrageous as she failed to look into the camera and apologize to Chris Rock.

Apologize to Rock?

Yes. She's a blabber mouth and she elected to be one on this topic. She shouldn't have. She shouldn't have said one word about it. The Academy Awards has launched an active investigation into the incident -- which is what happened -- including the Academy's feeble response the night of the broadcast.

Why does Whoopi need to keep her mouth closed? She's a single term member of the Academy's Board of Governors.

We hard from many members as Whoopi broadcast more lies than even P-Diddy (who was also Team Will and also felt the need to lie repeatedly, but at least he's not serving on the Board of Governors).

With an ongoing investigation taking place, the last thing any member of the Board of Governors needs to be doing is discussing this incident. That could be seen as an attempt to manage/influence the outcome of the investigation.

And Whoopi is someone who could be called out in the investigation.

B-b-b-but she didn't strike Chris Rock!!!!

No, but she didn't act either.

Her duties include ensuring the safety of everyone present. That's what the Board is supposed to do. After Will Smith attacked Chris Rock, who knows what could happen next. Who might he go after next?

And just having an assailant like Smith in the audience was traumatic and triggering for many people in attendance.

Grasp that.

People who have been assaulted and abused (and both include Chris Rock) had to sit in the audience with a man who was too stupid and too unbalanced to grasp that you do not rush onto the stage ofa live event and assault someone because you didn't like the joke.

As an African-American director joked to us that night at an after party, "This ain't The Source Wards." Nor is it meant to be.

Artists often grow up bullied. They can be seen as different -- and that's not always seen in a good way.

They did not deserve to have the awards marred and, once they were marred by Smith's actions, they did not deserve to have to remain in the theater with Smith.

Again, it's Whoopi's fault.

ZBut she never told her viewers that, did she? She never took accountability for her own actions. And she nver apologized to Chris Rock.

That's something the Academy also failed to do on the night of the awards. They did Tweet about the incident. They did not apologize to Chris publicly.

And they owed him an apology. Which is why, since Whoopi was breaking all ethical rules by discussing the incident already, she should have, on behalf of the Academy, offered Chris a public apology.

This is the worst Board of Governors. That's the statement we heard all last week. When they should have acted, they failed to do so but then, afterwards, some like Whoopi could and did speak at length publicly without ever being aware of just how much to blame they were.

Whoopi early on last week (the day after the ceremony) announced that no one was going to take the Oscar away from him (later in the night, Smith won for Best Actor).

We don't know that this should be announced before an investigation is completed.

We happen to agree you don't take back the Oscar. It's an insult to the person it is awarded to after the fact. "Denzel, we didn't judge you the best but since the best was so awful in real life, it's your award now!" That's an insult to anyone who might recive Smith's award after the fact.

But a new rule needs to be made immediately. You get ejected if you initiate violence at the presentation. Not only do you get ejected but you are disqualified from receiving any award not already presented that night.

Price Waterhouse has officials present throughout the awards. They are responsible for doing the tabulation ahead of the votes. There was a mistake in 2017 that was handled in real time -(the wrong envelope was given to the presenters) and it was corrected in real time. More to the point, no one ever knows ahead of time who is going to win. Price Waterhouse has managed to maintain integrity with regards to the vote count. By the same token, they could have a list of the top two vote getters on site in case another violent act takes place.

Say Rhonda Smeal is up for Best Actress and she's not happy with a comment that Lady Gaga makes. Smeal rushes the stage and attempts to strike Gaga. Though she fails, she's initiated an act of violence and she is immediately ejected. Her conduct is unbecoming and Price Waterhouse checks to make sure that -- even if she had been the original winner -- she is not announced as one. In fact, it should even be stated when the category is presented, "We have four nominees for Best Actress. Earlier this evening, Ms. Smeal removed herself as a contender due to her behavior."

Instead of making excuses -- and pinning the decision of what happened on Chris Rock -- the Academy needs to making plans to ensure this never happens again.

And, please grasp, Chris was the victim of an assault. It is not fair to expect him to deal with that and to also make the call to eject Will Smith. That was the call the Academy should have made. And when the show's producer was too incompetent to make that call, the Board of Governors should have stepped in -- stepped in on site, during the presentation. They also should have immediately taken to the stage and formally apologized to the viewers, to those present and, most of all, to Chris Rock.

Will Packer failed as a producer and should never be allowed back. The failure was too big. He has created a stain on the Academy as a result of his failure to act and evict Will Smith immediately.

It was not fair to Chris who was the victim of assault (and had been assaulted earlier in his life), it was not fair to anyone present that they were forced to sit with a hothead (at best) among them who had demonstrated that he was prone to violence.

It was absurd and it was outrageous.

Absurd also describes the press -- especially the press of the last few years.

Remember Hunter Biden?

Isaiah noted him in "First Family Material?"  He's President Joe Biden's son.  And he's a problem and then some.

Jon Ward (YAHOO NEWS) reports:

  

Further proof emerged this week of a financial relationship between President Biden’s son Hunter, the president’s brother James and a Chinese company with reportedly close ties to that country’s ruling Communist Party.

In addition, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that the Justice Department’s probe into Hunter Biden is gaining momentum. He acknowledged last December that federal investigators were looking at his taxes. But the New York Times reported in March that the Justice Department is also looking at whether he may have violated money laundering and foreign lobbying laws.

 Meanwhile, allegations that Russian disinformation may have produced or manipulated emails found on a laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden at a computer repair shop in 2019 were debunked by the Washington Post.

 

 THE WASHINGTON POST debunked it?  Good.  But where were they in real time?  We know some outlets were  For example, we noted October 27, 2020 in "Media: NPR doesn't trust its listeners:"

He goes on to note NPR ombudsperson Kelly McBride's Tweet and we're going to ignore the Tweet -- it just links to the NPR newsletter -- and instead quote from the NPR newsletter she linked to where she writes:

Responding to the New York Post

Carolyn Abbott writes: Someone please explain why NPR has apparently not reported on the Joe Biden, Hunter Biden story in the last week or so that Joe did know about Hunter's business connections in Europe that Joe had previously denied having knowledge?

There are many, many red flags in that New York Post investigation. NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik detailed most of them here. Intelligence officials warn that Russia has been working overtime to keep the story of Hunter Biden in the spotlight. Even if Russia can’t be positively connected to this information, the story of how Trump associates Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani came into a copy of this computer hard drive has not been verified and seems suspect. And if that story could be verified, the NY Post did no forensic work to convince consumers that the emails and photos that are the basis for their report have not been altered. 

But the biggest reason you haven’t heard much on NPR about the Post story is that the assertions don’t amount to much. 

“We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions,” NPR Managing Editor for News Terence Samuel told me. “And quite frankly, that's where we ended up, this was … a politically driven event and we decided to treat it that way.”

The handful of stories that NPR has produced about the NY Post investigation have been limited to how Facebook and Twitter are restricting distribution of the story or how families of those seeking treatment for addiction are impacted by the portrayal of Hunter Biden's struggle. — Kelly McBride

What a load of garbage but that is all Kelly McBride is really.  She's supposed to be about ethics.  That's why she's the ombudsperson.  But reading her nonsense about Nina Totenberg and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was clear that Kelly didn't get Nina's job or her own.  In the column, she repeats Nina's claim that her long friendship with RBG didn't influence her coverage.  Guess what?  That's not Nina's call.  Nina cannot both conceal the friendship in news reports and then be the one who determines that there was no conflict.  Listeners should have known, in every report in which she mentioned Ginsburg, that Nina was close friends with her.  They should have had that knowledge so they could evaluate the report.

Kelly should grasp that as public editor but it's clear that she doesn't.  It's clear not just in that report in Nina but in many reports -- reports where Kelly interjects someone from POYNTER.  Yes, Kelly discloses her relationship with that organization; however, she's there to serve NPR listeners, not to be part of a circle-jerk where she promotes the other organization she works for.  In fact, as public editor, she shouldn't be quoting anyone from POYNTER -- it doesn't come off fair and it doesn't come off impartial.  More to the point, since POYNTER is already helping the helpless Kelly by doing research for any column she writes for the listeners, they're already weighing in.  They don't also need to be quoted.

Kelly McBride, representing NPR declared the story nothing in October 2020.  Would she like to rethink that?

So NPR ignored the story and Kelly McBride defended that action. Should she really be teaching on campus? Is she truly qualified for that role or any other? She doesn't appear to grasp what journalism is.

B-b-b-but, Ava and C.i., people can make mistakes!!!!

Absolutely. And they can atone for them as well. Her mistake was huge. It requires a lot of atoning but, more to the point, it needs to start with a public admission that she made a mistake and a public reflection on that. Not a justification. Not a minimization. She was flat out wrong and she was the ombudsperson who is supposed to be making the hard calls. Her call was wrong and we have heard nothing from her about that.

She's far from the only one. But her role in this was especially egregious. The only outlet that might have been worse? THE NEW YORK TIMES.

Most people seem unaware of what that outlet did.

It was called out in an Iraq snapshot in real time and, yes, we remember:

 

October 16th, THE NEW YORK POST published a story.  The response has been outrageous and certainly not the standard for journalism.

THE NEW YORK TIMES, for example, runs an 'investigation' that's nothing but unsourced office gossip about one of their rivals -- conflict of interest.  Not only do they do that, they do it in a matter of days.

Remember their mini-culpa on Iraq?  That ran May 26, 2004.  Over a year and two months after the Iraq War -- a war they sold with lies -- started.  But to cover for Joe, the paper swings into immediate action?

As with the charges made by Tara Reade, the press is refusing to investigate what was revealed/alleged in/by THE POST.  Instead, it's attack anyone who questions Joe Biden.

Grasp that. Instead of investigating Hunter Biden, the paper elected to investigate THE NEW YORK POST -- a rival outlet -- and to smear them with unnamed gossips who may or may not have actually existed.

They owe THE NEW YORK POST an apology. That was outrageous on every level.

Somethings are intentionally absurd. And absurd can be used in the arts and used effectively. We were reminded of that while viewing PEACOCK's new series KILLING IT.

Early on, we see Craig Robinson's character Craig as a child. He took candy from a store. His father walks in with Craig and his other son and apologizes. They get outside the store and Craig says his brother stole a piece of candy as well. The father makes them wait outside and goes back in to apologize again to the clerk only to discover that the clerk is in fact a robber and this time the father gets shot and killed.

Craig carries a lot of guilt from that and the death also may make some viewers recoil. We honestly were taken aback. What kind of a sitcom offers that violence? And to an African-American at that? But if you hang in there, you realize this is a sitcom dealing with the absurd --- and what better term is there for America today? So Craig is being bitten by a snake and shoots it but hurts himself. Or he goes to his apartment only to find the guy he is BNB-ing to on all fours, nude (well a pale pair of flesh underwear, so nearly nude) in front of a camera as a woman pegs him.

Over and over, you're along for the ride and, no matter where the story turns, it's always absurd. And it's always entertaining. PEACOCK has tossed out a lot of offerings and most of them have not been worth watching. This is the third series they've offered that we felt has been worth streaming (the other two are MCGRUBER and ONE OF US IS LYING). That's a really sad average for a streamer that's about to hit the one year anniversary (April 15th). But at least they squeaked in with one more series before their first 12 months ended. Maybe that provides a little hope for their immediate future?

Back in the sixties, when MY MOTHER THE CAR briefly aired, the youth of America had visions of day-glow and a better world seemed so close. Today, that dream is pretty much smashed to bits which is how we get so much absurdity today. At least KILLING IT is meant to be absurd.

Roundtable

Jim: Roundtable time again. .  Remember our e-mail address is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com but you can also use common_ills@yahoo.com and, in fact, should this week Participating in our roundtable are  The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava, and me, Jim; 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); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz); Ruth of Ruth's Report; Trina of Trina's Kitchen; Wally of The Daily Jot; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. Betty's kids did the illustration. You are reading a rush transcript.







Jim (Con't): What do we think of Ukraine?

Kat: Love the people, hate the government.

Cedric: Right. As a Black man, I especially won't be praising that government or, in fact, the people. Ann noted that at her site "Isaiah, Charmed, Sabby Sabs" and I agree with her and I'm glad Sabby Sabs reported on it.

Dona: We'll put Sabby's video in here but, Ann and Cedric, tell us about that.

Ann: My husband's pointing to me. The Peace Corps is warning their volunteers that there may be problems in Ukraine due to racism. The N-word may be used, for example, relics of racism here in the States may still be popular -- think something like Sambo dolls. You, if you're a person of color, will be under a microscope, etc. It is just not a fun place and not at all what the US media and the White House has been insisting it is.

Cedric: I don't know why my tax dollars are being used to fund a racist country where, in 2002, it is acceptable -- socially acceptable -- to call African-Americans the N-word. I find that appalling. They're neo Nazis. And we're giving them our money.

Trina: And doing so at a time when Joe Biden, the president, is telling Americans to prepare for food shortages.

Elaine: How is that not bigger news!

Trina: Exactly. I know C.I. worked it into a snapshot but is everyone else just like, "Oh, food shortages, sure, that's normal." Because it isn't.

Jess; But we're supposed to be prepared for them. If they happen, that's a failure of leadership and will reflect directly on Joe Biden. I cannot believe that the Green Party is not addressing this, issuing statements, etc.

Ann: I'll be silent to let others speak but can we please come back to me when we're done with this topic?

Jim: We will do that. Ty, any thoughts?

Ty: On Ukraine? We, the US government, have been agitating there since 2014. We had Victoria Nuland's infamous phone call that everyone seems to have forgotten. We interfered to destabilize the government in power. We created the chaos. We set the stage. And now it's, "Evil Russia!!!" No. Our hands are just as bloody.

Wally: So when Joe Biden screams "War Criminal!" he better be sure to look in the mirror.

Betty: We did not need to get involved in another war. The pandemic continues. The American people are tired and stressed. We do not have the money to waste on weapons for Ukraine. We need to be focused on helping our country. Joe Biden is a bit like a man who's too busy picking up the check for the table to impress others while at home his kids are eating spam sandwiches because Dad keeps blowing the budget.

Jim: I'd say that's a perfect description of Joe Biden.

Rebecca: Like Jude Law in that film THE NEST. We'll all be left homeless in the US because Joe Biden's wasting our money.

Elaine: I want to point out something here. Joe is using Ukraine as his justification for everything including inflation -- which had already soared before Ukraine took up all the media attention. What I want to point out is that if we have food shortages and he tries to justify it by pointing out what's going on in Ukraine, that's still his failure. No one forced him to get involved -- covertly or overtly -- he was always involved covertly. But if his skills are so poor that he could not see the trouble he was creating, that goes to him not being fit for the job.

Mike: Absolutely, hold him accountable.

Jim: On that note, I want to go somewhere else for a moment. Ann, I'm not forgetting you, I promise. Okay, Julian Assange and that's something Marcia asked that we talk about, so Marcia.

Marcia: Accountability. We need to hold Joe Biden accountable for the persecution of Julian Assange. C.I. made that point some time ago as people were being wishy-washy in their defense of Julian. They would say the US government or they'd complain about someone lower level. No, this is Joe Biden. Joe could end it at any moment. And maybe he would if he started getting just how many people are going to hold him accountable and if he gets how his continued persecution of Julian will shape Joe Biden's legacy.

Ruth: I agree with Marcia on this and we have spoken of it many times. We need to make it the anchor around Mr. Biden's neck and if he is willing to still do it, then he can sink as a result of his actions.

Kat: And I don't imagine anyone in the world doesn't know who Julian is but just in case, Julian is an Australian citizen. He is the publisher of WIKILEAKS. Joe is angry with WIKILEAKS because they exposed War Crimes, most infamously, they exposed War Crimes in Iraq. This is reporting, this is the sunlight that democracy needs. But Joe doesn't like sunlight -- look at how he covers for his crooked son, so he wants to bring Julian to the US where he can be tortured the way our government has tortured at Guantanamo. And please remember Joe Biden was in the US government when the bulk of that torture took place and unlike, for example Senator Dick Durbin, Joe never shed any tears for these victims of torture.

Wally: He's rather a cold hearted person.

Stan: I'd agree with that His jovial nature always felt forced to me. And now he just comes across like yuor angry and confused great grandfather. It's hard to watch. He's so clearly not up to the job. It seems like even he realizes that and it makes him more angry and a lot meaner.

Jim: Can we just, for a moment, entertain what it would be like if Bernie Sanders had gotten the nomination?

Mike: We would be so much better off. I know what you're saying JUim, Bernie's not a youngster either. But he's got a better heart and cares about people. He wouldn't have been perfect but he would have been better than Joe, much, much better than Joe. And that's not me saying Bernie should run again. He fake assed in the primary at the end. I don't have any use for you once you fake ass.

Rebecca: I think Bernie as president would have raised real issues. I think we would have raised issues about addressing climate change, for example, and addressing Medicare For All. And I think the corporations who were opposed to him grasped that he wasn't Joe Biden. Joe Biden couldn't get a group of ten people to rally -- even if he was giving out front row tickets to a Jay-Z concert.

Betty: I remember those rallies Joe had and how sparsely they were attended.

Rebecca: Exactly. But if Bernie had the nomination, he would have won and this is what scared the corporations, he would have been able to rally people. All the bought off members of Congress want to forget how they gave lip service to Medicare For All? Bernie gives a speech -- State of th Union -- and tells everyone to call their representatives and demand Medicare For All and you better believe that they would have done it and lit a fire forcing reps to support it or be voted out of office.

Elaine: Which was C.I.'s whole point in 2019 that Bernie wasn't the power, it was the people who were backing him.

Mike: Good points. Joe Biden inspires no one and speaks to no one.

Dona: That really is the case. He's a dull, boring, run of the mill and corrupt politician. I look back at the people who used their own image to try to sell him --

Kat: Cher!

Dona: Yeah, people like Cher and I have to wonder -- what's the song --

C.I.: Pretenders, "How Much Did You Get For Your Soul?"

Dona: That's it! I love Ava and C.I.'s saying that they've had for years now, rejecting this need to worship a politician, where they say -- Ava, you haven't talked this roundtable so say it.

Ava: We don't fall in love with politicians, we're not that pathetic.

Cedric: And it really is pathetic. To the young people out there, I'm not referring to you. If this is your first or second election, enjoy. But if you've seen a few elections already? Stop lying to yourself and others. I am so tired of these run of the mill politicians being hyped to the heavens with claims of how great they are and how they truly represent us on the left when they really don't.

Betty: Cedric, let's not leave it at politicians. Ketanji Brown Jackson does not represent me. Not politically. She's way to the right of me. But Hip Hop Nation -- which also doesn't represent me -- can't stop hyping her and trying to make it the most pressing left issue in the world. She's honestly not all that important. She's another corporatist who will vote center-left and we'll wonder, as Elaine's pointed out, why our Court tilts right. Because Dems no longer nominate leftists for the Supreme Court.

Cedric: You're right, Betty, you are exactly right.

Ann: And Elaine was right when she made that point.

Mike: Yep.

Marcia: I will give Joe Biden credit for one thing on Judge Jackson. He promised to nominate a Black woman and he did. He didn't go for biracial and try to pass her off as Black. There's nothing wrong with being biracial or multiracial or mixed whatever you want to call it. But don't pretend it's the same thing. There is a whole body of work on how the lighter your skin was, the easier you had it as a person of color in the US. Before he named his nominee, I wrote that he said Black and she better be Black. He kept his word on that. I'm not blown away by the nominee and I did not expect to be -- I said that before he named the nominee.

Betty: And that's a good point to make. As a very dark skinned person, I do agree with you 100%. I think passing has gone the other way in the 21st century.

Marcia: Oh, Betty, that is such a good point. It really has. I'm probably going to use that at my site at some point.

Betty: By all means.

Jim: Okay, dropping back to Julian Assange, what needs to be done with him?

Mike: He's a journalist. He needs to be released immediately.

Stan: I agree but am I the only one who pictures the US kidnapping him the minute's he's released.

Trina: I agree that's a possibility And that's all the more reason to call Joe Biden out now, to make sure he knows the world is watching him. Because the UK court could do the right thing, it could release him. And we need to make sure that Joe knows the world is watching him when it comes to the treatment of Julian.

Jim: We need to wrap up shortly. We never get to cover everything we want to or plan to but I did promise Ann we'd come back to her. Ann, the floor is yours.

Ann: Thank you. Jess is a Green and so I am I. Betty is Green statewide and may be one nationally.

Betty: I've voted Green in every presidential election since Cynthia McKinney ran in 2008.

Ann: So we've got a few Greens and I think that collectively we are a Green friendly community. I am getting so tired of the attacks on Howie Hawkins. He's not this, he's not that. Wah! Wah! Jesse Ventura, a conservative, could have been the Green Party's nominee. Could have been? He chose not to run for the office. He said he'd accept it f he was gifted with the nomination. That's not democracy. I have watched every one of my party's presidential nominees leave the campaign and either go on to something else or just fade -- but they retreated. Now they gave a lot of themselves and I certainly have tremendous respect for Cynthia -- I believe she went on to get her doctorate but I could be wrong on that. My point is Howie was the 2020 Green Party presidential nominee. That ended in November of 2020. Where has he been? Every week, he does a minimum of one YOUTUBE video discussing Green issues. We are never going to be a serious party until we learn to stay active every year and not just during the presidential election year. He was not my first choice for the nomination. He became my choice during the primaries because he was working for the nomination. My choice, was Dario Hunter. He and I aligned perfectly on every position. I switched to Howie because Dario wasn't doing a thing. He wasn't creating videos, he wasn't Tweeting at least once a day. I remember getting called out by readers and having to explain in posts, people, I'm noting him every time he Tweets, he's not Tweeting. As Greens, we cannot depend upon the corporate media to get the word out on us so we have to get it out on ourselves. Howie did that in the race for the nomination. I'm getting tired of Sabby Sabs and other non-Green slamming Howie when they have no idea what they're talking about. I'm getting tired of her and Jimmy Dore trying to argue that Jesse Ventura should be gifted with the Green Party nomination when there are people running for that nomination. I thought we were all appalled in 2016 when the Democratic Party worked to gift Hillary Clinton the nomination while blocking Bernie. All I'm asking -- asking Jimmy, Sabby and everyone else -- is that you apply the same standard. Don't have one when you're unhappy that a political party forced a nominee on the people and then turn around and be mad that a political party didn't force a nominee on the people.

Jim: Thank you, Ann. I don't think anyone here can disagree with that. You said that very well and I believe most of our readers will agree with you also. It's about maintaining your ethics. Agreed. On that note, we're going to wind down. This is a rush transcript. I've got some personal issues -- health -- to take care of this week so please just e-mail us at common_ills@yahoo.com if you have something to say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jim's World

 

 This week, Betty offered "This week's episode of THE THING ABOUT PAM " and Ruth offered "Episode four of THE THING ABOUT PAM" and Stan offered "THE THING ABOUT PAM."  They're covering THE THING ABOUT PAM, a series on Tuesday nights (NBC).  A limited series, actually.  Its only going to be six episodes (two more left to air).  You can catch it numerous places online including NBC's own webpage, YOUTUBE TV, PEACOCK and HULU.  

Ava and C.I. praised the series here several weeks ago ("TV: What wins out").  

What's interesting about THE THING ABOUT PAM is that it started out with X number of viewers and then, in a pattern for network shows today (as Ava and C.I. have repeatedly noted), the second episode saw less viewers.  But here's what's different about THE THING ABOUT PAM -- episode three?  More viewers than episode two.  Episode four (that aired last week)?  Again, more viewers.  THE THING ABOUT PAM is reversing the trend.  

And that's good because it's a good show and Renee Zellweger is delivering an incredible performance.  

But it had me thinking because THE THING ABOUT PAM is one of Dona and my favorite 2022 TV shows.  People like Ruth, Betty and Stan are getting the word out on it -- people like them online and people like them in their own lives with word of mouth.

We have so many offerings each week of content and it can be overwhelming and things can get lost.

I wanted to note five things (four series and one movie) that I've really enjoyed this year in case you missed hearing about  them or meant to watch them and then life happened and you forgot.

1) PEACEMAKER (Ava and C.I. noted it here and here).

This HBO MAX series has a strong cast led by John Cena and it's really worth catching.  There's some great stunts, some strong acting, some social commentary and a lot of jokes.  Dona said to note it might not be suitable for young kids.  For our kid, it is -- because with me for a dad, you're hearing far worse at the kitchen table then you will hear on screen.

 

It has been renewed for a second season.

2) NAOMI (Ava and C.I. noted it here).

This is a series that's fine for kids and it airs on THE CW (right after another favorite of mine, SUPERMAN AND LOIS).  A young teenager finds out that she's actually from space -- like her hero Superman -- and she's got powers which she's now training so she can use them effectively.  

3) REACHER (Ava and C.I. noted it here).

This is an AMAZON PRIME series and I love it even more than I loved THE BOYS.  Unlike THE BOYS, REACHER is probably okay for kids but there is violence (I think they can handle the shower scene that shows a butt).  I really enjoyed.  I liked the Jack Reacher films with Tom Cruise but I thought this series, starring Alan Ritchson as Jack, was even better.

 

It has been renewed for a second season.

 

 4) THE TOURIST (Ava and C.I. noted it here).

This HBO MAX stars Jamie Dornan and seems to have a similar vision or view as that of another HBO MAX series MADE FOR LOVE.  This one is set in Australia and revolves around a man who can't remember who he is and who someone is trying to kill.  Can he figure out who he is in time?

It has been renewed for a second season.

 

5) MORE THAN ROBOTS.

 

This one's actually a movie but we all enjoyed it and our kid has now watched it at least 20 times.  It's about a group of high school kids who are competing (as teams) to build a robot.  It's a documentary.