We got several hundred thousand claims for Agent Orange in our backlog. How long have they been fighting it? Thirty, forty years. People get sicker fighting the bureaucracy than they did with the Agent Orange. So you know what we ought to do -- aside from greatly expanding eligibility to boots on the ground, to the blue waters, to the blue skies and Thailand and Cambodia and Laos and Guam? We ought to honor those Agent Orange claims today. You know, let's give people the peace that they deserve. Let's give you finally some closure here. And, you know, they're telling us, "It costs too much." I don't know if it's a billion dollars or two billion dollars. I don't care what it is frankly. You don't think we owe it to you? We owe it to you.
-- US House Rep. Bob Filner at last Tuesday's joint-hearing of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (see this snapshot for coverage).
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Truest statement of the week II
Barack Obama can’t hide the fact that he is the One Percent’s president. Most of what he is dangling for the rest of us this election year turns out to be smoke and mirrors, yet he offers corporations a huge tax rate reduction – a gift that will keep on giving long after Obama is gone. It is typical Obama behavior. He sprinkles his speeches with phrases that mimic Occupy Wall Street, then turns around and promises the One Percent a bigger prize than George Bush could deliver.
Obama wants to lower the nominal corporate tax rate form 35 percent to 28 percent. For manufacturing industries, the rate would fall to 25 percent. Big Business has long complained – dishonestly – that American companies are put at a disadvantage by the highest tax rates in the world. But that’s only true on paper. When it comes to actually paying taxes, European corporations give a bigger share of money back to their governments and societies than U.S. companies do. The fact that the U.S. posts a higher official tax rate, while in the real world U.S. corporations pay lower taxes than Europe, is proof of the absolute corruption of the U.S. tax system, where corporations write the tax code and all of its loopholes.
-- Glen Ford, "Obama's Corporate Tax Scam" (Black Agenda Report -- link is text and audio).
Obama wants to lower the nominal corporate tax rate form 35 percent to 28 percent. For manufacturing industries, the rate would fall to 25 percent. Big Business has long complained – dishonestly – that American companies are put at a disadvantage by the highest tax rates in the world. But that’s only true on paper. When it comes to actually paying taxes, European corporations give a bigger share of money back to their governments and societies than U.S. companies do. The fact that the U.S. posts a higher official tax rate, while in the real world U.S. corporations pay lower taxes than Europe, is proof of the absolute corruption of the U.S. tax system, where corporations write the tax code and all of its loopholes.
-- Glen Ford, "Obama's Corporate Tax Scam" (Black Agenda Report -- link is text and audio).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Another Sunday.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
What did we come up with?
Bob Filner. It was his week last week.
Glen Ford on Barack's tax scheme.
The State Department was order to review their classification of Camp Ashraf, they were not ordered to create new criteria.
No, they weren't interested in NPR's Tuesday night coverage or, they said, in taking on the Republican who just went left and wants to pretend to be independent. They wanted to do a simple piece on TV, an overview about where the medium stood.
Dona talks to Ava, C.I., Kat and Wally about the Congressional hearings they attended in February on veterans issues.
Avoid these chips!
Black Agenda Radio has the highlight.
Ava and C.I. came up with this piece after a record producer forwarded them Patrick Strong's blog post.
Bob Filner is honored by the American Legion.
100 years ago, strikes kicked it up a notch.
Jill Stein is running for the Green Party's presidential nomination.
Mike and the gang came up with this and we thank them for it.
That's it for this week.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Another Sunday.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
What did we come up with?
Bob Filner. It was his week last week.
Glen Ford on Barack's tax scheme.
The State Department was order to review their classification of Camp Ashraf, they were not ordered to create new criteria.
No, they weren't interested in NPR's Tuesday night coverage or, they said, in taking on the Republican who just went left and wants to pretend to be independent. They wanted to do a simple piece on TV, an overview about where the medium stood.
Dona talks to Ava, C.I., Kat and Wally about the Congressional hearings they attended in February on veterans issues.
Avoid these chips!
Black Agenda Radio has the highlight.
Ava and C.I. came up with this piece after a record producer forwarded them Patrick Strong's blog post.
Bob Filner is honored by the American Legion.
100 years ago, strikes kicked it up a notch.
Jill Stein is running for the Green Party's presidential nomination.
Mike and the gang came up with this and we thank them for it.
That's it for this week.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Camp Ashraf
Camp Ashraf houses Iranian dissidents welcomed into Iraq during Saddam Hussein's tenure. When the US invaded in 2003, the military entered into negotiations with the dissidents who agreed to unarm and who then became protected persons under the Geneva Conventions and international law.
Despite these obligations, the US government accepted Nouri al-Maliki (prime minister and thug of Iraq) 'promise' that he would protect the residents. Instead he's terrorized them and twice attacked them. . July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."
In the late 90s, the dissidents were classified as terrorists by the Clinton administration. July 27, 2004, Douglas Jehl (New York Times) reported, "A 16-month review by the United States has found no basis to charge members of an Iranian opposition group in Iraq with violations of American law, though the group is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States government, according to senior American officials." And Jehl noted, "The group remains on the United States terrorist list, though it is not known to have directed any terrorist acts toward the United States for 25 years." 2004 is a key year, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."
But the US is not protecting the residents or aiding them in leaving in Iraq. Instead, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared last week that how they 'behave' as Iraqi forces move the residents out of their camp will determine whether or not they're considred 'terrrorists' by the US government.
Really?
That's how the US determines terrorism? By how well you get along with the thugs who attacked you?
Reality for Hillary Clinton, in 2010, a federal court ordered the US State Dept. to review the classification noting that due process had not taken place in the earlier deliberation (that would be while her husband was president). Hillary was court-ordered to conduct this review in 2010. Well over a year later, it's still not completed. She's making a mockery out of the law and the courts.
And when she tells the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as she did last week, when she stated that a "key factor" in determining their status would be the "successful and peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf."
Someone explain it to the Secretary, the court did not charge her or her department with CREATING NEW CRITERIA to classify someone as a terrorist.
She needs to get it through her head that what the court found was that the US government wrongly made a decision to classify the group as "terrorists." The decision was wrong because they did not follow established guidelines and rules.
What Hillary is doing now? It's exactly the sort of crap the court called out when noting that the group had not received due process.
Hillary's an attorney and knows the law. Congress needs to inquire when she intends to comply with it?
Despite these obligations, the US government accepted Nouri al-Maliki (prime minister and thug of Iraq) 'promise' that he would protect the residents. Instead he's terrorized them and twice attacked them. . July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."
In the late 90s, the dissidents were classified as terrorists by the Clinton administration. July 27, 2004, Douglas Jehl (New York Times) reported, "A 16-month review by the United States has found no basis to charge members of an Iranian opposition group in Iraq with violations of American law, though the group is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States government, according to senior American officials." And Jehl noted, "The group remains on the United States terrorist list, though it is not known to have directed any terrorist acts toward the United States for 25 years." 2004 is a key year, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."
But the US is not protecting the residents or aiding them in leaving in Iraq. Instead, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared last week that how they 'behave' as Iraqi forces move the residents out of their camp will determine whether or not they're considred 'terrrorists' by the US government.
Really?
That's how the US determines terrorism? By how well you get along with the thugs who attacked you?
Reality for Hillary Clinton, in 2010, a federal court ordered the US State Dept. to review the classification noting that due process had not taken place in the earlier deliberation (that would be while her husband was president). Hillary was court-ordered to conduct this review in 2010. Well over a year later, it's still not completed. She's making a mockery out of the law and the courts.
And when she tells the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as she did last week, when she stated that a "key factor" in determining their status would be the "successful and peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf."
Someone explain it to the Secretary, the court did not charge her or her department with CREATING NEW CRITERIA to classify someone as a terrorist.
She needs to get it through her head that what the court found was that the US government wrongly made a decision to classify the group as "terrorists." The decision was wrong because they did not follow established guidelines and rules.
What Hillary is doing now? It's exactly the sort of crap the court called out when noting that the group had not received due process.
Hillary's an attorney and knows the law. Congress needs to inquire when she intends to comply with it?
TV: Rules Of TV
When you start dreaming TV, you know you've watched too much. When you start dreaming specific episodes, even more so. When you start dreaming episodes that haven't aired, been written or filmed, let's hope TV's more than a hobby.
We dreamed of Rules of Engagement -- returns to CBS March 29th -- specifically of Jennifer (Bianca Kajlich) and Adam (Oliver Hudson). With no promoting from anyone we remember -- or even mention of the TV show, Thursday night we both dreamt of is. In one dream (Ava's), Jennifer was taking part in a fashion show against her will and Adam was excited and jealous as he wished he was the one working the runway. In the other dream (C.I.'s), Jennifer had gotten three dresses as gifts -- the one from Audrey (Megyn Price) and Jeff (Patrick Warburton), looked like something Dorothy Michaels (Tootsie) would wear and she was furiously threatening to burn it while Adam was on the phone with Jeff. Adam wasn't whispering so much as speaking at the highest end of his voice which was cracking as Jennifer waived around the dress Russell (David Spade) had given her, one that looked like a doily. "No, no," Adam gasped, "she's taking a match to the lace ensemble." And Adam was saying "ensemble" with a heavy French pronuciation.
When the show came on, the only real reason to watch was Price and Kajlich who were (and remain) great sitcom actresses. Oliver Hudson had moments that were mostly undermined by the writers. In episode six ("Hard Day's Night"), Tom Hertz came up with an Adam that finally matched with the character Hudson was shaping. The addition of Adhir Kaylan (Tamir) and sharpened timing on the part of Patrick Warburton have resulted in a very strong sitcom.
But the thing that makes it standout in a pack of sitcoms is Oliver Hudson's Adam. Adam's adorable and infuriating and Hudson's long overdue for an Emmy nomination. Last year saw four worthy nominees for Best Supporting Actor in the comedy division, all from Modern Family. It also saw two that didn't belong there. 2012 could go a long way towards acknowledging the rebirth of the TV sitcom by including Hudson as one of the nominees.
Others who deserve to be nominated in this category? Ty Burrell and Eric Stonestreet for Modern Family -- they've continued to find new dimensions to their characters (Phil and Cameron); Damon Wayans, Jr. and Adam Pally (Happy Endings' Brad and Max) and as the sixth nominee we'd toss in Dan O'Brien (Mark on Whitney).
Supporting Actress?
Eliza Coupe and Casey Wilson (Jane and Penny, Happy Endings), Maya Rudolph (Ava, Up All Night), Zoe Lister-Jones (Lily, Whitney), Rashida Jones (Ann, Parks and Recreation) and Sofia Vergara (Gloria, Modern Family).
Best Actor?
Jeremy Sisto (George, Suburgatory), Neil Flynn (Mike, The Middle), Lucas Neff (Raising Hope), Johnny Galecki and Jim Parsons (Leonard and Sheldon, The Big Bang Theory) and Tim Allen (Last Man Standing).
Best Actress?
Kat Dennings (Max, 2 Broke Girls), Jaime Pressly (Annie, I Hate My Teenage Daughter), Whitney Cummings (Whitney, Whitney), Martha Plimpton (Virginia, Raising Hope), Patrica Heaton (The Middle) and Courtney Cox (Cougar Town).
We don't usually do the above. Whomever is nominated is nominated and we're not going to obsess over it. We do think the people listed above (and many not listed) are more than worthy of being nominated. But the reason we finally weighed in is because we wanted to underscore two things.
First, despite the Water Cooler Set spending much of the previous decade insisting the sitcom had died and was over, the sitcom never went away and is thriving today. We know that's hard to believe what with the season one episode of Friends ("The One With The Fake Monica," written by Gail Mancuso) being ripped off in the new Kal Penn pilot (which ABC is flirting with but will hopefully dump) Prarie Dogs. (tied with NBC's Go On for worst sitcom currently being pitched -- Go On should be called If You Thought You Hated Him As Mr. Sunshine . . . ) The supposedly 'dead' sitcom genre is thriving.
Second, we were able to come up with real actors giving real comedy performances and didn't have to resort to dramedies on cable or a musical show on Fox. There's more than enough talent on sitcoms right now to fill out the comedy category.
In the last seasons, prime time, broadcast TV has gotten stronger. It's not a renaissance but it is noticeable. Whether your genre is sitcom, drama, music, action or cop shows, there's more than enough to satisfy.
The only real big question is why, in a bad economy, the big three and Fox have been surrendering Saturdays to repeats?
Last night, Fox tried Q'Viva -- a world talent show hosted by the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony and Jamie King but of greater interest to us has been NBC's moving The Firm to Saturday nights' second hour, sandwiched between repeats of Smash and Law & Order: SUV.
If NBC killed the show tomorrow, it would still be costing a large sum (due to the lawsuit filed by CBS). Having given it a 22 episode guarantee, it would be stupid to bench it at this point. Artistically, it's smart to air it just for the wonderful performance Juliette Lewis is giving.
With a little effort, The Firm could be winning Saturdays and helping NBC re-build Saturdays. NBC owned Saturdays in the 80s. To own Saturdays, it just requires one show. Golden Girls delivered the night to NBC. Empty Nest was a tired show from the first episode. It coasted on Golden Girls as did many other shows. In the 90s, Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman let CBS own it. The Firm could deliver it today.
Little effort?
Promotion would be good. Most people assume NBC Saturday is all repeats. Airing the last four filmed but unaired episodes of The Playboy Club after it on four consecutive weeks could help draw attention to new content on Saturdays. The Playboy Club was a bad show. We're not disputing that. But a "see how it all ends" ad campaign could deliver some viewers for it as well as draw attention to The Firm.
The sitcom was never dead. Nor is Saturday night. And at some point, one of the networks will realize that, program for it and be hailed as a business genius. A business genius, not an artistic one.
And there's no reason for the suits to be artistic. But they forget their place. They want to be 'creative' but they aren't. And in trying to be 'cool' by ignoring Saturday night, they forget their purpose: To deliver an audience.
That's the only thing the banks give a damn about. Somehow, network execs have lost sight of that.
The money men and women don't care the you're 'trending' online or that you're a hash tag on Twitter. They don't care. Because they know you're not social media, you're a TV network and, as such, your job is to deliver viewers. The way word of mouth travels may have changed but your job is still to provide content people will watch (now on a variety of platforms).
The Firm is actually doing its job, getting better with each episode. Last night's episode even grabbed a hot topic. A military sergeant needed Mitch (Josh Lucas) and Ray (Callum Keith Rennie) to help him find out what happened to his son. They quickly figure out that they're dealing with a murder that might go all the way up to the White House.
Ray: This kill list, an actual list created by the feds?
Mitch: Approved by the White House, enemies of the state who are pre-approved for assassination.
Ray: Pre-approved?
Mitch: If US agents or military come across names on that list they are authorized to kill -- no due, process nothing.
Ray: Okay, I understand that on a battlefield but Rashad's an American on US soil.
Mitch: We've killed people on this list before, even US citizens, but never here in the US.
They then battle with the government in a FISA court in an attempt to get to the bottom of it all. That might interest viewers. If they're aware of the storyline and if they're aware that new episodes are airing Saturday nights.
Broadcast TV is so much better than it was just five years ago, granted. Even so, it could be even better.
We dreamed of Rules of Engagement -- returns to CBS March 29th -- specifically of Jennifer (Bianca Kajlich) and Adam (Oliver Hudson). With no promoting from anyone we remember -- or even mention of the TV show, Thursday night we both dreamt of is. In one dream (Ava's), Jennifer was taking part in a fashion show against her will and Adam was excited and jealous as he wished he was the one working the runway. In the other dream (C.I.'s), Jennifer had gotten three dresses as gifts -- the one from Audrey (Megyn Price) and Jeff (Patrick Warburton), looked like something Dorothy Michaels (Tootsie) would wear and she was furiously threatening to burn it while Adam was on the phone with Jeff. Adam wasn't whispering so much as speaking at the highest end of his voice which was cracking as Jennifer waived around the dress Russell (David Spade) had given her, one that looked like a doily. "No, no," Adam gasped, "she's taking a match to the lace ensemble." And Adam was saying "ensemble" with a heavy French pronuciation.
When the show came on, the only real reason to watch was Price and Kajlich who were (and remain) great sitcom actresses. Oliver Hudson had moments that were mostly undermined by the writers. In episode six ("Hard Day's Night"), Tom Hertz came up with an Adam that finally matched with the character Hudson was shaping. The addition of Adhir Kaylan (Tamir) and sharpened timing on the part of Patrick Warburton have resulted in a very strong sitcom.
But the thing that makes it standout in a pack of sitcoms is Oliver Hudson's Adam. Adam's adorable and infuriating and Hudson's long overdue for an Emmy nomination. Last year saw four worthy nominees for Best Supporting Actor in the comedy division, all from Modern Family. It also saw two that didn't belong there. 2012 could go a long way towards acknowledging the rebirth of the TV sitcom by including Hudson as one of the nominees.
Others who deserve to be nominated in this category? Ty Burrell and Eric Stonestreet for Modern Family -- they've continued to find new dimensions to their characters (Phil and Cameron); Damon Wayans, Jr. and Adam Pally (Happy Endings' Brad and Max) and as the sixth nominee we'd toss in Dan O'Brien (Mark on Whitney).
Supporting Actress?
Eliza Coupe and Casey Wilson (Jane and Penny, Happy Endings), Maya Rudolph (Ava, Up All Night), Zoe Lister-Jones (Lily, Whitney), Rashida Jones (Ann, Parks and Recreation) and Sofia Vergara (Gloria, Modern Family).
Best Actor?
Jeremy Sisto (George, Suburgatory), Neil Flynn (Mike, The Middle), Lucas Neff (Raising Hope), Johnny Galecki and Jim Parsons (Leonard and Sheldon, The Big Bang Theory) and Tim Allen (Last Man Standing).
Best Actress?
Kat Dennings (Max, 2 Broke Girls), Jaime Pressly (Annie, I Hate My Teenage Daughter), Whitney Cummings (Whitney, Whitney), Martha Plimpton (Virginia, Raising Hope), Patrica Heaton (The Middle) and Courtney Cox (Cougar Town).
We don't usually do the above. Whomever is nominated is nominated and we're not going to obsess over it. We do think the people listed above (and many not listed) are more than worthy of being nominated. But the reason we finally weighed in is because we wanted to underscore two things.
First, despite the Water Cooler Set spending much of the previous decade insisting the sitcom had died and was over, the sitcom never went away and is thriving today. We know that's hard to believe what with the season one episode of Friends ("The One With The Fake Monica," written by Gail Mancuso) being ripped off in the new Kal Penn pilot (which ABC is flirting with but will hopefully dump) Prarie Dogs. (tied with NBC's Go On for worst sitcom currently being pitched -- Go On should be called If You Thought You Hated Him As Mr. Sunshine . . . ) The supposedly 'dead' sitcom genre is thriving.
Second, we were able to come up with real actors giving real comedy performances and didn't have to resort to dramedies on cable or a musical show on Fox. There's more than enough talent on sitcoms right now to fill out the comedy category.
In the last seasons, prime time, broadcast TV has gotten stronger. It's not a renaissance but it is noticeable. Whether your genre is sitcom, drama, music, action or cop shows, there's more than enough to satisfy.
The only real big question is why, in a bad economy, the big three and Fox have been surrendering Saturdays to repeats?
Last night, Fox tried Q'Viva -- a world talent show hosted by the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony and Jamie King but of greater interest to us has been NBC's moving The Firm to Saturday nights' second hour, sandwiched between repeats of Smash and Law & Order: SUV.
If NBC killed the show tomorrow, it would still be costing a large sum (due to the lawsuit filed by CBS). Having given it a 22 episode guarantee, it would be stupid to bench it at this point. Artistically, it's smart to air it just for the wonderful performance Juliette Lewis is giving.
With a little effort, The Firm could be winning Saturdays and helping NBC re-build Saturdays. NBC owned Saturdays in the 80s. To own Saturdays, it just requires one show. Golden Girls delivered the night to NBC. Empty Nest was a tired show from the first episode. It coasted on Golden Girls as did many other shows. In the 90s, Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman let CBS own it. The Firm could deliver it today.
Little effort?
Promotion would be good. Most people assume NBC Saturday is all repeats. Airing the last four filmed but unaired episodes of The Playboy Club after it on four consecutive weeks could help draw attention to new content on Saturdays. The Playboy Club was a bad show. We're not disputing that. But a "see how it all ends" ad campaign could deliver some viewers for it as well as draw attention to The Firm.
The sitcom was never dead. Nor is Saturday night. And at some point, one of the networks will realize that, program for it and be hailed as a business genius. A business genius, not an artistic one.
And there's no reason for the suits to be artistic. But they forget their place. They want to be 'creative' but they aren't. And in trying to be 'cool' by ignoring Saturday night, they forget their purpose: To deliver an audience.
That's the only thing the banks give a damn about. Somehow, network execs have lost sight of that.
The money men and women don't care the you're 'trending' online or that you're a hash tag on Twitter. They don't care. Because they know you're not social media, you're a TV network and, as such, your job is to deliver viewers. The way word of mouth travels may have changed but your job is still to provide content people will watch (now on a variety of platforms).
The Firm is actually doing its job, getting better with each episode. Last night's episode even grabbed a hot topic. A military sergeant needed Mitch (Josh Lucas) and Ray (Callum Keith Rennie) to help him find out what happened to his son. They quickly figure out that they're dealing with a murder that might go all the way up to the White House.
Ray: This kill list, an actual list created by the feds?
Mitch: Approved by the White House, enemies of the state who are pre-approved for assassination.
Ray: Pre-approved?
Mitch: If US agents or military come across names on that list they are authorized to kill -- no due, process nothing.
Ray: Okay, I understand that on a battlefield but Rashad's an American on US soil.
Mitch: We've killed people on this list before, even US citizens, but never here in the US.
They then battle with the government in a FISA court in an attempt to get to the bottom of it all. That might interest viewers. If they're aware of the storyline and if they're aware that new episodes are airing Saturday nights.
Broadcast TV is so much better than it was just five years ago, granted. Even so, it could be even better.
Congress and Veterans Issues
Dona: It's been a busy month in terms of Congressional hearings. Last week alone, C.I. and Kat covered hearings by the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, a joint-hearing by both, and a Senate Budget Committee hearing. You can refer to "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," "Senate Budget Committee," "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot." Ava and Wally are part of the roundtable as well because they're often at the hearings. I want to start by dropping back to the first week of February -- for coverage of hearings, see "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot." February 2nd, the House Veterans Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity held a hearing about veterans employment. That was an important hearing, in spite of itself, is what Ava and C.I. told me in real time. C.I., that was important why?
C.I.: Okay, we're talking about people who are called up for duty, while they are serving, their civilian employer replaces them. They come home and are told they no longer have jobs. That is actually against the law. It's not a new law. We go over that in the snapshot. I actually got up and left that hearing, and I note this in one of those two snapshots, step outside the room and call a friend at the Justice Dept. to ask if the law has changed. I did that because some members of that Subcomittee made statements that indicated they had no idea that what was being discussed was illegal.
Ava: To that, I would add that this was a going-through-the-motions hearing. C.I. did a great job reporting on it but she noted all that was important. In part, that's due to the fact that the
Chair, Marlin Stutzman, didn't think to call veterans to testify. You really need to hear what it's like when it happens to someone. And maybe the members of the Subcommittee would have had a lot tougher questions if they'd first heard from someone effected by this.
Wally: At a hearing the day before that, US House Rep. Michael Michaud declared, "VA comes up here and testifies that it has wonderful policies in place. Unfortunately no one ever seems to follow these policies and procedures and they seem to be no consequences for the failure to follow these procedures." That hearing was on the VA's Pharmaceutical Prime Vendor Contract but it really applies to everything.
Dona: Time and again, you four get back on Saturday and I hear about how nothing's happened, how it was going through the motions yet again. How frustrating is that?
Wally: I'm being pointed at so I'll speak. I started attending these hearings several years ago, Bush was occupying the White House then, and I thought, "Great, they've explored the problem, they've outlined it, now they're going to solve it." Yet what I tend to hear in the hearings is issues that I would have thought would be solved a long time ago. I don't know why veterans groups don't spend more time calling out the Congress, to be honest.
Dona: I like that because it's what you all tell me all the time and also because I had a pull quote from Congressional reports for the second week of February -- "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot" -- that fit. This is attorney Douglas J. Rosinski at the House Veterans Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations:
What my clients want to know is why -- when they're living at home or under supervised care -- their veteran suddenly has to have a VA fiduciary at all? My veterans have had decades of family members giving them care and handling their benefits without VA interruption. Suddenly, VA appoints a perfect stranger -- perfectly unknown to the veteran -- who has never contacted a veteran, who will not contact a veteran and is paid money from that veterans account to withhold the money from the veteran, to place it in bank accounts that they will not disclose to the veteran and they will not even disclose under FOIA [Freedom Of Information Act]. They will redact the veterans own information about his own money from the files they give out. My clients want to know why, that if there is a need, for a VA-appointed fiduciary, it has to be this stranger. They want to know why this veteran is told to take all of the veterans finances, all of his bank accounts and ask questions about his CDs [Certificate of Deposit] and whether he owns a boat and what his wife's salary is and where is that salary put and then go into the banks and take all of it and not tell them where it is. They want to know why VA not only will not correct that when I've had personal discussions with members sitting -- or people sitting -- in this hearing today and then they will not fix that problem? They want to know why VA defends those practices at every turn, in every court, in every discussion? This is not about numbers and procedures and policies. My clients don't care about policies and procedures. They want to know why they have $100,000 in the bank and they cannot afford the medicine that the VA doctors prescribed last month? They want to know why the power company's in the front yard when they have $50,000 in the bank? And it takes an emergency motion to the Veterans Court before these people will call the power company and tell them they'll pay $178.
Dona (Con't): Ava, what stood out about that hearing?
Ava: That was a good hearing. Katrina Eagle was another attorney addressing this issue with the Subcommittee. Basically, you're designating someone to be over your money, you the veteran. But in some cases, VA does that, they decide you need one or they overrule you on a family member or friend you've picked. And these people make money, they're paid. And yet even though they're paid and even though it's the veteran's money, the veteran, in may instances, is stuck with unpaid bills because the person is not doing their job. The attorneys didn't play and I know Wally wants to speak on that because we talked about it in real time.
Wally: Veterans groups should be advocates for veterans. But there are some groups that appear where the spokesperson appears to be a little too friendly with officials and a little too loose from the veterans. I don't know why attorneys come in with more passion than veterans groups. But that was the case. I said to Ava after that hearing, "Maybe veterans groups should hire law firms to represent them before Congress." If something's supposed to have happened and it didn't, I don't think you joke and josh with Congress. I think you talk about the failure to implement what was agreed upon has hurt veterans, and you give concrete examples.
Dona: And you don't feel that always happens. There's another thing that's really ticking Kat off, something that happens more and more often. Kat?
Kat: This is Senator Pete Sessions from last week, "We would have broken faith with the best people this country has produced." Really? I am so damn sick of the pandering. And, yes, I am aware that if we were sitting in on agricultural hearings, we would hear the same thing about small farmers. But I'm so sick of it. I'm so sick of the glorification and the elevation as though the US is no longer democracy but a tin cup junta. I'm old enough to know that this happens in wartime. But why this pandering is especially frightening is that we've now entered a time of war with no end. So this non-stop, never-ending worship of the military by the Congress is infecting us all. It's going to have longterm effects.
Dona: And this really does bother you?
Kat: Absolutely. I don't believe in this nonsense of 'best and brightest.' I don't believe about the military, I don't believe it about a graduating class from Harvard. I believe it is the people who never get the attention or the praise from a pandering member of Congress who are the best and the brightest. I believe that they are dispersed throughout our society.
Dona: More and more, you've been offering potentials or hypotheticals on this topic at your blog. One that puzzled a few people who e-mailed this site -- our e-mail address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com -- were nuns and priests.
Kat: I'm Catholic. I've never hidden that fact. I'm not the world's biggest Catholic or best Catholic. Yes, the Catholic Church had a priest pedophile problem -- and probably still does -- they also have some priests and nuns who are beyond exceptional and, I'll use the word, saintly. I grew up in the Church, I know it's good points, I know it's bad points. I will readily acknowledge the pedophila crimes and the sexism towards women, but I will also acknowledge that there are priests and nuns who, truly, bleed for those around them because they try so hard to help those in need.
Dona: Very good. One person who may share Wally's exasperation is US House Rep. Bob Filner. We're now up to coverage of the third week of last month's hearings, see "Iraq snapshot," "Like Corrine Brown's grandmother's sweet potato pie," "Iraq snapshot," "The Filner-Bilrakis moment in Wednesday's hearing" and "Iraq snapshot." Kat, you wrote about it, so tell us about it.
Kat: US House Rep. Gus Bilrakis had to bring up birth control on a hearing where it wasn't a topic. And Bob Filner, Ranking Member on the Committee, did kind of a sigh and then noted that he thought they could get through at least one hearing without birth control.
Dona: Now Bob Filner's a Democrat. And this predates a Democratic move to bring up women's bodies and women's rights and women's right to have control over their bodies and to contrast that with Republican attitudes. When I read your posts, when they went up, I thought, "Interesting." Then this became an argument presented by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and others. And it really feels like it started with the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
Kat: I would agree with you. US House Rep. Corrine Brown registered her offense over this nonsense and I pointed out that she really was the only one present who had any knowledge -- real knowledge -- of women's reproductive systems -- she's gone through what all women do and she's also gone through what many women do which is birth. And yet all these men were clucking over birth control. But I felt like Brown was formulating her response and that what she provided became the template that the Dems would start using -- with no credit given to Corrine Brown -- in the last weeks of the month, yes.
Dona: Okay, Wally, February 15th, the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing found Chair Jeff Miller declared that the president should stop threatening veterans. He was speaking of sequestration and the refusal of the White House to provide a clear answer on whether or not the Veterans Affairs would face automatic cuts if sequestration kicked in.
Wally: Right. And though she hasn't used words as strongly, Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has also expressed her dismay on this point. The opinion that Miller has is shared by her, Richard Burr and Bob Filner. It cross party lines. Now the Democrats -- Murray and Filner -- may not point the finger at Barack Obama -- where they should -- but they are just as bothered by this lack of clarity.
Dona: I'm now jumping to the last week and didn't mean to but, C.I., do you agree with Wally's call?
C.I.: Absolutely. Last week, the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees held a joint-hearing where the witnesses were the Disabled American Veterans and Murray noted she would be asking VA Secretary Eric Shinseki about this issue.
Dona: And she did.
C.I.: And she did.
Dona: And?
C.I.: This goes to the frustration Wally was talking about earlier. Eric Shinsekis is the VA Secretary. Sequestration is very likely this year. Even if it weren't, as the secretary of the department, he should know that answer as to whether or not sequestration would effect the VA. He told Senator Murray he didn't know.
Dona: Okay. Ava's taking care of a number of personal and family issues these days. As a result, she's not felt the need to guest blog at Trina's site on hearings as she often does. And Wally's not been guest blogging at Rebecca's due to the lack of substance and his own feelings about the nothing-happens outlook. Also true, when they all cover a hearing it's usually a Senate hearing. I bring that up because it's been asked in e-mails. But how I want to close this out is for C.I. to give an example of something that's not happening and something that did happen. Where did the system, where is it failing?
C.I.: To use examples from last month's hearings, I would say Agent Orange. Ranking Member Bob Filner made some great statements before the Disabled Veterans of America. And I like Bob, I know Bob, each of those statements were meant. But it's like 40 years later and people serving then who now have damage, disease from Agent Orange aren't getting recognized, not all of them. When it's going to happen? I don't see it happening. I don't see people exposed to Agent Orange, in large numbers, living into their eighties. Point being, if 40 years ago you were exposed to Agent Orange, you're already at least 50 and probably a lot older than that. It really looks like there are some members of Congress who have taken the attitude that they will allow some people to die off rather than pay out the benefits needed. And you can tie that into burn pits today. I'll toss to Ava.
Ava: Senator Evan Bayh tried to create a national registry for Burn Pit victims. Senator Jim Webb blocked that proposal, prevented it from leaving the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and getting a vote on the Senate floor. This is the same Jim Webb who attacked Shinseki in a public hearing over Shinseki expanding the scope to allow more victims of Agent Orange to receive benefits. The issue isn't just Republicans, they're not the only ones doing the blocking. And not all of them are blocking efforts.
Wally: C.I. championed Evan Bayh's proposal and I trust her judgment but did feel like she was emphasizing it too often. He was a well liked senator by his colleagues, a burn pit registry would be good for a number of people, surely this would get voted on. C.I. was talking -- in the snapshots back then -- about how long and hard it was to get a national registry for Agent Orange victims. And I would think, "This is going to be so much easier." And it turned out, it's not been easier. Bayh's bill got buried in committee. And it's just really depressing. Part of what pisses Kat off about that b.s. that Pete Sessions and others offer is that it's just talk. If they meant, if Pete Sessions meant it, he'd be leading on the burn pit issue among others. And he's not.
C.I.: And for information on burn pits, refer to BurnPits 360.
Dona: Okay, now give us an example of where it worked, where the Congressional process worked.
C.I.: The Hiring Heroes Act of 2011. That's an example of something being addressed, for the Congress, quickly. It addresses unemployment among veterans. It helped that Senator Patty Murray was the chief leader on the legislation. She made sure it kept moving forward. As a Committee Chair and a high ranking Democrat in the Senate, she had some weight to throw around and she did. She wasn't afraid to publicly pressure the White House on this. It takes a great deal of work to get something passed by the Congress. That's why so little happens.
Dona: And on that note, we'll wind down. Consider this a rush transcript.
From The TESR Test Kitchen
If you've ever seen Zapp's chips, you've noticed that they're the cheap chips. And, as a result, they're usually at the far end of the chip aisle, as though they might contaminate Fritos, Lays, Doritos, et al from proximity alone.
A new flavor caught our eyes, "Sea Salted SWEET POTATO CHIPS." "All Natural," the bag boasts. For those who've missed it, there's a push towards yams these days in the place of potatoes. You'll notice it in the frozen food aisle where you'll find sweet potato fries right next to the regular ones.
The back of the package looked promising, boasting, as it does, of things like:
cholesterol free
kosher certified
no preservatives
no wheat glutens
no artificial sweeteners
no artificial colors
no artificial flavors
0g trans fat
But all the promises are quickly forgotten once you open the bag and taste.
Cardboard. Limp cardboard at that.
We've had sweet potato chips. We know what they taste like. This tasted like they were only partially cooked or stale. (We tried three bags to be sure this was the standard taste.)
We do not recommend this for anyone.
A new flavor caught our eyes, "Sea Salted SWEET POTATO CHIPS." "All Natural," the bag boasts. For those who've missed it, there's a push towards yams these days in the place of potatoes. You'll notice it in the frozen food aisle where you'll find sweet potato fries right next to the regular ones.
The back of the package looked promising, boasting, as it does, of things like:
cholesterol free
kosher certified
no preservatives
no wheat glutens
no artificial sweeteners
no artificial colors
no artificial flavors
0g trans fat
But all the promises are quickly forgotten once you open the bag and taste.
Cardboard. Limp cardboard at that.
We've had sweet potato chips. We know what they taste like. This tasted like they were only partially cooked or stale. (We tried three bags to be sure this was the standard taste.)
We do not recommend this for anyone.
Radio highlight of the week
There are many serious issues right now. You wouldn't know it at many sites online. Last week on Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford (above) and Nellie Bailey, (airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network), Glen Ford discussed the push for war on Syria with international law expert Francis A. Boyle. Excerpt.
Glen Ford: The US and its allies insist that Syria doesn't have the right to protect itself. Now about one-third of the deaths in this internal conflict have already been Syrian soldiers and policemen. Clearly, it is an armed conflict.
Francis A. Boyle: Obviously. My guess is like what happened in Libya there was a spontaneous protest and demonstrations by people living there against the Assad government. That doesn't surprise me at all. But it was quickly hijacked and has been used as a pretext to promote an attempt to overthrow the Assad government and, if that doesn't work, to produce civil was in Syria that would neutralize Syria and its long standing refusal to succumb to Israel's demands and the Zionist demands that they effectively give up the Golan Heights. And also to crack Syria up into its ethnic components, which it does have along the lines of what they've already done to Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Libya as well. So the same thing could very easily happen to Syria and it would simply serve the interests of Israel, the United States, France -- the former colonial power there. It's a joke and a fraud to say that France is the least bit interested in human rights in Syria. And also Turkey -- the other former colonial power in Syria. And, again, it's a joke and a fraud to say that Turkey's the least bit interested in human rights in Syria -- especially after what's it's done to its -- what it's still doing to its own Kurdish people in Turkey itself and also in northern Iraq. So you really can't take these colonial-imperial powers seriously when they shed crocodile tears for human rights.
Glen Ford: France is demanding a humanitarian corridor in Syria. But of course we remember that NATO rejected the idea of a humanitarian corridor in Libya when the African Union proposed one.
Francis A. Boyle: Look at the proposal by the African Union which is the appropriate regional organization, set up under Chapter 8 of the United Nations Charter to deal with Africa. And they had a very comprehensive peace proposal there for Libya and it was completely brushed aside and indeed stymied at the Security Council and in the General Assembly. So the colonial-imperial powers in NATO and the United States paid absolutely no attention to the African Union. This is all eyewash that they're concerned about human rights. Have any of them lifted one finger at all to help the Palestinians? Especially the 1.5 million Palestinians now who are being subjected to slow motion genocide in Gaza? Of course not. So it's just preposterous. This is all propaganda here in the United States that I don't think really deceives anybody over there in the region about what's really going on.
Glen Ford: It seems to many of us that Syria has been forced to battle block by block in certain cities lest the West declare some area, some city, some border area, some sliver of land in Syria to be a kind of liberated territory that must be protected by the West.
Francis A. Boyle: Well they did the same thing in Libya in Benghazi, right? Remember Reagan tried to do the same thing in Nicaragua with the Contras and set up some kind of free zone and a liberated government that could then ask for military intervention? That is correct. So this is pretty much par for the course for these colonial-imperial powers. Right.
Glen Ford: So as an expert on international law, is Syria within its rights to defend its control over all of its territory?
Francis A. Boyle: Well I'm not justifying any human rights violations by Syria -- one way or the other. But certainly it seems to me that what is going on here is an organized attempt to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria that is being coordinated by the United States, France, Turkey, Qatar -- a dictatorship -- and by Saudi Arabia -- another dictatorship. And it appears support coming from Israel and Iraq and other forces under the control of Western intelligence agencies such as al Qaeda. For example, last week the Financial Times reported that all of these al Qaeda fighters -- after they did the dirty work in Libya are now moving over to mobilize against Syria. Also they are mobilizing now in Jordan, as we speak. The government does have a right to keep itself in power. You know, who gives Obama the right to say that the government in Syria should step down? None. But they don't really care. There has been no effort made at all by the United States, any of these imperial powers or by the United Nations or by the League of Arab States to achieve a peaceful resolution of this dispute as required by the terms of the United Nations Charter under Chapter Six -- which is what they should have done before moving to Chapter Seven enforcement measures. No effort at all has been made to produce a peaceful resolution of this matter and that's exactly what happened in Libya -- no effort at all was made. So I think that indicates just an absence of good faith at and, at this point, they have no intention of a peaceful resolution of this dispute. Their objective, their intention is to overthrow the Assad government, put in a stooge puppet if possible that will be under the control of the United States, France and at the end of the day sign some type of bogus peace treaty with Israel that will give them the control of the Golan Heights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
