Monday, February 13, 2023

Media: The Problem

Media is supposed to inform and impart knowledge.  But that's not enough for some.  Amy Goodman began her attacks on balanced media years ago -- before the influx of foundation money to DEMOCRACY NOW! led her to support US wars -- such as the one on Libya.  


3 JESS

 

You remember those days?  Those were the days that saw Glen Ford of BLACK AGENDA REPORT dismissed.  Those were the days when Aaron Mate worked for DEMOCRACY NOW!  Mate thinks he remembers those days.  For example,



Again, Aaaron was there, at DEMOCRACY NOW!, when Amy Goodman was serving up 'reporting' (commentary) backing NATO and empire.  He's never had to cop to that.  But he is fond of slamming Amy.


We're fine with that.  We've slammed Amy many times.  See the people who keep snarling about objective journalism, they're not honest.  Amy's viewers?  Do they know that Amy had an inaugural ball for Barack Obama in 2008 (naturally, it was also a fund raiser)?  Is that how an independent lefty holds power accountable?


No, it's not.  

 

And they lie all the time.  That's the especially sad part.  


It's one of the most depressing lessons that we've learned -- and demonstrated -- since this site began.  We were, for example, fans of FAIR -- annoyed by the lack of representation of women, but we listened and we learned.  In October 2006, for example, as FAIR was celebrating its 20th anniversary, this site was pointing out that instead of just pointing fingers at NPR and PBS for their lack of equality when it came to the gender make up of the guests, maybe CounterSpin could also attempt to book an equal number of male and female guests.  They're real good about criticizing others while ignoring the fact that they are just as bad as the mainstream.  In fact, maybe they're worse because they were calling out the mainstream and not realizing that they themselves had the same problem.


The last few weeks has been all about beggar media (send us money!!!!!) exposing themselves as hypocrites.  


A rally will take place this month.  Those opposed to the rally?


They're CIA, they're FBI, they're plants, they're this, they're that.  That's what the Ritter boyz say.


It goes to how stupid and out of touch Panhandle Media is.  


Scott Ritter has been arrested three times for trying to set up sex with underage girls.  The first two times were during the time Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House and Scott was able to spin the one arrest as retaliation for him speaking out against the impending Iraq War.  He didn't talk about the other arrest.  And some believed him because he was such a great 'anti-war' voice.


No, he wasn't.  Even he declared this month that he's never been anti-war (in a Tweet where he attacked the people of Ukraine -- not the leaders, the people).  He's Mad Maddie Albright with a penis.  His supporters -- currently and in the past -- elected to overlook the fact that he supported the 90s sanctions on Iraq -- which devastated the country and left thousands and thousands of Iraqi children dead.


To this day, Tom Feeney's INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE hosts a video of Mad Maddie -- on the left side of the page -- appearing on 60 MINUTES saying that the deaths were worth it.  It's an ugly video of an ugly woman with an ugly soul.  She's dead now but it is her legacy forever more and she was called out for it during her lifetime.


So why does Tom post Scott Ritter's bad writing?  (Bad as in verging on unreadable.)  Tom's never held Scott Ritter accountable for sanctions despite Ritter advocating for it and supporting it.  Is it just wrong if we're talking about a woman?  Does a penis give Scott a pass?


The hypocrisy never ends with the Beggar Media.  


Scott Ritter was supposed to be featured in the rally this month.  The thrice arrested pedophile was supposed to be onstage, soaking up the applause and lending his damaged name to the festivities.  THE VANGUARD covered this last week.




Objection to Scott Ritter, a convicted pedophile who served time in prison and is now a registered sex offender appearing at the rally was evidence of a new COINTELLPRO!!!!!!  Of infiltration!!! 


No, it was evidence of basic standards.


You don't put rapists or pedophiles on stage.  Sorry, this is so hard for you to grasp.  It does explain why MeToo was needed in the first place -- so much of the left doesn't give a damn about women -- and that includes some women.  And our statement there?  It's nothing news.  We've made it here forever.  More to the point, before we ever wrote one word about it, Ellen Willis, Robin Morgan and many others had written at length on this issue -- on  a supposed belief in equality on the left but with men who never recognized how they oppressed and harmed women.  Many women covered this terrain but we need to especially note Casey Hayden and Anne Butterfield Weills who learned first hand just how sexist the left could be -- from first husbands Tom Hayden and Robert Scheer.   Robert was part of TRUTH DIG . . . until a woman purchased it.  Now he does SCHEERPOST where he gladly publishes Scott Ritter so that we all know he's still anti-women.  

 

In the Ritter matter, some elected to hide behind Tara Reade.  And why not?  An obese person like Tara offers a mountain of cover.  Tara's not a feminist, she's never been a feminist.


She's a user and she's a liar.  She's an unattractive woman today and, in some people's minds, that's what a feminist is.  But feminism is not about being good looking or, like Tara, looking like an ugly dog left out in the rain.


Tara came to prominence for her accusation that Joe Biden assaulted her when he was a US senator and she worked in his office.  We believe her on that.  We think she can support her allegation and has far more proof of it happening than any other he-said-she-said case.


But that doesn't make her a saint.  Nor does it wipe away all the people she's hurt over the years, the ones she used, the ones she leeched off of and never paid back.


She's not a nice person.


She's also not an educated person.  To watch her stumbling in 2020 and 2021 was to grasp how deeply stupid she is.  She sounded like a partisan who never questioned anything but instead just spat out whatever the talking points of the day we were.  We've noted that here.  After she got the fact that other partisans (partisans like herself) were never going to come on board and support her, she got angrier (and fed her face more out of anger thus putting on even more weight) and refashioned herself into some sot of girl-sidekick -- heaven forbid she act as an adult woman, apparently -- and began appearing on Tucker Carlson and praising him and all this other nonsense.


Now, for the record, there's nothing wrong with her appearing on Tucker.  But the time to do it was in 2020.  Back then, she stupidly refused -- and we called her out then.  If you're taking on a would-be US president, you go on any outlet that will have you to make your case.  Instead, she waited forever, to the point that no one cared because the interest in her topic had expired.  Then she goes on and acts like a little girl -- do very large, middle aged women not get how ridiculous they look when they giggle and coo? -- and can't stop praising Tucker.


She was ridiculous when she was the left partisan.  She's more ridiculous (and fatter) now that she's the right wing partisan.  When not lapping at Tucker's crotch, she can be found hanging with Kim Iverson.


She's a yo-yo girl.  Yo-yo on the diets, yo-yo on the partisanship.  She's not smart enough to grasp politics, she's not intelligent to stand on her own.


And she'll never learn a thing as she goes around madly blocking even the kindest Twitter suggestion that maybe a woman claiming Biden assaulted her shouldn't be promoting a registered sex offender.  

 

For the record, THE COMMON ILLS is banned by her for what one of us, C.I., wrote at THE COMMON ILLS, not for anything Tweeted.  She apparently hasn't yet banned THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW which is how we can see her pinned Tweet praising Tucker Carlson.


That would be the same Tucker who has declared war on the LGBTQ+ community and who promotes lies and attacks about and on that community.


A feminist doesn't go along with that.


Again, Tara's not a feminist.   Being one would have provided her with a theoretical outlook and she's just an idiot crashing into the rocks every time the sea brings her back to the shore.


She can't stand up for herself because she's so deeply stupid and forever rushing from man to man to find a White Knight to save her.  


Pathetic.


A political simpleton, Tara wanted the world to know that she stands with registered sex offender Scott Ritter.


That's a problem for her and the other White supporters of Scott Ritter.  Those White men include Jimmy Dore, the White boys of DUE DISSIDENCE, Richard Medhurst, Little Jackie Hinkle, Aaron Mate, Max Blumenthal, Caleb I-Need-A-Spanking-Right-Now-Mommy! Maupin, and so many more.  


It's good for them, these White and proud and White Pride men, to support Scott Ritter.  Truth is, if an African-American mad had been arrested only once for pedophilia, he'd be tossed in prison for 30 years.  But Scott Ritter, being White and a former UN weapons inspector, was able to lean on friends to get the first arrest ignored and to get the second arrest reduced to probation.  


White privilege at work, please grasp.  


It took the third arrest, while Barack Obama was president, for Ritter to finally be carted off to prison.


Third arrest.  DUE DILLIGENCE lost a lot of subscribers last week when one host was out and the other insisted that Ritter was only arrested twice and that he had paid his debt to society.


The host is either a serial liar or just brain damaged.  Three arrests.  Debt to society?  No.  Since going off probation -- after being released from prison -- Scott Ritter has taken to denying what he did and what the court found him guilty of.  That's not paying a debt to society, don't pretend that it is.  You're a damn liar.


David Swanson was pissing his panties recently.  Before we go further, note to David: STOP SPAMMING US WITH YOUR GARBAGE.


David and us go back.  He's a piece of filth.  At one point, he wrote Rebecca.  Why did she say such and such, he asked while lying that he was a huge fan of her site.  She was kind of enough to reply back to him.


How stupid is David?  He doesn't understand the concept of reply all.  He ended up griping about her to the head of Hip Hop Caucus and including her in on it by accident.  She immediately confronted him and he tried to deny that he had said anything rude about her or that he mocked her or that he had passed on her e-mail.


He's garbage who has no respect for women.  He continued to e-mail THE COMMON ILLS where he's never gotten a reply.  Because Rebecca wanted to let it go and move on, David got highlighted from time to time at THE COMMON ILLS.  That ended when he wrote his ridiculous column (see "David Swanson finds his Maddie Albright moment" from this site) and decided the thing to do was stand with Scott Ritter.   We don't promote Scott Ritter or those who minimize the actions that result in registered sex offenders.


David took to attacking those who didn't want to stand with Scott at the upcoming rally.  


They just don't get it.


No one in their right mind wants to stand next to a convicted and registered sex offender. 


'We need to work together!' hisses the pro-Scott Ritter crowd.


Really?  Because we need to work together to stop the attacks on transgender persons but Aaron Mate, Jimmy Dore, and all the rest of the White men circle-jerking with Ritter not only won't devote a minute of their time to covering those attacks, they also embrace Tucker Carlson, Kim Iverson and anyone else leading attacks on that community.


The always pathetic Medea Benjamin showed up.  Naturally.  Where there's a dumpster fire, there is Medea.  She wants to speak with Ritter, she explained in a Tweet.




Good for you, Medea.  Remember when ANTIWAR.COM was calling you out because you were trying to continue the Afghanistan War?  Or what about when you bird-dogged Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in 2007 and 2008 over the Iraq War with your gal pal Jodie -- forgetting to inform them that Jodie was a bundler for Barack Obama.  Never did bird-dog Barack and when people rightly wondered about that (John had a stronger anti-war position than did Barack -- even if you reduced it to only the Iraq War), they should have been told that Jodie was using the money she late-life married into to put Barack into the White House.  But if you couldn't be a hypocrite, Media, what would there be left for you to be?

 

CODEPEACE was created as a propaganda front for the Democratic Party.  We know it, Jane Fonda knows it.  That's why Jane invited Jodie into the ridiculous WOMEN'S MEDIA CENTER.  In 2008, three women were running on national tickets for president (Cynthia McKinney) and vice president (Rosa Clemente and Sarah Palin) but WMC was ignoring them all to whore for Barack and it took us calling WMC out here and organizing well known feminists to join us in complaining to WMC to finally get one report -- only one -- on women in the race.  They weren't about covering women.  WMC is a front for the Democratic Party.  That's why it's never accomplished anything.  That's why we've done serious work here on the gender imbalance in media while WMC wants to pretend that they've done the same. 

 

All the money and time poured into that useless website that, right now, has a November 18th piece at the top of their page . . . on February 12th.  And click "recent articles" on the sidebar and be taken to a November 2nd article.  That's how pathetic they are.  They wasted money on GREEN STONE MEDIA -- which existed, please remember, to promote the works of Aaron Sorkin and was with Sudan.  So very feminist of them.  Two hours each day obsessing over Aaron the male genius.  And three hours a day pimping war with Sudan.  

 

After having wasted that money, they then came back with a website and it's just more wasted dollars.  In February, they can't point to anything more recent than November.  

 

Well, it's not an election year so they'll probably hibernate until it's time to come back and tell you how to vote.

 

That's what Krystal Ball does.  Not hibernate.  Too bad because her face does look like she could use a lot more rest.  But she tells you how to vote.  Again, that's not what the beggar media should be doing.

 

We're grown ups.  We don't need you to tell us how to vote or, for that matter, to tell us to "Grow up!" -- something Krystal infamously hissed recently.

 

If you want to support someone, support them.  But don't tell other people what to do.

 

Marianne Williamson?  We like her.  But if you're going to order people to "Grow up!" and get behind Marianne for president, we're required in our role here to tell the truth.  And it goes like this: She's a snake oil con woman who needs everyone to do what she says or she bows out or shuts down a facility.  She can't work with others, she's never been able to.  She's also never held elected office of any form and has nothing to offer but celebrity.  We kind of thought we were all done with celebrity after seeing its natural outcome in 2016.   In addition, she is a joke to the mainstream press and they get away with making her a joke because that's also how the public sees her.


Now Krystal can be Queen of Lost Causes -- such as her relationship with Kyle -- and we'll be happy to look the other way up until she starts trying to order everyone around.


Is that why BREAKING POINTS exists now?  So she can tell us how to vote?


Her nonsense and the Scott Ritter nonsense are not that opposite.  In both cases, people wish to do something and instead of going about their business and doing it, they use their platforms to attack others for refusing to go along.


Neither group wants an educated citizenry.  You just want to tell people what to do and have them march in line.  That's not what media is supposed to be about.  Yes, it is what the corporate media is about but independent media was supposed to be about refuting the propaganda model -- not about creating a new one.

 

Now there is worse.  In this world, there is always worse.  There's Caitlin Johnstone.  She's promoted by some people.  We have no idea why.

 

She's the new Luke Ryland.  For awhile, some Americans on the left, in the 00s, were promoting him and his awful website WOT IS IT GOOD 4 as worth reading.  It really wasn't.  And for the same reason that Caitlin Johnstone isn't worth reading.

 

We're not big fans of 1979's BREAKING AWAY and we especially do not care for Dennis Christopher's Dave.  If you've not seen the film, it's another 'slice of life' film that never acknowledges women.  And Dave's character is an idiot.  An American obsessed with Italy.  You watch and you cringe at his failure to live his own life.

 

That's what Luke and Caitlin need to do.  Both are from Australia.  Both present as anti-war (Luke's actually vanished -- thankfully).  And they have so much to say about what goes on in the US.  And nothing to say about what goes in Australia.  

 

In other words, they're cowards who won't call out their own country but are constantly obsessing over the United States.  They're like Dave in BREAKING AWAY.  

 

If you're really political, Caitlin, write about your own damn country, the one you live in.  Stop pressing your pathetic face up against the glass.  Maybe if you held your own country accountable, it would actually work to protect Julian Assange?  Instead, you give your own government a pass.  That's not brave. 

 

On some lever, Caitlin grasps what a coward she is.  After all, she did Tweet this.

 

She's calling out Branko Marcetic, an American, for focusing on human rights abuses in Iran.  But Branko actually does focus on human rights abuses in various countries.  

 

As Chelsea infamously said last week on THE DAILY SHOW, "Well if that's not the Pot calling the Kettle Q-Anon."

 

 

 

 Why can't she focus on her own government.


Is she unaware of her government's role in Ukraine?  They're delivering $655 million in support.  And in January, her government's defense department issued the following:

 

18 January 2023

Australian soldiers will depart Darwin this week to join partner nations in the United Kingdom, providing critical training to Ukrainian recruits to support their national defence in response to Russia’s illegal invasion.

A contingent of up to 70 Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel will deploy as part of ADF Operation KUDU to assist with the UK-led and based training program.

The training conducted under this operation will generate additional capacity within the Armed Forces of Ukraine and will focus on basic infantry tactics for urban and wooded environments; helping Ukrainian recruits gain the military skills needed to defend their homeland.

No ADF personnel will enter Ukraine as part of the program.

Operation KUDU demonstrates Australia’s ongoing commitment to stand with the people of Ukraine, and continued support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

To date, Australia has provided Ukraine with approximately $655 million in support, including $475 million in military assistance.

  

Yet Australian Caitlin can't call out her own government.  Does she honestly think she comes off brave hissing at the United States while remaining silent about her own government?  She's the worst kind of coward there is.  So was Luke.  We have no respect for either.

 

And we don't have respect for people who refuse to grasp that honest brokers just don't like Marianne Williamson for president.  She has no record.  She has nothing to her name to suggest that she knows how to work with Congress or how, in fact, to work with others.  She was the joke of the 2020 primaries.  And that's who you want people to get behind?  Hey, Marianne is a step up from Dennis Kucinich, we'll give you that.  But even a slug is a step-up from Dennis Kucinich.  Dennis was factory made with a collapsible spine. 


Maybe Marianne will grow into a great campaigner and we'll all be saying, "Konnichiwa, girlfriend."  But until that day comes, Krystal needs to cool her jets.  She also needs to grasp that she's not being original.  In 2020, Joe Biden supporters screeched "Grow up!" -- as they will in 2024.  Imitation being the clearest form of admitting you have nothing to offer on your own.  

 

And the Ritter fans are attacking Jeff Mackler.  We don't worship Jeff.  We often agree with him.  We certainly agree with what he wrote about the Ritter faux action.   But instead, the Ritter stans want to attack Mackler.  Funny though, Jimmy Dore hasn't done a thing.  Mackler spoke out against the Iraq War.  He and others continue to call it out but the Jimmy Dores don't.  They have all this time to Tweet and to YOUTUBE but never time to call out the fact that US troops remain on the ground in Iraq all these years later.  The Jimmy Dores have to smear their opponents, if they didn't people would realize what hucksters they actually were.


The problem isn't those asking questions and refusing to swallow a party line.  Those are the people we need.  The problem is a beggar media that wants to be as controlling and dishonest as the corporate media.  If it worked on actually educating us instead of trying to tell us who to vote for or to ignore the registered sex offender behind the curtain, this country might have a government that actually did serve the people.


 

Wednesday, February 08, 2023

TV: Now the hate mongers come for WOLF PACK

Ty told us readers were writing in convinced we must hate WOLF PACK since we haven't reviewed it.  There are many shows we haven't reviewed yet.  Don't assume that we dislike something because we haven't covered it.

With regards to WOLF PACK, we've watched the first two episodes and were planning on reviewing it later on.  We'd check the viewership on it and knew WOLF PACK wasn't in any trouble -- its pulling in really good numbers.  We weren't, however, aware that the show was being attacked.

 

3 JESS

Attacked?


One homophobe -- who's written homophobic comments about many shows -- felt the need to share


The boy on boy porn in the first 29 minutes was a little bit much for me. I don’t care what people do but I do not want it cramped down my throat. Teen Wolf was an amazing show and I so wanted to love this. I am a werewolf, vampire, ghost, mummy kind of person. I so wanted to love this show. Teen Wolf had so boy on boy to but they were tasteful with it. Y’all just threw it in our faces. I wish you lots of luck with the show. I got Paramont only to watch this show. Now I will cancel.


Where do you start with that garbage?  First off, she didn't watch the show or she wouldn't make the mistakes she does.  Second, she's not subscribing, she has no subscription to dump.  She's 'reviewing' based on the trailer. The first 29 minutes of the first episode?  Nope.  It's the second episode and it's 32 minutes into the program (minus commercials).  And this 'boy on boy porn'? It's not porn and it's 40 seconds split into three parts.  In the first two parts (23 seconds) Harlan (Tyler Lawrence Gray) is working out and having a dream or premonition where he and another guy kiss while clothed.  In the last third (17 seconds) the kissing continues and we see nude butt as the other guy pulls off Harlan's shorts.**

 

Do you get now what a liar the reviewer is?  And cramped down her throat?  Cramped?  Does she mean crammed?  That is the problem with Christian illiterates -- attempt to figure out what they mean as they wrongly use words from their highly limited vocabulary.  And for the record, Christian illiterates is a term from 30 ROCK and it doesn't refer to all Christians. It refers to stupid ones. See season five, episode 17 "Queen of Jordan" (written by Tracey Wigfield) where Liz tells Randi, "No, we're not writing a tearful admission of your being a call girl in Delaware.  Write it yourself."  To which Randi responds, "For your information I'm a Christian illiterate, so that's not an option." 


"TEEN WOLF had so boy on boy to" -- does she mean "had some boy on boy too"?  Again, the Christian illiterates don't just deface, they also create work for those who try to decipher their poorly worded and constructed sentences. 

 

And, again, she's not a subscriber to PARAMOUNT-PLUS.  No one who paid money for it would spell it "PARAMONT."  She watched the trailer -- probably on YOUTUBE -- and then wrote her homophobic and uninformed (redundant?) review.  40 seconds, please remember, was too much for her.  40 seconds was a same-sex relationship being "cramped" down her throat.


As we came across garbage like that, we realized why readers were worried. WOLF PACK is being attacked by hate mongers who are using lies (we don't think Jesus Christ would approve of that).  It is scary as they carry out an organized campaign to kill the show.  But, here's the thing, these liars pulled the same crap with THE LAST OF US -- review bombing it after the third episode told the story of Frank and Bill's love.  All these lying homophobes showed up to insist that they subscribed to HBO -- they didn't -- and that they were cancelling their subscriptions because of Frank and Bill and would never watch the show again.  Know what happened?  For one thing, episode four got even more viewers.  Secondly, HBO does their own survey of the subscribers.  And when you try to lie on those surveys, you get kicked out of it.  Meaning, the WOLF PACK reviewer above wouldn't have gotten away with her garbage with an HBO program due to her errors which demonstrate she didn't watch the episode. 

 

These people don't watch.  They're the ones who were bragging that they'd cut the chord because they didn't want the smut of, say, THE HALLMARK CHANNEL.  These Christian illiterates are large enough, if they work real hard, to propel a film into number nine at the box office -- but only one film at a time as Stan noted. They're not big enough to impact anything and they're too cheap to pay for HBO.  (Some people can't afford HBO, we're well aware.  We're two years shy of 20 years of covering TV here.  When we started, we only covered broadcast TV because we were aware that not everyone could afford to pay for programming.  Only in 2017 did we finally begin reviewing HBO and we still do that sparingly.)

 

Another thing the hateful haters share?  The claim that they're doing what they're doing to protect children.


 

To protect children.


Hmm.


That's the same lie hate monger Marjorie Taylor Green likes to spout.  And corrupt people like Glenyth Greenwald allow her to do so.  Glen had the US House of Representative Greene on his bad program last week.  We don't have time for Glenyth and his self-loathing.  But last week also found Marjorie making more horrible remarks -- this time in a Congressional hearing.  


Here's what she said -- can you see the problem on your own? -- :


Critical race theory in education. It’s a racist curriculum used to teach children that somehow their white skin is not equal to black skin and other things in education.

 

In case you missed the problem, Marjorie's furious about money going into public schools where children are being taught.  


Now when we say children, we picture a wide range of children. 


Not Marjorie.  Children, in her mind, are only those young persons living in "their white skin."


Did no one catch that?


We got it the first time we read it last week and we waited and waited and then waited some more for her to be called out.


No one did.  


Marjorie wants to save children -- or at least those with "white skin." 


That attitude is the attitude that is responsible for all her hatred -- all her immense hatred.  


She wants to save the children -- at least the White children.  She can't see the country enough to grasp that all children are not White.  Or, if she can see that, her tiny and pathetic heart isn't capable of reaching out to anyone who doesn't have "white skin."


She also is unable/unwilling to grasp that some children are LGBTQ+.  Some children know very early on that they are.  Marjorie's not concerned with them.  She doesn't care about them.  They don't exist to her just like children of color don't exist to her.

 

Marjorie isn't the only homophobe pretending to care about children.  Republican Pamela Denise Long showed up last week at NEWSWEEK.  Her beef?  Black History Month.

 

Specifically, she's bothered that African-Americans who aren't hetero might get attention.

 

No doubt while belching from heartburn, she snarled:


The state of Florida invited College Board to revise the course curriculum and submit it for reconsideration, which they did, adding Black conservative voices and removing writers representing critical race theory and "the queer experience."

Outraged liberals accused the College Board of "caving" to DeSantis. Yet Florida's Department of Education is right: We need to stop allowing other interest groups to shoehorn their agendas into Black American history.

It's indefensible, not least because we desperately need unbiased content that helps Americans develop fuller awareness about the experience of Black Americans to cultivate a more robust understanding of this nation's civic obligations to us. A well thought out African American Studies AP course could go a long way toward doing that. Yet the course that DeSantis's administration rejected did something else: It unnecessarily married Black American history with dismantling capitalism and queer theory.

Sadly, this penchant is all too common.

Black LGBTQIA+ activists and their white supporters claim we are erasing them when their sexuality isn't placed in the spotlight. But the reality is, Black LGBTQIA+ activists are Black. The extent to which they are not Black first and foremost is a matter of their own identity priorities, and the descendants of U.S. slaves—the people who are the crux of the "Black" in African American studies—cannot afford to accommodate their emotional needs.

 

It's called intersectionality and that's defined as "the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage."  

 

It's not an either/or though Long's so hateful and ignorant that she can't get beyond the either/or construct.  Kimberle Crenshaw has made that field her area of expertise.  If Long weren't so opposed to education and reading, we'd recommend this article to her.

 

She might also try researching Africa before she tries to erase gays and lesbians. She could start with 2001's BOY-WIVES AND FEMALE HUSBANDS: STUDIES OF AFRICAN HOMOSEXUALITIES.

 

Long pretends she's concerned with children too.  But if she was truly concerned with children, she wouldn't try to erase reality.  Not only are some of the children in Florida LGBTQ+ persons, not only do some of the children have LGBTQ+ parents and/or family members, but they're all going to be around LGBTQ+ persons.  And Long doesn't want them to know anything.

 

Last year, Gwen Iviles, Ariel Jao and Brooke Sopelsa (NBC NEWS) noted:


From 1960s civil rights activist Bayard Rustin to Chicago's first lesbian mayor, Lori Lightfoot, Black LGBTQ Americans have long made history with innumerable contributions to politics, art, medicine and a host of other fields.

“As long as there have been Black people, there have been Black LGBTQ and same-gender-loving people,” David J. Johns, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, told NBC News. “Racism combined with the forces of stigma, phobia, discrimination and bias associated with gender and sexuality have too often erased the contributions of members of our community."


For children, Long insists, people's lives must be buried.  Now, let's be clear, she's not concerned about burying any man or woman who married or who had an affair.  It's just if the person is LGBTQ+.  

 

She's a hate monger.  


Hate is all she has and it's all she has to offer.  She tries to pass it off as caring and compassion but it's just hate.


In WOLF PACK, Sarah Michelle Gellar returns to series TV as arson investigator Kristen Ramsey.  What she's really doing, though, is attempting to help the teenagers who are becoming -- or already were -- wolves.  These shows tend to get richer with each episode.  We see a lot of moments here that can bring the sort of long running pay off that BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER did.

 

It's a show worth watching, one that holds your attention.  That's more than reason enough to watch.  If you need another, remember you have the power to send the hate mongers back to the hell their closed minds have trapped them in for all eternity. 


 -----------

**Added 2/9/23.  Reader Karen e-mailed to say of the reviewer we quoted, "She may be referring to the club scene in the first episode."  Thank you, Karen for pointing that out.  She might be.  We find that even more laughable.  First, it's 28 minutes in, not 25. Second, all we see is kissing.  There's no nudity.  And there's an opposite sex couple kissing as well off to the side.  It's Harlan and the other guy again as the same-sex couple.  And it's 25 seconds.  25 seconds.  In a scene where one opposite sex couple is kissing and one same-sex couple is kissing.  And that could qualify as boy-on-boy porn in the mind of the Christian illiterate?  Karen's probably right about this.  We felt the reviewer had to be having a meltdown over the second episode because the kissing lasted longer and you also got a nude male butt in it.


28 53





Monday, January 30, 2023

Truest statement of the week

It isn’t my intent to criticize religiosity, though Dungy has used his to pan non-Christian religions and people whom his version of Christianity rejects. He is an evangelical Christian who has been an outspoken opponent not just of abortion but same-sex marriage, which he campaigned against in Indiana when he was coach of the Colts, and against gay people in general, including those who may toil as professional athletes. He infamously said he wouldn’t have Michael Sam, the would-be first openly gay player in the NFL, in his locker room.


This is all yet another reminder that sports can be, has been and often continues to be an agent for the opposite of which it is celebrated: regression, not progress. Dungy isn’t in the sports world’s ballyhooed vanguard of social change no matter his historical achievement as the first Black head coach to lead a team to a Super Bowl championship.

In fact, in March he is scheduled to stay on brand as a speaker at an all-men’s conference called Men’s Advance 2023. It’s headed by evangelical Christian pastor Andrew Wommack, who argued two years ago that “homosexuality is three times worse than smoking. We ought to put a label across their forehead: ‘This can be hazardous to your health.’ ”

Dungy should know going through with that appearance could be hazardous to his career.

 

--  Kevin B Blackistone, "Tony Dungy shows the regressive and intolerant worst in sports" (WASHINGTON POST).

 

 

Truest statement of the week II

+ Get me rewrite: Top Gun Maverick is a nominee for best adapted screenplay, said screenplay “adapted” from the original Top Gun. Do Boeing and the Pentagon get credit here? The main adaption being that the original Top Gun featured an F-14 TomCat built by Grumman, while Maverick features an F/A-18E/F  Super Hornet built by Boeing.

+ The “adapted” screenplay for Top Gun Maverick is up against Living (adapted from Kurosawa, who adapted his film Ikiru from Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich) and All Quiet on the Western Front (adapted from Erich Maria Remarque’s novel). What a horse race!

 

-- Jeffrey St. Clair, "Roaming Charges: The Ugliest Thing in America" (COUNTERPUNCH). 

 

 



Editorial: Full speed to no where

tm14

 

 

 Year after year, the US military remains in Iraq.  No one wants to put the brakes on, no one wants to throw the car into reverse.  Worse yet, no one seems to think it's worth pointing out.

 

Over in Canada,  Scott Taylor (SALT WIRE) writes:


Which brings us to Operation Impact, Canada’s ongoing military commitment to Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.

This is the one theatre which Auchterlonie feels Canada can safely reduce the number of troops deployed.

Perhaps a better question would be: What the hell are Canadian troops still doing in Iraq?

When Operation Impact was first established in 2014, the fanatical Islamic faction known as [. . .] aka ISIS or ISIL) had poured across the Syrian border into Iraq.

The U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces simply melted away, leaving their U.S. purchased weapons, ammunition and combat vehicles to the [ISIS] extremists.

[. . .]

As witnessed after the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraq is rife with factional divisions.

Canada never had a dog in that fight and we would have been better off withdrawing from that region in 2017.

Auchterlonie should press his political masters to reduce his task load and put an immediate end to Operation Impact.


So the issue can be raised in North America, just not in the US?

----------------------------


We forgot the note to the readers so I (Jim) am tacking it on here.  We managed to get this posted on Sunday -- first time in years.

 

Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:



The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

 


Here's what we came up with:



Peace.

 

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


 

TV: The last thing anyone needs is more of the same

Wanda Sykes hosted COMEDY CENTRAL's THE DAILY SHOW last week and the main thing is demonstrated is that she should never host again.
 
3 JESS
 

Was she that bad?  She was that so-much-like-everyone-else, that's what she was.

Leslie Jones owns the spot after her hosting gig two weeks ago.  The reason for that?  She made it her own.  She stamped it with her persona and personality -- the way  Jon Stewart did when he took the job after Craig Kilborn.  And that is why the ratings soared under Jon's leadership.  Craig didn't do a bad show and he was frequently funny.  But there was no real reason to watch.

No real reason to watch sums up Trevor Noah's tenure.  He never had a point of view.  He never had a voice.  He told jokes a little and minced a lot.  Stephen Colbert could have taken his own character that he'd played for years and done THE DAILY SHOW with that voice and probably Jon's audience would have stuck with him.

But Trevor Noah was a nightmare -- a different person from night to night, always the same delivery (mincing) and viewers ran away in hoards.  A hit show that all the other networks -- cable and broadcast -- envied became the show no one wanted.

The next host needs to be able to rebuild and that's going to take a vision.  

At best, Wanda showed she could copy.  At best. 

That's not what anyone needs.



except all the radios agree with all the tvs
and all the magazines agree with all the radios
and i keep hearing that same damn song everywhere i go
maybe i should put a bucket over my head
and a marshmallow in each ear
and stumble around for
another dumb-numb week for another hum drum hit song to appear
-- "Fuel," written by Ani DiFranco, first appears on her LITTLE PLASTIC CASTLES 




Repeating, that's not what anyone needs.


And Wanda can certainly carry on that tradition.  She offered tired and dull 'jokes' as though it were 2017 and not 2023.  Since she was attempting topical humor, that was a problem.

As feminists, we were also bothered by one of her guests: Katha Pollitt. 

Wanda brought Katha on so they could chat about abortion.  Katha writes bad columns for THE NATION.  One of those bad columns, please understand, was about the lack of African-Americans on television.

"Good for Katha!"  Back that up.

Not good for Katha.

Katha wasn't decrying the lack of representation.  She was using her single page in THE NATION to call out the NAACP for objecting to the very few African-Americans on television.  Katha huffed that this wasn't a real issue and that there were more important point things to focus on.

For those who don't know, Katha is Anglo White and Wanda is African-American.

Did Wanda feel feminists need to be represented on TV?  If so, way to go, Wanda; however, if you're trying to address representation maybe don't do it with a woman who only cares that her own fat ass is represented and who has attacked the NAACP or is Kimberle Crenshaw's concept of intersectionality too much for you to process and comprehend?

We comprehended, we got that, last week, Wanda was Crickett, Barb, Ruby, Daphne and all the other names she used while playing the same character in one TV show and/or film after another.  It's not bad but it's not fresh.  

Nor is Wanda fresh to TV hosting. THE WANDA SYKES SHOW was her late night entry back in 2009 and it ran for 21 episodes before being cancelled.  She did not turn the world on -- with her smile or anything else -- back then and doing the same thing over again while expecting different results may be a definition of programming, but it's not good programming.

"I could do that."  Viewers like a host that makes the job look so easy they're left thinking they could do it as well.  But the trick there is that a good host makes it look easy when it's really not easy.  A bad host?  A bad host did what Wanda did last week (and back in 2009) which is what you see in any elementary school on a Monday after SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE aired: A lot of kids trying to get laughs from the same material that got laughs the previous Saturday night when handled by professionals.

She wasn't bad -- she's a professional stand up comic -- she was, however, boring.

She did THE DAILY SHOW the same way anyone else could have done it.

There was no real energy -- and she's not a physical comedian -- as a comic she doesn't exist below the neckline.  She aped the men of late night.

Jon Stewart had a passion and an energy and a need to prove himself.  We say that as two people who love Jon (and know him) but we say it because it's true.  Leslie has that drive.  And she made each episode about her vision and her voice.  She was a full bodied comedian, working with everything she had, throwing herself into the role.  Chelsea Handler is another one who wants the spot but she has the same problem that Wanda has -- she's stale and dated and both seem to believe that people tune in for those real interviews -- and not the mock segments.  Yes, Chelsea can interview -- so could Dinah Shore but Dinah would have had the brains to grasp THE DAILY SHOW requires a lot more than an ability to interview.  THE DAILY SHOW stood out because it was not a Sunday chat & chew a la MEET THE PRESS.  COMEDY CENTRAL is going to go through other try-outs over the next week.   If someone tops Leslie, we'll gladly note it here.  But right now, she's the only real hope for the future of the show, she brought energy, drive and a unique point of view that made the show come alive. 

 

 

 

 

 

Conflict: REVOLUTIONARY BLACKOUT NETWORK and THE VANGUARD

Jim:  I'd hoped this would be a roundtable.  It's not.  I'll explain why in a second but for a set up, Stevie Nicks' "Hard Advice" from her 24 KARAT GOLD album.

 

 

 

He gives such hard adviceHe says don't think twiceTurn off the radioIt was finished long agoGo write some real songsThis is all wrong

 

 

Jim (Con't): So what I wanted to do was to have a roundtable -- this one where I was moderating what might be a difficult discussion.  My ground rule was "no deletions."  We do roundtables all the time.  They are edited in that people often pull a statement that they made.  They don't think it sound right or that they mispoke or whatever.  C.I. and I are the only ones who've never pulled anything we've said prior to it going up at the website -- as far as I know.  So that rule had a number leery and unwilling to participate. Then the topic came up -- the conflict between THE VANGUARD and REVOLUTIONARY BLACKOUT NETWORK. At which point, Rebecca shocked me by saying, "Oh, hell no."  The others left agreed with her.  Why?  What's in it for us, Rebecca asked?  She noted that we would piss off one side or the other and why are we getting into this?  I thought the feature was dead and said I understood -- and I did understand the feelings.  I was surprised because C.I. asked about a half hour later what time we were doing this?  I hadn't realized that she hadn't walked with everyone else.  So this is a discussion piece with the two of us.  Ava's taking notes for this transcript piece, thank you, Ava.  So both shows are YOUTUBE programs.  Two people host THE VANGUARD and multiple people participate in segments for REVOLUTIONARY BLACKOUT NETWORK.  I should disclose that I follow THE VANGUARD more and that's because, first off, there's less content.  I can do about five episodes a week.  Three a day, as RBN tends to do, is going to take up too much time.  I work, I've got a wife, we've got a kid.  So I'm better equipped about THE VANGUARD since I pretty much see all their segments.  I do watch RBN but it's usually three times a week, if that.  


C.I.: I watch both.  Usually, if I watch it -- usually -- I will give it a thumbs up.  Usually because I do have issues with my blood sugar and if my vision's bad at the moment I end up -- as did on a Katie Halper video a year ago, hitting the wrong thumb and then trying to fix it. At THE COMMON ILLS, I post many videos -- some because of e-mails -- and that does not mean I am agreeing with everything they say or that I've even watched.  It just means the topic sounds interesting.  If I've given it a thumbs up, I've streamed at least five minutes of it.


Jim: So the two programs are in conflict with one another and that can be distressing for some.  There were e-mails last week about this, readers saying that they couldn't take the fighting.  


C.I.: How many e-mails and were they all of that opinion?


Jim: I read seven and Ty read three on this -- it wasn't a big topic.  Of those ten, eight were bothered by the fighting or "bickering' to use the term that popped up the most in the e-mails.


C.I.: Were you bothered?


Jim: No.  I enjoyed the hashing out on both sides.  That shouldn't be a surprise to readers of this site.  I'm always comfortable with people disagreeing with each other and debating.  


C.I.: So some feel a line was crossed?


Jim: Yeah.  They've been going back and forth, the two programs for some time.  I think THE VANGUARD probably pissed RBN off with their take on Jimmy Dore.


C.I.: Which is a take that's accurate.  It's a point Ann's made, Betty's made, I've made, I think all of us have made it which is that this "Black" news outlet focuses way too much on White Jimmy Dore.  It's valid.  Now that's not the critique that THE VANGUARD's making.


Jim: Right.  Their critique is that RBN is in the tank for Jimmy Dore and echoes anything he says.


C.I.: Which appears to be true.  But my point in my critiques on this: There are real issues that aren't being covered so why are you instead doing another segment on how someone said something that hurt Jimmy Dore's feelings?  The endless hype machine that RBN provides for Jimmy Dore is disgusting and it would be disgusting if it was for Chris Hedges.  I'm not calling out Jimmy Dore for RBN's worship of him but I am calling out RBN for it.  And I am specifically calling them out for their need to collectively use their people of color voice to prop up the White man.  There are many African-American thought leaders that they could shine a light on.  Instead, they too often turn their show into a fan club for White Jimmy.


Jim: You don't like Jimmy Dore.


C.I.: No, I don't but that's not part of my critique.  My critique is that there have been weeks where RBN offered multiple segments defending Jimmy Dore but they couldn't address the war on reproductive rights or the war on the LGBTQ+ community.  A few weeks ago, one RBN host did a segment on trans persons and he stumbled but he was sincere and I shared that video because he was sincere and he was trying to address the topic.  Right after, Sabby and another RBN did a segment with him which was much better.  

 

Jim: I remember that, you defended ______ in the newsletter, the gina & krista round-robin, because some people thought ______ was being transphobic.

 

C.I.: This may violate your rules but if that name is left in, I'm out right now.  I kept that in the community newsletter because I don't want "transphobe" applied to his name.  I understand why some took it that way -- his comments on his solo segment.  But he was trying to deal honestly with the topic and he was speaking out of love, not out of hate.  Things that needed clarified were done in the second segment.  If someone's transphobic, I'm not covering for them.  But I'm not going to apply the term to anyone who's attempting to address the issue and not doing so in the exact wording that I would provide.  

 

Jim: No, we can pull the name.  Sorry.  That was my bad.  If I'd paid attention, I would've known you were not naming him for a reason.  By the way, if you have HBO MAX, consider streaming a documentary, HAXAN: WITCHCRAFT THROUGHOUT THE AGES.  It's a silent film.  Made in 1922, it's a Swedish documentary.  It's interesting to see, over the ages, how opinions evolved.  And we're all evolving works in progress.  So the conflicts between RBN and THE VANGUARD have been simmering for awhile now.  And last week, RBN insulted TV with a comment regarding ambulances that TV actually liked and said they might make it a ring tone.  But there were two issues -- two segments or clips -- that RBN did that TV took issue with.  One was a segment on Briahna Joy Gray where they called her a "bold face" liar.  TV felt that wasn't made, the critique, in good faith.  And I see their point.


C.I.: I see their point but I also see RBN's point.  Bring up the second segment because they're actually the same conflict.  I don't want to repeat myself on it, I think they can be dealt with in, to be Nate Bargatze -- who's new AMAZON comedy special debuts January 31st, in "one fell swoop."


Jim: Okay.  They had Marianne Williamson on -- RBN did -- and the whole thing went to crap with two hosts yelling at her and being rude.  TV called them out on that and it's led to more back and forth.  


C.I.: It's always going to lead to back and forth.  RBN is not about a candidate.  It is not trying to tell you who to vote for.  RBN is about raising issues.  At its best, that's what its about.  That is not what THE VANGUARD is about.  Zac said last week, before the RBN segment was aired, that he was trying to get votes for Marianne Williamson.  He's entitled to do whatever he wants, and good for him for not keeping it a secret.  


Jim: We agreed not to post any videos here -- just to give a link to both sites  -- so it didn't look like one group was being favored over the other.  However, I missed what you're talking about so I think we're going to have to provide that video here because if I didn't catch it, I'm sure others missed it as well.

[. . .]

Jim (Con't): And we are editing.  We're pulling a long section of back-and-forth.  I was on THE VANGUARD's YOUTUBE page looking for what C.I. was talking about and not finding it.  Wrongly, I told her she must be mistaken.  She responded.  And back and forth ensued.  She was right.  So I'll just note that we're pulling that because she was right and I should have called a time out while we were looking for it.  This is the video below and as C.I. told me, it's at 48 minutes in when Zac insists, "That's why we are making this suggestion to you that we get behind Marianne Williamson now" -- and I'm ending the quote there because Marianne does not have balls.  Let me quote one of my favorite writers on this topic, "There's enough macho b.s. in the world (largely coming out of the White House), I won't add to it by pushing some myth that strength is determined by what hangs out below the belt." You know who that was?

 

 


 

C.I.: No idea.  Good point, though.

 

Jim:  It's you -- from 2007.


C.I.: Anyway, there's nothing wrong with saying you're supporting Marianne or whomever. But it's a different view.  He's focused on electoral politics.  RBN is not.  RBN was wrong for the interview they did with Marianne Williamson.  The reason that they were wrong was because Sabby's relationship with Marianne got them the interview.  They created a huge problem for Sabby Sabs -- as THE VANGUARD rightly noted.  Other than that?  Was there a problem?  I can't comment on Jay.  I have no idea what he said.  He started yelling and screaming and I'm not going to take that.  I've called out many other men for the same thing -- including Farron Cousins of RING OF FIRE.  If you start yelling like that, I'm tuning you out -- a lot of women are.  You need to realize how you sound when you do that and that it is frightening.  If that's him expressing himself, so be it.  But understand that a lot of people -- especially women -- are going to tune you out.  A man so angry that he is spitting as he yells is not someone I'm going to listen to.  So I can't comment on what he said, I have no idea.  I didn't pay that close attention to it because of the yelling and I've blocked it from my mind.  


Jim: The other guy was yelling too -- in the aftermath once Marianne had left the segment.


C.I.: No.  You're talking about Rome.  THE VANGUARD said that Rome didn't make any sense.  He made perfect sense to me.  He was upset and he was struggling but I followed every word he said.  He was loud but he was not out of control.  He was emotional but he was not out of control.  And he made perfect sense to me.  I don't know why anyone else had trouble following him.  He was noting that interconnected aspects of various imperial projects and tying it into Marianne Williamson's positions and her comments.  I don't expect someone who's already planning to vote for Marianne to embrace what Rome said, but it wasn't obscure or difficult to comprehend.


Jim: You know Marianne, by the way.


C.I.: I do.  I've known her for years.  I like her.  That doesn't mean she's above criticism.  I've called her out, for example, for her YOUTUBE segment about Afghanistan.  The US would be pulling out and Marianne had to do a video, just had to do it.  Okay, good.  But it was bad.  Because she doesn't get an Afghan to speak or an Afghan-American.  She goes to a US soldier who fought in Afghanistan.  I'm sorry, Marianne, what revelations were you expecting?  Do you really believe that combat in Afghanistan is teaching anyone about a country?  If so, you're as lunatic about the military as was Mad Maddie Albright.  Second off, why would you invite an armed invader of a foreign country on to give the first and last word on that foreign country?  That's appalling and it goes to some troubling comprehension on Marianne's part.  Now I like Marianne.  But that's reality.  


Jim: And you think that's how RBN sees it?


C.I.: I can't speak for RBN.  But I can say that I understood Rome's critique and I even understand Jay's rage.  


Jim: But you don't get THE VANGUARD's take on it?


C.I.: I didn't say that.  I believe I made clear that I understood where they were coming from.  The whole thing's Tim Burton's BATMAN RETURNS.  THE VANGUARD is Batman, upholding the system, trying to work within it.  RBN is Catwoman, looking around at a corrupt system and saying, "You make it so easy, don't you?  Always waiting for some Batman to save you."



Jim: So who's Penguin?


C.I.: Jimmy Dore, they even look alike.  Seriously though, it's two different visions of the country of politics.  And you can choose which ever one speaks to you if you feel you can only respond to one.  THE VANGUARD is willing to pin hopes on Marianne.  I have no idea why and I like Marianne.  But, no, I don't for one moment believe she'll run independently if the Democratic Party screws her over.  I think people were wrong to believe Bernie Sanders had a spine.  Now they're investing into someone they know even less and know even less about.  RBN's attitude is understandable.  Bernie screwed everyone over.  TV wants to argue that now we pour all that same energy into Marianne and RBN is arguing that we're not willing to be screwed over again.  TV thinks they can reform the Democratic Party, RBN scoffs at that.  And, historically, the facts there are on RBN's side.  Over and over, people have insisted that they'd take it over -- the Democratic Party -- and they never did.  They were compromised by it.  Tom Hayden's a perfect example but it's over and over and over.  Gloria Steinem would go off in tears in 1972 . . . to avoid calling out the Democratic Party.  These people do nothing and do nothing over and over.

Jim: So you're siding with REVOLUTIONARY BLACKOUT NETWORK.


C.I.: I don't believe I have to either/or it.  I believe that this is a conversation that needs to be had.  And, on this issue of we-will-change-the-party-from-within, sorry, it's nonsense.  It's been attempted over and over -- before THE VANGUARD guys were even born.  


Jim: Okay, she was asked about whether or not she would run independent if she ran for the 2024 Democratic Party's presidential nomination and the DNC did not treat her fairly. But was it a bold face lie?


C.I.: Third party, not independent.  But actually it is Actually, it was.  I know Marianne and I know how she hems and she's hemming there.  It's like the episode of THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW where Mary, to cheer Ted and Murray up, says something like, 'What if I told you that Walter Cronkite caught yesterday's broadcast and --'  After Ted and Murray leave practically skipping, Lou confronts her on the lie and she responds, "I said what if."  And Marianne hemmed and hawed that maybe something might happen.  Now you can argue that she can't go concrete because doing so would mean the DNC would keep her off the stage -- if she didn't agree to support the eventual nominee.  She implied she would, she suggested, but she didn't say it.  And to be really clear on this whole issue, I do not support Zac on THE VANGUARD video above at 40 minutes when he starts rambling about 'what she really means.'  When you have to do that for a candidate, it's your first clue that they weren't concrete in their answers.  When you do that for a candidate, you're making clear that you're in the tank for the candidate.  Why are you speaking for them?  I loathed those who worshiped The Christ Child Barack Obama and their lies about what he means and their lies about "three dimensional chess" and all their attempts to cover for him, that whole Cult of St. Barack nonsense.  He ended up being an empty suit who did nothing to help We The People and I blame him for that but I also blame all the people who would excuse him and insist, "What he's really doing is . . ."  


Jim: No, you're right.  I didn't get that when I watched.  You're right.  If we're going to deal in facts -- and that's what THE VANGUARD was saying they were doing -- you don't then offer predictions of what Marianne's going to do in 2024.  You don't know what she's going to do and you really shouldn't whore yourself out on the limb like that.  You had to remind of 2008 for me to get the point, sorry.  But I do get your point.


C.I.: Marianne Williamson is an ink blot and both TV and RBN are interpreting the ink blot.  They're doing so based on their beliefs and their lived lives.  THE VANGUARD believes in the system, they are Batman.  RBN is Catwoman, they know the system's screwed and they know they can be disposed of and killed at any moment -- pushed out an open window like Selena was or shot in the park for being a kid playing with a toy gun.  Of the two groups, I'd say THE VANGUARD is being gullible. But, again, as Ava and I always say, "We don't fall in love with politicians -- we're not that pathetic."


Jim: To offer some negative on THE VANGUARD, they do -- or Zac does -- fall in love with politicians.  In the video above, he credits Bernie Sanders with Medicare For All.  That's insane.  Nurses have been at the forefront of that battle.  We started here in 2005 and I had to be educated about the topic.  I was a kid in a college.  This was long before Bernie ran in 2016 or in 2020.  He grabbed a popular idea and ran on it.  Don't pretend that he did anything else.  I do not get why a movement built by millions -- mainly nurses -- is being credited to Bernie Sanders by Zac.  So that's my negative criticism. Again, a huge fan of the show.


C.I.: And there's no reason you have to apologize for that.  As I noted, Zac was upfront with his audience that he's supporting Marianne.  This isn't Melissa Harris Lieface Lacewell Perry working on Barack's campaign for over a year and then going on NPR, PBS and PACIFICA pretending she's got no dog in the hunt and is just making independent analysis -- that always insults and finds lacking everyone but Barack.   What she did was unethical -- and Princeton agreed which is why they didn't keep her on -- what Zac's doing is above board.  He can support whomever he wants and he's got enough honesty and character to not try to hide it.  And, again, there isn't one view.  Or even one view we should consumer.  More voices, not less.  And there's certainly room for both REVOLUTIONARY BLACKOUT and THE VANGUARD.  It doesn't have to be either/or.  If one or both speaks to you, great, stream 'em.


Jim: Okay, let me be -- 

 

C.I.: Hold on, before you wind down.  We have to put in a video for REVOLUTIONARY BLACKOUT NETWORK since we did one for THE VANGUARD.

 

Jim: They are  in the video of THE VANGUARD.

 

C.I.: That's not their video.  Clips are shown while THE VANGUARD interprets them.  They deserve to have their own voice recognized and not be interpreted through an outlet that doesn't like them.

 

Jim: Okay, solid point.  Let's put in the one where they're talking about David Sirota.

 

 

 Jim: Again, let me be appreciative -- a recent e-mail insisted that I wrap things up too quickly and dismiss who makes the last comment.  So let me say thank you, C.I., for doing this.  I believed in this feature and was sad when I thought it was killed due to lack of participation.  It'll probably irritate some people but I'm fine with that. And let me say thank you to Ava for taking down a transcript of this discussion. Reminder, the best e-mail address to reach at us is common_illls@yahoo.com and this is a rush transcript.




 

David Swanson finds his Maddie Albright moment

 

With 935 words, you'd think David Swanson could make a point.  You'd think.  

"How Dare I Oppose War with Libertarians" is how you find the column but, grasp, even if you find the column, you'll never find the point.

He's getting complaints, he writes, for announcing he'll be speaking at an anti-war rally with Libertarians.

Which Libertarians is the obvious question.

This isn't just about the government's war, a fact that escapes David.

A lot changed on June 24, 2022.  Prior to that, we could easily speak with non-leftists against the war.  There were rights and legal protections.

Then DOBBS was handed down and ROE V WADE was struck down while Justico Clarry Thomas made clear in his concurring opinion that he now wanted to take on birth control rights (do away with them), to take on marriage equality (do away with it) and to take on what two adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom.  Justico Thomas -- a huge consumer of porn -- suddenly sees himself monitoring every bed room.  
 
aa7
 

No, we're not going to stand next to anti-abortion crazies, homophobes or people who want to terrorize trans persons.

Is that who David is going to be standing with?  We have no idea because, despite using 935 words, he never names any speaker he'll be appearing with on stage.

That does make us wonder: Is he doing that intentionally?  Does he grasp that he has to cover these people up or he won't get support?

We have no idea but without knowing who he is standing with, in the climate we now live in, he's on his own and he made it that way.  


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }