Monday, November 21, 2016

Truest statement of the week

So here is our silver lining. This is a revolutionary moment. We must not allow them to shift the blame on to voters. This is their failure, decades in the making. And their failure is our chance to regroup. To clean house in the Democratic party, to retire the old elite and to empower a new generation of FDR Democrats, who look out for the working class – the whole working class.

-- Hazem Salem, "Clinton & co are finally gone.  That is the silver lining in this disaster" (GUARDIAN).

Truest statement of the week II

With greater ideological diversity, perhaps we would have done a better job investigating that “basket of deplorables” Clinton so easily disparaged, and learned more about the economic conditions — student-loan debt, under-paying jobs, inability to buy homes — that impacted some of the college-educated White voters who cast their votes from Trump.
Having reporters and editors at the table who recognized reluctance among Black voters when the hashtag #GirlIGuessImWithHer began to trend should have signaled a need to question polls that indicated the African-American voting bloc might not be a sure thing for the Clinton campaign — long before the early voting returns were in.

--  Meredith D. Clark, "Why did newsrooms miss the Trump wave? Lack of diversity played a huge part" (POYNTER).

Truest statement of the week III

With so many people who call themselves liberals and leftists tearing their hair out in dread of a President Donald Trump, it is necessary to point out that the prospects of avoiding nuclear war are much better than they were the day before the election. Hillary Clinton was committed to imposing a “no fly zone” over Syria that would have meant instant war with Russia, likely resulting in the annihilation of the human species. You’d think that would have made Clinton anathema to decent people. But Americans, including those who call themselves liberals, are not decent people – not really. Based on their political behavior, they just pretend to be decent, but support U.S. governments that have slaughtered millions since the end of World War Two. If you voted for Obama and Clinton, you gave your assent to continuing George Bush’s wars, allowing Obama to start two major wars of his own, in Libya and Syria, and to Hillary Clinton’s plans to roll the nuclear dice on the fate of humanity. The whole world knows that Americans are dangerous, to themselves and to others. But, decent? Since when, and to whom?

-- Glen Ford, "War Less Imminent After Clinton Defeat" (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).

A note to our readers

Hey --


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,
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:

Hazem Salam's first truest.
Meredith D. Clark's first.
Glen Ford?  Numerous ones.  But he was so right last week, we had to do three truests this go round.

Seems that's the big difference between Mosul and other cities (Ramadi, Falluja, etc.)

Ava and C.I. weigh in on Hillary and the latest look.
Things to remember.
Ty says he gives special thanks to Ava and C.I. who sat down with him after he wrote this.  We were fine with his original draft (that includes Ava and C.I.) but he felt it was too negative.  Ava and C.I. sat down with him and helped him edit this.  It's his writing, it's his thoughts.  But he wants to thank Ava and C.I. for helping him edit it through two subsequent drafts.

Seriously, get a grip.
Ed Snowden is a hero.
We held this over from last week.

What we listened to while working on this edition.
Senator Wyden press release.
Senator Baldwin press release.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.


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

Editorial: Was the Christian population why the Iraqi government didn't try to liberate Mosul sooner?

Attacks on Iraqi Christians did not start two years ago.

Today, there are fewer than 250-thousand Christians living in Iraq, down from more than a million at the start of the US-led war in 2003.
The latest threat to them has come from ISIS. The militants invaded the Nineveh Plains two years ago, occupied Mosul, and many of the surrounding towns.
They destroyed ancient, pre-Islamic art, razed Assyrian archaeological sites to the ground, and issued Christians a chilling ultimatum: Convert to Islam, pay taxes to us or die. Thousands of Iraqi Christians fled Mosul, including Mayada Abd Ghany, her husband, and their four children. ISIS gave them only three days notice to leave their home, enough time to pack some clothes and family pictures.

The latest threat.

That's important.

It's a reality Moni Basu (CNN) ignores repeatedly in a much, much longer piece.

Christians have been under attack since the 2003 US-led invasion.

Saddam Hussein had a secular government in place.

The US installed cowards, fundamentalists who had fled Iraq decades ago.

They wanted to turn progress back and, in fact, have succeeded.

They went after Christians and other religious minorities.

Over 500,000 (possibly 750,000) had fled Iraq before the rise of the Islamic State.

They did that because the government didn't protect them.

And, you can argue, that Mosul was not a priority to the Iraqi government due to its religious minorities.

After all, the city was seized by the Islamic State in June of 2014.

What kind of government allows a city to be seized for over two years before even trying to liberate it?

Maybe a government that's not all that interested in Christian minorities?


Media: Looks are/aren't important (last week's conflicting message)

Un systeme corrompu?

It was the obvious answer last week.

And, no surprise, the one everyone avoided.


Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton showed up -- why? -- at a fundraising gala for The Children's Defense Fund (Beat The Odds!) where Marian Wright Edelman introduced her -- again, why?

As people zoomed in on her appearance, so much went unasked -- forget unanswered.

Back in June, Frances Stead Sellers (WASHINGTON POST) observed:

Hillary Clinton’s trouble with the Democratic base reaches back to the moment her longtime mentor, Marian Wright Edelman, blasted Clinton’s husband for cutting a deal with Republicans ahead of his 1996 reelection and signing a welfare overhaul law that she said “makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.”

Edelman’s husband, Peter Edelman, quit his Clinton administration job in protest over the 1996 bill, and the tensions lingered for years -- with Marian Wright Edelman telling an interviewer during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign that the Clintons were "not friends in politics."

Stead Sellers is referring to this 2007 exchange on DEMOCRACY NOW!:

AMY GOODMAN: Marian Wright Edelman, we just heard Hillary Rodham Clinton. She used to be the head of the board of the Children's Defense Fund, of the organization that you founded. But you were extremely critical of the Clintons. I mean, when President Clinton signed off on the, well, so-called welfare reform bill, you said, "His signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.''  So what are your hopes right now for these Democrats? And what are your thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton? 

MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you don't -- and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so. We were for welfare reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we need health care, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare. And yet, you know, many years after that, when many people are pronouncing welfare reform a great success, you know, we’ve got growing child poverty, we have more children in poverty and in extreme poverty over the last six years than we had earlier in the year. When an economy is down, and the real test of welfare reform is what happens to the poor when the economy is not booming. Well, the poor are suffering, the gap between rich and poor widening. We have what I consider one of -- a growing national catastrophe of what we call the cradle-to-prison pipeline. A black boy today has a one-in-three chance of going to prison in his lifetime, a black girl a one-in-seventeen chance. A Latino boy who's born in 2001 has a one-in-six chance of going to prison. We are seeing more and more children go into our child welfare systems, go dropping out of school, going into juvenile justice detention facilities. Many children are sitting up -- 15,000, according to a recent congressional GAO study -- are sitting up in juvenile institutions solely because their parents could not get mental health and health care in their community. This is an abomination.

That's a reality that got papered over not just last week but throughout 2016.

So much did.

For the record, in 2007, we stayed out of the issue of who would make the best Democratic Party candidate for president.  We covered a debate or two and noted when candidates spoke about Iraq.

That was about it.

Somewhere before New Hampshire, around the time Joe Biden dropped out, we leaned towards Hillary Clinton and some of the fanatics for Barack appearing in the media -- Lie Face Melissa Harris Lacewell (later Perry) -- really made it easy for us to go over to Hillary.

We don't like liars.

We didn't like Melissa first showing up on DEMOCRACY NOW! championing Barack (and every one but Hillary) as a professor when, in fact, she'd spent half of 2007 campaigning for Barack.  We didn't like her doing the same on Charlie Rose's PBS show.

It's unethical.

If you're part of a campaign, you're supposed to disclose it.

We didn't like it, neither did Princeton.

And as we amassed more and more about Lie Face, she ended up bounced from that university.

Dennis Kucinich was never going to be supported by us because he's a sell out.

When he handed his supporters to Barack in Iowa, after the first round of the caucusing, so that Barack could win, Dennis, once again, made clear that he wasn't a real candidate.

We had something to like about pretty much everyone and had seriously considered Bill Richardson for his Iraq War proposal (immediately pulling out of Iraq) and Mike Gravel (the sole truth teller among the lot).

John Edwards?

One of us had almost supported him in the previous cycle but meeting him was grossly disappointing, he was more on the make than campaigning ("grabby hands" as we've dubbed him since he dropped out of the 2008 campaign).

Barack Obama?

Again, one of us was supporting him for his Senate run and met him (with Elaine) only to discover his Iraq War position was that US troops are already in Iraq so his pre-war speech no longer mattered.

That alone was reason not to believe him on Iraq.

We were also aware -- apparently all of left 'independent' media (THE PROGRESSIVE, THE NATION, IN THESE TIMES, etc) weren't -- that the counter-insurgency crowd and War Hawks were on Barack's side and advising him.  As was Samantha The Power From Hell Power.

Hillary had admitted the Iraq War and her support of it was a "mistake."

It was a huge step for the woman who never admits mistakes of her own.

As Barack lied repeatedly about how he'd always been against the Iraq War (and as the press refused to note his remarks to THE NEW YORK TIMES at the 2004 Democratic Party National Convention in Boston) and as Grabby Hands was completely untrustworthy, as Grabby Hands joined with Barack in attacking Hillary in debates (but Edwards pulled all punches when it came to Barack), Hillary got our support.

This was helped by actual sexism.

Not made up sexism like the crap cry babies inflated in 2016.

MSNBC was attacking Hillary relentlessly with one sexist based attack after another.

Failed radio host Rachel Maddow, in fact, used that sexism to get her own show on MSNBC.  She called Chris Matthews out in an AP interview and then, days later, walked it back after MSNBC, eager to make the issue go away, rushed to sign her to her own show in an effort to disappear Chris' many comments such as how he automatically crossed his legs anytime he heard Hillary's voice.

William Kristol rushed to attack White women in February 2008 on FOX NEWS AND FRIENDS -- a sexist attack, by the way, that Hillary's new supporters this go round have been using since the election.

Like Kristol, they rush to demonize White women.

Laura Flanders did the same, in 2008, by the way.

Speaking of 2008, Laura Flanders, Medea Benjamin, Jane Fonda, Naomi Wolf, Jodie Evans, Frances Kissling, Eve Ensler, Kimberle Crenshaw, Alice Walker, Kathleen Hanna, Ruth Conniff, Arrianna Huffington, Nora Ephron and many other women who identified as pro-woman and/or feminist supported Barack in the primaries, not Hillary.

Yet, in 2016, not supporting Hillary, latecomers like failed actress and forever psycho Debra Messing insisted, meant you weren't pro-woman.

We're so sorry that the psycho titty babies didn't like us refusing to ride the bandwagon this go round.

We know why we didn't.

Hillary's 'fuller explanation' on Iraq -- the mistake, it turns out, was not her voting for and supporting the Iraq War.  She explained it was her believing that Bully Boy Bush would send more US troops into Iraq than he did.

That's the "mistake" she made.

We know that she did nothing, as Secretary of State, to help Iraqi women.

We know, as Secretary of State, she continued her embrace of war and destruction with Libya and Syria.

That's why we turned on Hillary.

Why did these others rush to support her after rejecting her in 2008?

Because it was the easy thing to do.

Ask women online about 2008?

Those who are still around.

Female bloggers were banned, were harassed, many closed shop.

Because to support Hillary was to be trashed and threatened.

Psychos like Debra Messing have no idea what strength is.

They make the easy choices.

We're proud we supported Hillary over Barack in 2008.

We knew he wouldn't end the Iraq War.

Guess what?

We were right.

He leaves office with US forces in Iraq and the war still going.

But while Hillary was a better choice in 2008, her actions as Secretary of State -- including refusing to answer to Congress about such basics as the Iraq budget (State was put in charge of Iraq in October of 2011) -- she had made clear as Secretary of State that she was nothing but a War Hawk and she'd made clear that her admission that the Iraq War was a "mistake" was just more word games from an attorney.

As we noted above, the post-election has seen a lot of sexist attacks on women from Hillary's supporters.

We're not surprised.

This is the tag along crowd.

They went along with the sexism Barack promoted in 2008.

They're not really feminists.

They're titty babies.

And they were out in full force last week.

Lauren Longo (CARE2CARE) gushed, "Hilary Clinton's Makeup-Free Speech Is All Kinds of Inspiring."  If the speech was truly inspiring, why did it matter so little in the write up Longo turned in?  She quoted exactly five sentences from the speech?

In fact, it's only paragraph ten when Longo stops obessing over looks ("Of course, Clinton's looks weren't the only great thing about her speech.")

Four short paragraphs later, Longo's done with her column.

Lauren Alexis Fisher (HARPER'S BAZAR) served up "Why Hillary Clinton's Look Last Night Had The Internet Cheering" focused on the looks as well -- while slamming as "trolls" those who didn't think 69-year-old Hillary's choice to go make up free or with limp, stringy hair was such a good look.

L.V. Anderson (SLATE) was also attacking those who weighed in -- negatively -- on Hillary's looks as she lamented that looks are so important -- in an article focusing on nothing but looks but rushing to include this in the second to last sentence of the column, "After suffering the biggest disappointment of her life -- and maybe the biggest national disappointment of the century -- Clinton is focused on public service, not her hairdo."

It's wrong, these and other women, insisted to judge a woman by their looks -- insisted in one article and column after another focusing on . . . Hillary's looks and appearance.

That wasn't just hypocritical, it was also flat out wrong.

In terms of aesthetics, we didn't see the reason to cheer.

Forget the pimple on the chin, the hair right under the chin should have been plucked.

To pretend that this qualified as attractive or brave?

It struck us as lazy.

And no feminist breakthrough.

It was no different than Al Gore, after the Supreme Court gifted Bully Boy Bush with the 2000 election, showing up in public with a beard.

It wasn't about courage or strength.

It was about just giving up.

If anything else was to be gleaned from it, it was DANGEROUS LIAISONS.

2016 saw revelations that ready for that 3:00 a.m. phone call Hillary (remember that ad she ran against Barack in 2008?) required a crew to make her ready.

That wasn't just hair and make up.

It was also people like Donna Brazile feeding her CNN debate questions prior to the debate.

It was people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz gaming the debate schedule and the DNC itself to ensure that Bernie Sanders didn't get a fair shot at the nomination.

Hillary was scheming and plotting her attacks.

She was like Glenn Close as the Marquise de Marteuil in DANGEROUS LIAISONS.

In that film, the main female character schemes and lies as well.

In the end, she's brought down by her own letters.

Fitting that Hillary was brought down by her own e-mails.

Her inability to tell the truth -- the full truth -- about her e-mails from day one went a long, long way towards why the American people found her so dishonest.

But more was to come.

Wikileaks exposed so much corruption.

Election day was supposed to be about just how huge her electoral college victory would be?

John Podesta and others on her campaign were insisting the electoral college vote would be like George H.W. Bush's victory over Michael Dukakis -- 426 electoral votes for Bush, 111 for Dukakis.

Instead, the woman and the campaign took so much for granted allowing Wisconsin to play the role of Le Chevalier Raphael Danceny who ends up delivering a crushing blow to the Marquise.

And the electoral college results came in with Donald Trump receiving a predicted 306 votes to Hillary's 232 (predicted because the electors don't vote until next month).

Consider that rebuking count to be the boos the Marquise receives when she shows up for the opera after everyone has read the letters.

When you make those comparisons, Hillary's new look isn't at all surprising.

The Marquise, after all, retreats and spends the final scenes . . . wiping the make up off her face.

The pretty gloss is no longer needed because people see her -- the Marquise and Hillary -- as she really is.


Obama ignoring Obama weak on Obama deporting by the million Americans freaking out about Trump but not denouncing Obama smh

Dear religious zealot/hysteric (Ty's Corner)


I saw you at the Twitter feed of psycho Debra Messing, so I knew you weren't very smart right from the bat.

THIS IS GREAT. Please READ & RT. 👏🏻Dear White People, Let’s Check In via

Guess what, Hind, as you admit, you are White.

So, for starters, kiss my Black ass.

Kiss it good.

I don't need lectures from religious hysterics and zealots.

In fact, in the US, when you walk a public street wearing that sign of fundamentalism on your head?

It does not reassure me.

Don't get me wrong.

I don't fear you're a terrorist.

I just fear you're a closed minded bigot who will stomp on my rights.

See, I'm not real keen on nuns in habits either.

You're in the United States.

You can be a zealot all you want.

That is your right.

But when you try to lecture me, don't think you're going to get away with it.

Some dumb person like Debra Messing will lap your words up like their head's between your spread legs.

Oh, yeah, Hind, I'm also gay.

I'm Black and I'm gay.

You're a White, religious freak.

To be clear, I believe in God.

But you're not going to catch me dressing like it's a few centuries back.

I don't dislike, for example, the Dutch Amish.

I just don't go them for advise or knowledge.

I just don't see their retreat from the modern world as any path I need to travel.

This site's been around for how long?

Eleven years.

And I've never felt the need to go after the religious freaks.

Religious freaks?

That's not someone who worships Mohammed, Buddha, Jesus or whomever.

That is someone who needs to dress up in costumes to show their faith.

And when a cracker of that faith tries to speak for those of us who are people of color, I get really ticked off.

And when said cracker claims she learned about White America via FAMILY TIES and THE FACTS OF LIFE, I'm left with the realization that the latter was miles ahead of FAMILY TIES as any person of color will tell you.

Kim Fields.

She's African-American and she played Tootie on every season of FACTS OF LIFE.

During some of those years, she was the only Black teenager on prime time TV.

Equally true, the character of Jo was working class, the character Natalie was Jewish and Blair, the rich, White character, was repeatedly forced to admit that her view was limited.

FACTS OF LIFE was a lot more advanced than the Reagan embracing FAMILY TIES (yes, mom and dad were hippies but the star Michael J. Fox played the Reagan loving Alex).  Equally true, FACTS OF LIFE had four strong young women and women were a joke on FAMILY TIES.

Only a cracker would make the mistake you did, Hind.

And only a cracker like Debra Messing would link to your garbage.

This is America.

We have religious freedom in the US.

Which means my gay ass can choose to worship or not.

And I usually look at those who feel the need to go out in costume -- be it a Hasidic beard or a cloth napkin over their head -- and roll my eyes while keeping my thoughts to myself.

Your decision to embrace the fundamentalism of any religion despite the pain you cause by doing this?

I'm supposed to respect that?

As a Black gay man, I'm fully aware that zealots used religion to defend both slavery and homophobia.

No, that's incorrect.

Not to defend slavery and homophobia, but to spread it, to popularize it, to embrace it.

So excuse the f**k out of me, Hind, if I don't want to jump on the bandwagon that says it's so cool that you're such a fundamental freak that you have to go out in public in a costume to 'honor' your religion.

You can do whatever you want.

Even embrace harmful reminders of how gay people of color have been held back.

Even embrace it publicly.

What you can't do is claim to speak for people of color or the LGBTQ community.

And, let me break it down for you, my opinion is not a minority opinion in the African-American community or the gay community.

Religious zealotry remains a great threat to my rights and the rights of others like me.

We're aware of it.

We see, for example, the way the Shi'ite militias, egged on by Nouri al-Maliki, went after the LGBT community in Iraq in the name of fundamental religion.

Again, religion's not the problem.

It's those of you who want to live in the past and reject modernity.

Costumes are for superheros, parades and Halloween.

Not a topic I'd be addressing if a fundamentalist (White) woman hadn't thought she could speak for all people of color and the LGBTQ community.

You're not speaking for me, Hind.

Not now.

Not ever.

Get a grip, Patty

I would love to hear the decades of crap the Hillary haters would spew if she EVER paid 25 million to settle a fraud case.

What about the nearly million she paid to settle the sexual harassment case Paula Jones brought?

That's what she did.

It wasn't "Bill's money."

That's not how it works.

It was Bill and Hillary's money.

And they used it to settle.

And, Patty,  get a grip.

In 2008, you didn't give a damn about Hillary but backed Barack.

Now, eight years later, you're suddenly in lust with her?

Grow up.

You're a little too late to the sisterhood bandwagon -- having only selected Hillary in the year when she had no real competition.

Tweet of the week

  1. Exactly. If Obama doesn't want to pardon , he should say so, instead of concocting false claims about why he lacks the authority:

Martha Plimpton, f**k the hell off

Truly, just f**k off, you entitled and delusional fool.

So 4 all those who sat it out or assumed they could see the outcome & voted their "conscience," here is your civics lesson: PRESIDENT TRUMP.

So in other words, Martha, it's vote your way or take your wrath?

Martha, you're not an attractive woman.

You've never had a pretty phase.

You're a woman who tends to give the same one-note performance whether it's drama or comedy.

So you're acting career is a bit of a miracle.

It won't last long, though, if you think you can bully the country.

We didn't vote for Donald Trump.

We didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

Those who voted for either are hopefully proud of our votes.

We're proud of how we voted as well.

And we don't need to be attacked by you.

You're lucky TV has been kind to you.

But viewers won't be if you can't let go of your hatred and control issues.

The Green Party and the Libertarian Party are valid parties.

Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are valid candidates.

They don't need the approval  of a woman whose current sitcom will probably get the axe for low ratings shortly.

Dear Liberals: the pain of Clinton neoliberalism caused the rise of Trump. To survive, we must build an economy that works for all of us.

That's reality that the pampered pusses of Martha Plimpton and her ilk will never grasp.

They've spent eight years unable to protest the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or the new wars on Syria and Libya or The Drone War or the illegal spying . . .

Or anything of value.

Safe in their bubble they didn't give a damn about We The People and now they whine.

How they whine.

Ethan Cohen, you made one good movie years ago with RAISING ARIZONA.

Not even FARGO holds up at its full length and FARGO's the best you've had to offer since.

After gaining ballot access in 12 more states—thanks to petitioning and election wins—the Green Party is now on the ballot in 21 states!

We're real sorry that your underdeveloped brains battle with your overdeveloped sense of self and fail to realize that binary thinking is both patriarchal and deeply, deeply sexist.

It's not an either/or world.

And the Green Party needs to continue build and will continue to build with or without the support of apologists for a Democratic Party that has sold out workers to corporations, that has sold out the environment, that has chipped away at abortion rights and that has embrace any and every war it can.

This is not the party of FDR.

It is right-wing, corporatist party.

If you can't get that, too damn bad.

But forget about riding your moral ponies to market because nobody with any common sense is buying it.

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