So many scandals

In addition to Barack's spying on Americans, there are so many scandals.  Often, it seems there are too many to keep track of, we know.   Michael Scheurer's "Bin Laden Predicted Obama's War on the 4th Amendment" (Information Clearing House) offers a handy overview for those attempting to keep track:




–Holder’s perjury, if perjury is lying under oath or to the Congress, about the Fast-and-Furious Program, which was meant to be the opening act of Obama’s attack on the 2nd Amendment and which killed a U.S. Border Patrol officer.

–The Obama administration’s aggressive campaign of lies -- led by Nancy Pelosi -- meant to disguise the disastrous economic impact of Obama care.



–The use of Obama's health care plan to violate the First Amendment rights of the tens of millions of Americans of all religious persuasions who oppose abortion.


–Obama's shameless exploitation of dead movie-goers in Colorado and dead children in Connecticut to seek to destroy the 2nd Amendment (while protecting his wealthy, violence-inculcating Hollywood friends), perhaps sensing that his administration’s lawlessness would eventually drive any American with a lick of commonsense to have an AK-47 in the closet.


–Susan Rice's lies about what happened at Benghazi. (Anyone who is or has been in the Intelligence Community knows Rice knew the truth about Benghazi but knowingly lied for Obama and Mrs. Clinton by using the talking points doctored-up with the okay of now-CIA Director John Brennan.)


–Holder's perjury, if perjury is lying under oath or to the Congress, about his direct role in the Department of Justice's operations against FOX’s James Rosen and the Associated Press.


–The IRS's deliberate and probably White House-directed effort to prevent Tea Party groups and other American conservatives from effectively participating in the 2012 presidential election, perhaps ensuring Obama’s small victory margin. (Imagine for a moment, what Holder and the Department of Justice would be doing to destroy the IRS and lynch its leaders if it had hamstrung Black, feminist, pro-abortion, environmental, Hispanic, and pro-homosexual groups during the 2012 election.)


–Clapper's perjury, if perjury is lying under oath or to the Congress, in telling the House’s intelligence committee that no "intentional" collection of U.S. citizens' electronic communications was occurring.

Super Bomb: Man of Steel is awful

Betty deconstructs the summer madness that is Man of Steel.

Super Bomb: Man of Steel is awful

I think I'd already noted awhile back about the movies my kids had carved out as movies that we will see together.

Last night one of the summer films on our list -- our list as a four-some -- came out.  And we invited Ty and his boyfriend and Dona and Jim.  (Jess is in DC at C.I.'s house.  He's on vacation and they're staying in DC so everyone's not flying all over. He's in DC to be with Ava and their daughter.)

So the movie's Superman and how can you go wrong with Superman, right?

Man of Steel finds the way.

Let me be clear that I love the Superman character.  As a little girl, I watched the fifties show (in reruns! I'm not that old!) and really just watched it for the moment when Clark would become Superman.  (Which, in retrospect was never as great as when Lynda Carter would spin around and switch from Diana Prince to Wonder Woman.)  When Lois and Clark came on, I fell in love with Dean Cain.  We are talking a huge obsession.  Even now, I still have a little crush on Dean Cain.

Dean was the perfect Superman for me.  And I wanted to be Teri Hatcher's Lois!

I like Christopher Reeves in the films but felt that, after Superman II, the series lost its way.

I actually enjoyed Superman Returns.  I felt Brandon Routh did a great job and the only real problem was James Marsden.  Marsden's a good actor and I'm not saying he did a bad job and tanked the film. I'm saying he's amazing to look at and we really didn't need that competing with Brandon's Clark for Lois' attention.  The fact that the two really aren't connected, I feel, did more to hurt the film than anything else.  If you don't have Lois and Clark as a couple (as opposed to an ex-couple and, oops, Superman's a daddy!), you've kind of trashed the basic points.

But Brandon Routh was so good in his role and Parker Posey so funny as Kevin Spacey's moll, that I still loved the movie.  My kids loved it more.  That is the Superman film they watched over and over.

So we were all excited about Man of Steel.

And then we saw it.

First off, Henry Cavill and his crotch mound look ridiculous.

Everyone thinks it, no one wants to say it.

I will.

It was a huge mistake to alter the costume. (They've removed the red briefs.)  Having done so, they now have Cavill in a packed crotch cup under his Superman suit.

It did not look sexy.

And I had to wonder what freak thought it would?

I wouldn't have gone with my kids to see it if they'd done it sexy (and I knew ahead of time).  But sexy is not a baseball.  Had I seen the outline of a penis, for example, that might have been sexy.  But what looks like a round grapefruit shoved in his pants is not sexy.

It did not imply, to me, "Big cock!"  It implied to me, "Stuffed crotch."

Let me digress.  I have a very good friend who I will not name here.  He has a younger brother who gets all the attention in the family.  He (my friend) finds out his brother is getting married.  How?  After everyone else has been told.

Why is that an issue?

YB does not have a job.  YB does not have any money.  My friend is already paying for YB to go to college.  YB tells him, after telling everyone else, that he's getting married.  And of course YB means, "You're paying for it."  Because only an idiot of 21 would decide to get married when he has no job and he's sponging off his older brother.

(What about her parents?  Her parents had passed away.  What about the brothers' parents?  No money for a wedding.  No money at all which is why my friend was paying his Younger Brother's college.)

And, since there's no job and no job hunting going to take place, this means YB's moving new wife into my friend's apartment.

It gets worse.

YB does not pick his brother as his best man.

He picks a cousin.  Now I'm sorry but that's hurtful.  You're supposed to go with your brother.  And I would say you're supposed to do that especially if your brother is paying for your damn wedding.

Not only that, YB has a bachelor party and doesn't invite his brother.  My friend can pay for the wedding but can't go to the bachelor party.

Let me be really blunt and explain that my friend has put his life on hold for YB.  YB was in trouble at school was going to be expelled and my friend stepped in, took YB into his apartment, basically became the Dad (including being the first one to set boundaries).

But YB doesn't even make him a groom's man.

My friend was so hurt.

I knew when the wedding was and made a point to get as dazzling as I can.  (I'm not beautiful.  I can pass for pretty on a good day.  But I got a sexy dress -- and good genes gave my a good body -- and went and had my hair and make up done -- a three hour process -- to look the best I could.)  I showed up at the wedding to give moral support and also because I had an ugly fear about what might happen.

Which did.  The worthless parents of my friend showed up drunk and got drunker at the reception and at one point went on and on to him about how sad that he can't find anyone but his Younger Brother had.  At which point, I wrapped an arm around him, leaned in and kissed him and said, "Oh, ___ hasn't told you about us?"

There is no us.  We're just friends.  But I'd be damned if a stand-up guy was going to get treated like s**t by his own parents at a wedding he was paying for.

That shut them up.

But the point.

When I first saw him at the wedding.

He hurries over and says, "I can't believe it!" He was happy.  I told him I thought he might need a friend.  I then told him to unstuff his crotch by half.

I'm not joking.

He had stuffed his crotch.  And it looked like the Cavill outfit.  We laughed about it.  And we do silly things when we're insecure.

But had I been on the set of Man of Steel, I would have told Cavill and others, the crotch was ridiculous.

Amy Adams is Lois Lane and she's more ridiculous.  She's lousy in the part (acting wise) and she looks like Nicole Kidman opposite Zach Ephron in The Paperboy  --- but that pairing was supposed to be off balance.  That's the point of the relationship in that film.

Lois is not supposed to be Clark's Mrs. Robinson.

She may be only eight years older (the actress) but she looks 15 years older.

And I could forgive it if she was remotely believable as Lois.  She's not.  Margot Kidder remains the definitive Lois -- a real reporter, pursuing scoops so single-mindedly, she can never notice that Clark is Superman, so desperately in love with Superman that the idea he could exist in her own world never occurs to her.  Kidder remains the best Lois.

Man of Steel has promise.  It works very briefly when we're in Smallville.  Diane Lane and Kevin Costner play Martha and Jonathan Kent and you believe them in the roles and they're magical.  But too soon, they're gone.  And you're left with crap.

Laurence Fishburne tries real hard.  He's Perry White.  And he does make you sit up in your seat whenever he's on.  But he's not on that much and Perry has so little to do that you're left with snooze-fest of a film.

Who would have thought it was possible to make Superman boring.

And Cavill?

I'm sure his poster could be popular in many dorm rooms -- male and female.

But there's nothing there.

He's a pretty boy who never touches on the magic of Superman.

Christopher Reeve had the right sense of playful.  Dean Cain did as well.  I thought Tom Welling (in the TV show Smallville) achieved it and that was the only reason to watch most episodes of that show.

I couldn't figure out if Cavill was supposed to be playing Superman mopey or if model-boy was just trying to stick out the lips for a pouty look.

But he was dreadful.

Russell Crowe?  He's on my list of favorite actors and on my list of sexy actors.

He plays Jor-El (Superman's bio father) in this film.  Marlon Brando played it in the Christopher Reeves films.  It's a nothing role and, like Brando, Crowe manages not to embarrass himself.

But watching, I thought, "Why did they do this?"  Why would you cast Crowe in this role and not do something with it?

There's more than enough ways that Jor-El could have come down to earth for this storyline.  But no one wanted to think about a storyline.  He could have, for example, have used a time machine.  "Yes, I will die on Krypton but I used a time machine to come here and see you."

Then they could have just done a voice over and shown the rocket leaving Krypton to start the movie instead of all the blubber and waste that seemed to go on forever and seemed to indicate that the film's editor was either on strike or in a coma.

This isn't a film, it's a retread and it's too dark and it's too ugly.

Superman never takes off in Man of Steel.

I think Christopher Nolan (produced this, didn't direct) is vastly overpraised.  Tim Burton brought darkness and light to Batrman.  Nolan only brought darkness and I think the years will not be kind to Nolan's vision of Batman.  I also think he offers flat films -- in appearance and in mood.

He never should have been involved in this project.

And whomever had the stupid idea that Zach Snyder (director of the wretched Watchmen) was the right choice for Man of Steel should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch Man of Steel six times in a row (at which point the person will no doubt slit their own wrists).

The film is awful.  Do not waste your money.  Go see Now You See Me.  Or the film my oldest son and I saw Frances Ha.  We were in Oakland getting him some music equipment (thanks to C.I., my oldest is a gifted musician -- I've noted that before, she taught him bass, she got him a great guitar, she's taught him piano, he can play anything now -- he was finding his way with guitar on his own so I'm not including that) that I'd promised him forever and kept putting off.  So I did a half-day at work and we went to Oakland and while there we went to the Piedmont because we were both hot.  So we went there to sit in the a.c.  And we saw Frances Ha knowing nothing about it but it's a really great movie. It stars Greta Gerwig (who I'd never seen before) and she was amazing in the role.  Frances Ha had all the humanity that should have naturally been in Man of Steel.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

The Syrian pretext (Workers World).

Repost from Workers World:

The Syrian pretext

By Editor on June 15, 2013 » Add the first comment.

2

The reactionary terrorist gangs trying to overturn the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad are near collapse after a military defeat in the town of Qusair on the Lebanese border. Leading U.S. militarists — the most prominent being Sen. John McCain — are attacking President Barack Obama for allowing this collapse. The result: The Obama administration, without evidence, claims Assad used chemical weapons. This pretext is his excuse to justify providing small arms and ammunition to those he calls the “rebels.”


What we mean by “pretext” is that the Obama administration has lied to the world and to the U.S. public in order to give a progressive cover for an aggressive and dangerous policy. It is enough to note that the United Nations official, the pro-NATO Carla Del Ponte, said more than a month ago that it was the “rebels” that used chemical weapons in Syria.


It is not the first such pretext for U.S. imperialist aggression. There were others: In 2011, that Moammar Gadhafi would massacre the population of Tripoli; in 2003, that Saddam Hussein possessed “weapons of mass destruction”; in 1999, that Serbian troops were committing genocide in Kosovo province; in 1983, that Grenadian troops were going to murder U.S. medical students; in 1964, that North Vietnamese PT boats attacked U.S. destroyers.


In each such event, Washington lied, the corporate media repeated it ad nauseam, and Big Lies allowed the president and the Pentagon to rally the ruling class, the Congress and sometimes parts of the population behind an illegal, aggressive and costly war. These wars always resulted in the population being bombed and invaded. They often cost the lives of U.S youth in the military.


In the current scenario, the Obama administration may appear reluctant to plunge into a war over Syria. This could, after all, be a costly war for the U.S. It would rely on forces ideologically close to al-Qaida, and it might lead to a clash with Iran or even Russia. As a representative of U.S. imperialist interests, the administration might consider these interests best served by caution.


Even if this is true, however, it is no reason to believe that the U.S. intervention will stop with the latest arms delivery. Sen. McCain, the Washington Post and other U.S. militarists are already pressuring for a “no-fly zone” and similar escalations. As we found out in Afghanistan in 2009 and in Libya in 2011, the Obama administration easily submits to demands for military escalation. Obama has already opened the door to war with his “red line” remark about chemical weapons and his comment more than a year ago that Assad must go.


That the “rebels” are really reactionary terrorists, they showed after their defeat in Qusair. In revenge, they massacred about 60 unarmed Syrians in the village of Hatlah near Deir Ezzur simply because these people were members of the Shiite variety of Islam.

Washington is already sending weapons to these gangsters. It may do more. Those here wanting to prevent this imperialist escalation must be ready to go out into the streets to mobilize and inspire a real resistance to the next stage of U.S. imperialist aggression.

Articles copyright 1995-2013 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved

Will this bill survive?

Senator Carl Levin attacked Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's bill to end assault and rape in the ranks.  You're aware of that if you read last week's "Report on Congres."  Ponta Abadi (Ms. magazine) reports on what Levin did.  So far, one of the seven bills attempting to end rape and assault in the ranks is moving forward.  That's Senator Patty Murray and Senator Kelly Ayotte's bill:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                        CONTACT: Murray Press Office (202) 224-2834

Wednesday, June 12, 2013                                                Ayotte Press Office (202) 224-3324

MURRAY-AYOTTE MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT LEGISLATION INCLUDED IN DEFENSE BILL

Bipartisan legislation would provide trained military lawyers to victims of sexual assault in all service branches

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) announced today that key provisions of their bipartisan legislation – the Combating Military Sexual Assault Act – are included in the National Defense Authorization Act being considered this week by the full Senate Armed Services Committee.  The Murray-Ayotte measure would provide victims of sexual assault in all military branches with a Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC), a trained military lawyer to assist the victim throughout the legal process.  The bill also includes provisions authored by Senators Murray and Ayotte that enhance responsibilities for the Pentagon’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and provide Sexual Assault Response Coordinators to members of the National Guard and Reserve.

“Our legislation to provide victims with a dedicated legal counsel absolutely gets to the heart of effectively addressing the tragic epidemic of sexual assault in our military,” said Senator Murray. “As I told Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey this morning, Congress must act on legislation to give victims the protections they deserve to seek justice, while giving the Pentagon the tools to deal with this growing crisis. I am pleased the Senate Armed Services Committee agrees and has included our legislation to help victims every step of the way through what is a deeply personal and painful process. I want to thank Senator Ayotte for being such an outstanding partner and for all she has done to push this bill forward in committee. While I believe the overall legislation is practical and will make a difference, there will always be more work to do and I am committed to continuing this fight on behalf of our nation’s heroes of the past, present and future.”

“This is not something that we’re going to pass today and then forget about,” said Senator Ayotte during today’s committee markup of the defense authorization bill.  “Because many of us will continue to serve on this committee and we’ll expect to understand how this system is working, we’ll expect to hear real metrics back as to whether victims can come forward, how many victims are coming forward, and how they are treated within this system.  And this will not be the last time the military hears from Congress on this issue.”

In a statement endorsing the Murray-Ayotte SVC legislation, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said, “The Air Force Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) pilot program, while very new, has shown positive results and provides a robust support program for victims of sexual assault.  Hundreds of victims have availed themselves of SVC services in the Air Force in just the past several months since it was implemented.  Many of those victims who initially filed restricted reports of sexual assault decided to change their report to unrestricted, allowing full investigation of the offenses committed by their assailant.  As the early reports have been so promising, I expressed in my May 20, 2013, letters to Senators Levin and Inhofe that the proposed SVC legislation had merit. I support providing victims of sexual assault this important resource.”

The Murray-Ayotte Combating Military Sexual Assault Act (S.871) takes additional steps aimed at reducing sexual assaults within the military and helping the victims of these crimes.  The legislation would address a number of gaps in current law and policy and would build upon the positive steps the Pentagon has taken in recent years to address this problem. The Murray-Ayotte bill currently has 37 bipartisan cosponsors.

The Combating Military Sexual Assault (MSA) Act of 2013 legislation would:

·         Provide victims of sexual assault with Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) – a military lawyer who will assist sexual assault victims throughout the process. 

·         Enhance the responsibilities and authority of DoD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Office so that it can better oversee efforts to combat MSA across the Armed Forces and regularly track and report on a range of MSA statistics, including assault rate, number of cases brought to trial, and compliance with appropriate laws and regulations within each of the individual services.

·         Refer cases to the general court martial level when sexual assault charges are filed or to the next superior competent authority when there is a conflict of interest in the immediate chain of command.

·         Bar sexual contact between instructors and trainees during and within 30 days of completion of basic training or its equivalent.

·         Ensure that Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARC) are available to members of the National Guard and Reserve at all times and regardless of whether they are operating under Title 10 or Title 32 authority.

###

---

Meghan Roh

Press Secretary | New Media Director

Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Mobile: (202) 365-1235

Office: (202) 224-2834

@PattyMurray | @SenateBudget | @MegRoh

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub, Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.


"Like the trained monkeys they are, they sell the l..." -- most requested highlight of the week by readers of this site.

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "When Hypocrite Met Hypocrite" -- Isaiah zooms in on two leaders who spy on their own countries.

 "Iraq snapshot," "Shut up, Senator Barbara Mikulski," "Mikulski loves the sound of her own voice (Wally)" and "Senator Susan Collins Eats The Young" -- C.I., Ava, Wally and Kat cover Congressional hearings.

"Baked Onion Dip" -- Trina offers a classic recipe.

"Super Bomb: Man of Steel is awful," and  "Movies and movie formats" and  "Oz" -- Betty and Stan go to the movies.

"TV Guide does not know Sci-Fi" and "revenge's big season ending f--k up" -- Marcia and Rebecca cover TV.

"Idiot of the Week" and "Idiot of the week (non-government pick)" -- Ruth and Mike pick the idiots of the week.

"The NSA," "so few brave politicians," "About Glenn Greenwald (C.I.)," "Do the same laws for the government apply to NSA c...," "NPR tries to sway public opinion on spying," "America folds like a cheap suit?," "Spying on Americans," "you can't have almost privacy," "Poor cheap Nancy Pelosi," "A great column," "Spying and The Exes," "Barack's spying and his apologists," "The uni-polar menace," "The trashing of Ed Snowden," "The trashed image," "Damn!," "the sucky in these times magazine,""Barack's spying," "He used to be so popular" and "THIS JUST IN! MORE BAD NEWS FOR BARRY!" -- some of the community coverage of Barack spying on Americans.

"Boo on Microsoft" -- Ann calls out the sexism of Microsfot.

"Joni Mitchell talks music" and  "Joni Mitchell (and other non-poster gals)" -- Kat and Elaine cover Joni Mitchell.

"New Benghazi questions" -- Ruth continues her Benghazi coverage.

"Cher, Jody Watley and my return" -- Ann returns.

"Is the IRS non-partisan or partisan? Cummings politicizes scandal" -- Mike corrects Cummings.

"Hedges rushes to do the work he should have done earlier" and "Hedges whines (unaware of what he's whining about)" -- Ruth and Elaine call out Hedges.

"Soledad O'Brien takes her lack of appeal to HBO" and "THIS JUST IN! SHE'S READY TO TANK HBO!" -- Cedric and Wally on ratings destroyer O'Brien.

Truest statement of the week

The United States should not be accumulating phone records on tens of millions of innocent Americans. That is not what democracy is about. That is not what freedom is about. Congress must address this issue and protect the constitutional rights of the American people.


-- Senator Bernie Sanders on last week's revelations that Barack Obama was spying on millions of Americans.

Truest statement of the week II

I am barred by Senate rules from commenting on some of the details at this time.  However, I believe that when law-abiding Americans call their friends, who they call, when they call, and where they call from is private information.  Collecting this data about every single phone call that every American makes every day would be a massive invasion of Americans’ privacy.  
The administration has an obligation to give a substantive and timely response to the American people and I hope this story will force a real debate about the government’s domestic surveillance authorities. The American people have a right to know whether their government thinks that the sweeping, dragnet surveillance that has been alleged in this story is allowed under the law and whether it is actually being conducted.  Furthermore, they have a right to know whether the program that has been described is actually of value in preventing attacks.  Based on several years of oversight, I believe that its value and effectiveness remain unclear.


-- Senator Ron Wyden after last week's revelations of Barack Obama's mass spying on the American people emerged.

Truest statement of the week III

Yes, the situation right now is that the government, since December, has taken -- how do you say?  The face?  We call it an iron face.  You don't see the features, you don't see the expression on the face -- towards the protests that are taking place in the country.  Since December, a great many Sunnis in the western provinces, have risen in order to say that there is a double standard in dealing with many situations that are sectarian in the way that it is being dealt with.  And since that time, the government has taken a stance that 'I do not hear, I do not see, I do not speak.'  It is like a glancing over all of these things.  And it is staying in place.  It is not giving it serious attention that it needs to give.   And since that time, until this very time, every Friday -- because we have Friday prayers that take place at the mosques --  every Friday has been a 'terror Friday.'  We just don't know what is going to happen.  Sunni enclaves become like camps, deployment of Army, deployment of Special Forces, deployment of all military kinds.


-- Iraqi journalist Sahar Issa to Marco Werman (PRI's The World, link is audio) last Wednesday.