i know she is always promoting herself (she prefers to be referred to as 'they' - a detail i don't need to know, thank you). i know she's thinks she's the big feminist.
but i also know she's in charge of 'transparent.'
and i know jeffrey tambor was let go from that show after women came forward detailing years of abuse.
ongoing abuse some of which - most of which - took place on 'transparent.'
she was in charge of that set.
so how is her replacing bryan singer a good thing or an improvement?
and i honestly believe she needs to apologize for what happened to women on the set of 'transparent.'
this crazy bitch just gave a talk railing against harvey weinstein.
she took no responsibility for what happened on her own set.
she's responsible. she owes the people who worked on that set an apology.
and, fyi, as a director there's no indication that she can handle a project like 'red sonja' - where the lead is played by a woman, not a man. she's also done nothing that indicates she has a visual flair (like most tv shows, 'transparent' is static and stale from a visual standpoint). nor in her work is there any attempts to portray epic journeys.
i'd say she's the wrong person for the job.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, June 21, 2019. As the Iraq War continues, war on Iran continues
to loom. While some seeking the Democratic Party's presidential
nomination note a possible future forever war, Joe Biden remains up to
the neck in his latest, self-created drama.
In the United States, 24 people are seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Former US Vice President Joe Biden has been the choice of the media if not of the people. Since declaring at the end of April, Joe has seen his soft support fade. At this point, were the press not insisting he was the front runner, he most likely would have lost even more support. Next week, 20 Democrats take the stage for the first debates (two debates will be held next week). Joe Biden is many things but a gifted debate has never been one of them.
He either babbles on endlessly or he tends to get angry and snap. He goes into the debate with the most to lose. Senator Kamala Harris, to cite one of the others who will be in the debate, has the advantage of most Americans not being aware of her style. As such, she's much more likely to benefit from a solid performance -- solid, not outstanding. If Joe manages solid, that's not enough. Not when you are the press declared front runner. Sharing the stage with 19 others, Jhas the most to lose. And what a week to lose, after this week's non-stop scandal.
Matt Viserr and Annie Linskey (WASHINGTON POST) cover Joe's I-worked-with-segregationists-and-it-was-nice comments and note:
The latest controversy for Joe establishes yet again that he cannot handle criticism. He's issued yet another no-one-fights-harder-for-women, no-one-has-done-more type statements. The bravado is embarrassing but, more to the point, it shows how static Joe actually is.
An image is being created of Joe by Joe. It's not one voters are likely to embrace.
The latest controversy also focuses attention on Joe's past.
That's not good.
Joe has no future.
Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Seth Moulton, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, etc -- all have plans of how to make this a greater country for We The People.
All Joe really has offered 'future' wise is the claim (highly unlikely) that he's the Democrat with the best chance of beating Donald Trump in the 2020 race for president.
Joe's offering no future -- he's even promising to turn the clock back to 2009, back to the days of Barack and Biden -- which were also the days of endless war, the Great Recession, a sitting IRS official taking the 5th before Congress, etc.
All Joe's got is the past. And when his comments today open up discussions of his past, it's not a good thing. The hype of Joe's past does not meet the reality.
And certainly, as Joe faces cries of racism this week, most people are aware this is far from the first time Joe's been called a racist over the years.
At POLITICO< Natasha Korecki notes that Joe spoke with Cory Booker Wednesday night on the phone:
“Cory shared directly what he said publicly — including helping Vice President Biden understand why the word 'boy' is painful to so many,” said Sabrina Singh, Booker’s campaign spokeswoman. “Cory believes that Vice President Biden should take responsibility for what he said and apologize to those who were hurt.”
No apology and Joe dug his heels in deeper. Can you imagine that sort of behavior in next week's debates?
While Joe's coming off like a cranky, old man, others are using this week for better causes.
Senator Kirsten Gillibran is seeking the nomination. Yesterday, she weighed in on the issue of Iran:
Also seeking the Democratic presidential nomination is US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard.
In the United States, 24 people are seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Former US Vice President Joe Biden has been the choice of the media if not of the people. Since declaring at the end of April, Joe has seen his soft support fade. At this point, were the press not insisting he was the front runner, he most likely would have lost even more support. Next week, 20 Democrats take the stage for the first debates (two debates will be held next week). Joe Biden is many things but a gifted debate has never been one of them.
He either babbles on endlessly or he tends to get angry and snap. He goes into the debate with the most to lose. Senator Kamala Harris, to cite one of the others who will be in the debate, has the advantage of most Americans not being aware of her style. As such, she's much more likely to benefit from a solid performance -- solid, not outstanding. If Joe manages solid, that's not enough. Not when you are the press declared front runner. Sharing the stage with 19 others, Jhas the most to lose. And what a week to lose, after this week's non-stop scandal.
Matt Viserr and Annie Linskey (WASHINGTON POST) cover Joe's I-worked-with-segregationists-and-it-was-nice comments and note:
The controversy over Biden’s
comments this week have continued to reverberate at a crucial time in
the campaign, with matters of race dominating the political discussion
ahead of several prominent gatherings, including the first presidential
debate next week and a multicandidate event before black voters in South
Carolina on Friday. It has emerged as a complex political problem for
Biden, who has been trying to campaign as a civil rights champion while
explaining past views that are out of step with today’s Democratic base.
Biden’s Wednesday remarks sparked
one of the sharpest intra-Democrat exchanges of the campaign, when Sen.
Cory Booker (N.J.), one of his 2020 rivals and an African American,
criticized both Biden’s work with segregationists and the language that he used in describing it.
The latest controversy for Joe establishes yet again that he cannot handle criticism. He's issued yet another no-one-fights-harder-for-women, no-one-has-done-more type statements. The bravado is embarrassing but, more to the point, it shows how static Joe actually is.
An image is being created of Joe by Joe. It's not one voters are likely to embrace.
The latest controversy also focuses attention on Joe's past.
That's not good.
Joe has no future.
Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Seth Moulton, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, etc -- all have plans of how to make this a greater country for We The People.
All Joe really has offered 'future' wise is the claim (highly unlikely) that he's the Democrat with the best chance of beating Donald Trump in the 2020 race for president.
Joe's offering no future -- he's even promising to turn the clock back to 2009, back to the days of Barack and Biden -- which were also the days of endless war, the Great Recession, a sitting IRS official taking the 5th before Congress, etc.
All Joe's got is the past. And when his comments today open up discussions of his past, it's not a good thing. The hype of Joe's past does not meet the reality.
And certainly, as Joe faces cries of racism this week, most people are aware this is far from the first time Joe's been called a racist over the years.
At POLITICO< Natasha Korecki notes that Joe spoke with Cory Booker Wednesday night on the phone:
“Cory shared directly what he said publicly — including helping Vice President Biden understand why the word 'boy' is painful to so many,” said Sabrina Singh, Booker’s campaign spokeswoman. “Cory believes that Vice President Biden should take responsibility for what he said and apologize to those who were hurt.”
No apology and Joe dug his heels in deeper. Can you imagine that sort of behavior in next week's debates?
While Joe's coming off like a cranky, old man, others are using this week for better causes.
Senator Kirsten Gillibran is seeking the nomination. Yesterday, she weighed in on the issue of Iran:
U.S. Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
today wrote a letter to President Donald J. Trump demanding that he not
send U.S. armed forces into a war with Iran unless authorized by
Congress or proportionate and necessary to counter a direct attack
against the United States. Gillibrand’s urgent call comes after alarming
reports continue to emerge that National Security Advisor John Bolton,
one of the chief advocates of the Iraq War, and others in the Trump
Administration and Congress, are pushing the President to send American
men and women to fight in an unnecessary and unauthorized war with Iran.
“When you were sworn in as President,
you inherited an Iran whose nuclear weapons ambitions were verifiably
constrained for a decade or more by international agreement. You have
shattered the strong coalition aligned against Iran in 2015 that brought
Iran to the negotiating table,” Gillibrand wrote.
“Against the backdrop of your Administration’s historic missteps, your
and your administration’s problematic statements, and military
escalation in the Gulf region, I am very concerned that the nation could
be dragged into a war with Iran under your leadership. Such a war is
not authorized, would unnecessarily risk the lives of Americans and our
allies, cause enormous human suffering, and destabilize the economy. The
country has been here before. The U.S. began the Iraq War based on
inaccurate information from John Bolton and others who claimed Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Eighteen years after going into
Afghanistan, U.S. and allied troops are still there despite your
promise of withdrawal and long after completing their mission. I demand
that you not send U.S. armed forces into hostilities that are
disproportionate and unnecessary to counter a direct attack or not
authorized by Congress through a new AUMF.”
“From all indications, the Trump
administration appears determined to lead us down an escalatory path
towards a devastating, costly and completely avoidable war of choice
with Iran, a country three times the size of Iraq. It’s absolutely vital
that our congressional leaders stand up for America's interests and for
the US Constitution to make it clear that no military action against
Iran can be launched without congressional authorization,” said Dylan J. Williams, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, J Street.
“As we stand on the precipice of war
with Iran, Congress must send a clear warning of the danger, immorality
and illegality of another unnecessary and unauthorized war in the Middle
East. We appreciate Senator Gillibrand’s leadership to do just that,” said Diane Randall, Executive Secretary, FCNL.
In addition to Gillibrand’s demand that
President Trump not send American troops into an unnecessary and
unauthorized war, Gillibrand also called on the Trump Administration to
do the following:
a) Engage the international community in addressing the risks to navigation in the waterways close to Iran;
b) Return the United States to the JCPOA
if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors
continues to certify that Iran is in compliance with the agreement; and
c) Require your administration officials
to be clear that you are not advocating starting another war, which,
this time, would be with an adversary that is better equipped than the
Taliban, Saddam Hussein, or Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
Since taking office, President Trump and
his Administration have repeatedly taken steps to antagonize Iran,
undermine the international coalition that blocked Iran’s ability to
build a nuclear weapon, increase tensions to a dangerous level, and
potentially risk a war with Iran that would endanger American lives and
damage the American economy.
The full text of Senator Gillibrand’s letter is available here
Also seeking the Democratic presidential nomination is US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard.
.@realDonaldTrump Your Iran strategy has been ill-advised and short-sighted. Change course now. Return to the Iran nuclear agreement before it’s too late. Put aside your pride and political calculations for the good of our country. Do the right thing. tulsi.to/iran20
Ending the US policy of waging war to overthrow foreign govts we don’t like is crucial. The trillions wasted on regime change wars is a foreign & domestic issue—b/c if we continue to waste $ on these counterproductive wars, we can’t afford to take care of the American ppl’s needs
And Senator Bernie Sanders also Tweeted about potential war.
If you think the invasion of Iraq was a disaster, a war with Iran would be worse. The United States must bring Iran and Saudi Arabia to the negotiating table, not foment a never-ending, unconstitutional war in the region.
Former US House Rep and candidate for the presidential nomination Beto O'Rourke Tweeted:
This administration is gunning for war in Iran. We can resolve our differences with that country firmly and peacefully, without invading yet another country and starting yet another war in the Middle East.
On Thursday, even Senator Elizabeth Warren found her way into the discussion.
The crisis with Iran is a result of @realDonaldTrump provoking Iran’s extreme hardliners & alienating our allies. I cosponsored @SenatorTomUdall’s amdt to the defense bill that prohibits war with Iran without Congressional approval. We can't start another war in the Middle East.
Margaret Kimberley (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) offers:
The latest in the saga of the desperate empire is the execution of one of the most obvious false flag operations of all time. On June 13, 2019 explosions took place on two oil tankers, one of which was Japanese owned, in the Gulf of Oman. Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe had just concluded meetings with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Japan is caught up in the U.S. sanctions scheme against Iran, which forbids their continued purchase of Iranian oil. The Trump administration and their friends at the New York Timesand other outlets would have us believe that Iran would take such risky action during delicate negotiations that determine its ability to survive as a nation.
But the absurdity is accepted, not just by Trumpian neocons and not only by the New York Times. Democratic congressman Adam Schiffman, point person in ginning up Russiagate hysteria, sounds just like the administration he allegedly opposes. “There’s no question Iran is behind the attacks,” Schiff opined on the Face the Nationnews program. Obviously there are many questions, such as who among the rogues gallery of U.S. proxies carried out the deed on behalf of the criminal enterprise. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates are the obvious suspects.
But Schiff is not alone. Ever the proud vassals, the British immediately backed up their partner in crime. They can always be counted on to follow Washington’s orders.
Margaret's column was published Wednesday morning but I don't think most of what followed on Thursday would have changed her opinion to any real degree. Possibly US House Rep Ilhan Omar (who is not seeking the presidential nomination) might win some praise for the straight forward nature of her Tweet.
Just as in Iraq, aggressors are using illegitimate pretexts to beat the drums of war.
Just as in Iraq, our media is taking these claims at face value.
Just as in Iraq, children will die, American lives will be lost, and the world will be less safe. #NoWarWithIran
Yesterday, Margaret Tweeted and re-Tweeted on the topic, including:
Margaret Kimberley Retweeted
Iran has never had troops on American soil
Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons
Iran has never dropped an atomic bomb
Iran is surrounded by American military bases
Iran isn't causing the genocide in Palestine or Yemen
Iran poses absolutely no threat to the United States
Margaret Kimberley Retweeted
Real journalists would be asking what that drone was doing over 7500 miles away from US territory, not hairsplitting over how many km from Iranian airspace it was flying. US imperialism is so deeply ingrained in the collective media psyche, that its aggression is normalized
Margaret Kimberley Retweeted
It’s a bad sign when CNN gives a crisis its own graphic.
America has plenty of #ConcentrationCamps. Usually we call them prisons. There are more than 2 million locked up in them.
U.S. Claims Drone Was Minding Own Business On Its Way To Church When Iran Attacked It Out Of Nowhere
Allison Quinn (DAILY BEAST) notes:
President Trump approved U.S. military strikes on multiple targets in Iran on Thursday but changed his mind at the last minute, according to The New York Times. Multiple senior administration officials cited by the Times said military and diplomatic officials were waiting for a strike Thursday evening when the operation was suddenly called off.
One source said planes were already in the air and ships had gotten into position when the call came down that the operation was not going ahead. It was not immediately clear why the strike was called off, but Trump had appeared to walk back his accusations against Iran earlier Thursday by suggesting on Twitter that the country had not intentionally shot down a U.S. drone.
War on Iran, a real possibility, as so many wars -- including the Iraq War -- continue.
Yesterday, on ALL THINGS CONSIDERED (NPR), a new development in the trial of Edward Gallagher was noted:
ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:
Stunning development is an overused cliche. But in this instance, the phrase fits. It happened today in the trial of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher. Chief Gallagher is accused of war crimes, including killing a teenage ISIS captive. Today a fellow SEAL testified that he, not Gallagher, is the one who killed the young man. And a warning - some of the details of that killing are disturbing to hear. Reporter Steve Walsh of member station KPBS has been covering the trial in San Diego, and he joins us. Welcome.
STEVE WALSH, BYLINE: Hi, Ari.
SHAPIRO: So you were in the courtroom today. Tell us what happened. It sounds like it was just a shocking, unexpected turn of events.
WALSH: No, it was completely unexpected. It was like something out of a Hollywood movie. You don't expect someone to declare that they're the real killer.
SHAPIRO: Especially when that person was a witness for the prosecution.
WALSH: Exactly. They're a witness for the prosecution. So Corey Scott was a medic. He was there on the scene in Iraq with Gallagher. He was beside him. And he testified, much like prosecutors expected him to testify, that Gallagher took a knife, plunged it into the neck of this wounded Iraqi fighter that they were providing medical care to. It was the sort of blow that was not designed for any sort of medical treatment but to injure the Iraqi fighter.
And it was all following the script. And then Corey Scott says in cross-examination by the defense that it was not Gallagher that killed him, that it was, in fact, Corey Scott who killed him by closing off a breathing tube for the wounded fighter. And then he slowly watched him die.
SHAPIRO: Now, Scott had presumably gone through depositions. How had this not come out earlier?
WALSH: Well, that's what the defense was saying. They're saying it was sloppiness on the part of naval investigators and prosecutors. Obviously, prosecutors were incredibly upset by this turn of events. And they pointed out on the stand that he had spoken to prosecutors several times - they had asked him to go step by step in this - and that he had never mentioned closing off the airway. And he'd never said that in any of his testimony to naval investigators either.
SHAPIRO: And he now has immunity, so he won't be prosecuted for this. Is that right?
WALSH: In the whole buildup to the case, one of the twists and turns - that there are seven SEALs that have been granted immunity to testify in this case. Corey Scott is one of those. He can still be prosecuted for perjury, but he cannot be prosecuted for any statements that he makes, including, apparently, admitting to a killing.
On the topic of courts, Omar Sattar (AL-MONITOR) reports:
Iraq's parliament is working on a draft law that could put clerics on the Federal Supreme Court and give them veto power.
The legislature held its second reading
of a draft law regarding the Federal Supreme Court on June 13, amid
heated disputes over most of the proposed articles, particularly those
providing for the appointment of clerics to the court and the entity
responsible for their selection.
The court currently is regulated by a law
issued by an interim government in 2005 and contradicts several
articles of the permanent constitution approved at the end of that year.
Most notably, Article 92 of the constitution
specifies, “The Federal Supreme Court is an independent judicial body,
financially and administratively.” The court, however, is headed by the
president of the Supreme Judicial Council, who also selects its judges.
And the violence continues . . .
IRAQ: At least 10 have been reported killed after a suicide bomber detonated their explosives in a Shia mosque in Baghdad.
The following sites updated:
-
-
The United Tent Cities of America1 hour ago
-
-
-
-
-
The political nowhere man9 hours ago
-
Ranking Stevie Nicks' solo albums10 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
