the 1 and only dionne warwick with her hit 'deja vu.'
i thought of that song while watching friday's episode of 'dynasty.'
i watched the original 80s version of the show. but i watched when it aired in real time and i've never re-watched it. there aren't a lot of shows i will re-watch. i'll re-watch 'will & grace,' 'fringe,' 'nikita' (i loved maggie q in that show but i loved the whole show), 'perry mason,' 'the lucy show,' 'here's lucy' (my favorite of lucy's shows), 'cybill,' 'the nanny,' 'alfred hitchcock presents,' 'space 1999,' 'the avengers' (especially with diana rigg) and several brit coms (including 'fawlty towers' and 'to the manor born').
so i watched it and, yes, this reboot is based on the original. but i don't remember all the storylines.
so i was enjoying crystal's pregnancy storyline until about 1/2 way in when i realized 'crystal miscarries!' i had forgotten that.
it may have soured my enjoyment of the episode. i liked it, wasn't loving it. but if you've read this site for very long, you know i repeatedly miscarried over and over throughout my life. i had given up on ever having a child when flyboy and i got back together. then, much to my surprise, i ended up pregnant again. i was blogging at the time and put on bed rest. so we have a beautiful girl but she's a miracle baby.
anyway, so alexis calls mark jennings, crystal's ex-husband. they got a good looking man to play the part and he is also very talented - not that it matters, you'll see in a moment.
mark shows up and alexis tells him he may be the father of crystal's baby. that she's scared of blake, etc. and she makes him promise not to tell. she's doing this because she and crystal are friends.
blake is furious that mark is there. he tells crystal he can raise the child as his even if it ends up being mark's child provided that they agree to lie to every 1 that the baby is blake's.
remember, steven is supposedly joseph's son and not blake's so this is repeating what happened earlier to blake.
crystal then breaks the promise. and blake is upset but still in love with her.
alexis keeps setting her up throughout the episode. she even stages a meet up in the barn between mark and crystal so blake can see them as he arrives home from work.
blake then makes a call to some 1 and tells them to show him that he (blake) means business.
meanwhile fallon's screwed up and over michael. she feels she's going to end up a lonely old bitch like her mother. crystal tells her that alexis would never admit she was wrong so fallon's already ahead of the game. fallon asks why she couldn't have had crystal as a mother, she would have ended up so much better.
outside the doorway listening to all of this?
alexis. who is pissed.
fallon gets fired for setting michael up for public embarrassment re: the soccer team. blake fires her.
no monica or jeff this episode. though fallon does mention them during her fight with michael (or 1 of her fights during the episode - she notes that he got both monica and jeff hurt.)
at 1 point, blake brings up alexis lying to him about steven being his son to alexis and she's pissed.
oh, steven. he calls sammy jo at the end of the episode. he's been mugged. he needs help. the call has a lot of static. steven tries to tell sam where he is but the phone goes dead.
back to alexis. she uses a need for towels to visit the main house and taunt crystal who informs her that she just got the test results and blake is the father.
alexis gets drunk in the mansion and joseph asks her to go back to the carriage house so that the staff can clean the room.
either crystal tells blake the news or he has a change of heart - this is where i realized crystal was going to miscarry and was kind of stunned - but blake calls the man from before and says the plan's off, don't hurt mark.
alexis knows it's over for her. she gets a gun and walks off to kill herself.
crystal tells mark that blake is the father. they decide to ride horseback together one last time. they're riding while alexis prepares to shoot herself in the head by a fence. but she sees them. she decides to shoot them.
the bullet startles the horse crystal's on. it tries to buck her. but 1 of her feet is caught in the stirrup and she's dragged along as it runs off. meanwhile, we see mark. he's got to be dead. he's shot and he's not moving. i really don't see any point in his character being around passed this episode (the 1 and only episode he appeared in, i believe). too bad, he was a good actor and made me want to see more of him.
oh, fallon and michael slept together. i'm so over michael.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, February 8, 2019. Joe Biden contemplates a run as the press attacks Tulsi Gabbard.
Starting with US politics, Aime Parnes (THE HILL) observes:
Former Vice President Joe Biden's words and policy positions on the Iraq War could come back to haunt him if he enters the race for the White House.
Biden is popular with Democrats, polls show he leads most of his competitors in the 2020 field and a survey this week found more than 60 percent want him in the race. He routinely leads polls of Democrats asked to pick their favored presidential candidate.
But his words on Iraq from nearly two decades ago sound out-of-step with the increasingly left-leaning party he would be seeking to lead.
Biden backed the resolution giving President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and he also praised the president in a Senate floor speech at the time for his handling of the case for war.
Joe did not have the problems that Hillary Clinton or John Edwards had when it came to Iraq. As the late Elizabeth Edwards noted, John Edwards came clean on Iraq and apologized for it but Hillary refused to take accountability for her support for the Iraq War (saying she was tricked by Bully Boy Bush is not taking accountability, it is saying "I"m so stupid even an idiot can fool me").
Parnes notes 2008 in one sentence but never addresses why it wasn't an issue for Joe when he last attempted to be the Democratic Party nominee.
There are several reasons. First among them, the Iraq War wasn't his focus, he was focused on partitioning Iraq or creating a federalist system. He repeatedly denied this was partitioning Iraq. Many Iraqis disagreed. During his brief 2007 and January 2008 campaign for the nomination, he was repeatedly on the defense about this issue. Seeking votes in Iowa in the last stages of his campaign, he was still having to face the issue and clarify or expand on his previous remarks.
It is true that CODEPINK was bird-dogging Hillary Clinton over her vote and support for the Iraq War at this time (and only bird-dogging her) but Joe's mess at that time was being the face of US imperialism announcing that Iraq should be three different government under a federalist system. This was not what Iraqis were calling for at the time and here was this non-Iraqi from a country that started the war now insisting what would be done next.
Beau Biden is another factor. Beau served in Iraq. Chelsea Clinton did not serve in Iraq (though she did support the Iraq War, a reality she tries to lie about today). With a son in Iraq, the hypocrite label was a little harder to hang on Joe.
There's also the fact that no one really thought Joe Biden stood a chance at the nomination. He was gaffe prone. He infamously 'borrowed' from another for a big speech in a previous run. He wasn't seen as a viable candidate by the press.
What's different now?
Sexism will be called out. I'm not just referring to Anita Hill (Parnes covers that). I'm also referring to the media itself. In New Hampshire, speaking publicly, Hillary's eyes well. She does not cry, she does not sob. But Bill Moyers, Jesse Jackson Jr. and countless others mocked her for that, ridiculed her for that, etc. Months later, Joe Biden, then on the ticket as Barack Obama's running mate, starts crying on stage in the middle of a speech. It's not even one day's coverage, let alone the weeks of coverage Hillary endured.
Things have changed and they won't help Joe. Most of all, his Iraq-free card won't exist this time, not after he shamed himself by publicly praising Bully Boy Bush at an awards ceremony last year. Joe's popularity is as an idea. As an actual person? If he runs, his popularity will plummet.
Starting with US politics, Aime Parnes (THE HILL) observes:
Former Vice President Joe Biden's words and policy positions on the Iraq War could come back to haunt him if he enters the race for the White House.
Biden is popular with Democrats, polls show he leads most of his competitors in the 2020 field and a survey this week found more than 60 percent want him in the race. He routinely leads polls of Democrats asked to pick their favored presidential candidate.
But his words on Iraq from nearly two decades ago sound out-of-step with the increasingly left-leaning party he would be seeking to lead.
Biden backed the resolution giving President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and he also praised the president in a Senate floor speech at the time for his handling of the case for war.
Joe did not have the problems that Hillary Clinton or John Edwards had when it came to Iraq. As the late Elizabeth Edwards noted, John Edwards came clean on Iraq and apologized for it but Hillary refused to take accountability for her support for the Iraq War (saying she was tricked by Bully Boy Bush is not taking accountability, it is saying "I"m so stupid even an idiot can fool me").
Parnes notes 2008 in one sentence but never addresses why it wasn't an issue for Joe when he last attempted to be the Democratic Party nominee.
There are several reasons. First among them, the Iraq War wasn't his focus, he was focused on partitioning Iraq or creating a federalist system. He repeatedly denied this was partitioning Iraq. Many Iraqis disagreed. During his brief 2007 and January 2008 campaign for the nomination, he was repeatedly on the defense about this issue. Seeking votes in Iowa in the last stages of his campaign, he was still having to face the issue and clarify or expand on his previous remarks.
It is true that CODEPINK was bird-dogging Hillary Clinton over her vote and support for the Iraq War at this time (and only bird-dogging her) but Joe's mess at that time was being the face of US imperialism announcing that Iraq should be three different government under a federalist system. This was not what Iraqis were calling for at the time and here was this non-Iraqi from a country that started the war now insisting what would be done next.
Beau Biden is another factor. Beau served in Iraq. Chelsea Clinton did not serve in Iraq (though she did support the Iraq War, a reality she tries to lie about today). With a son in Iraq, the hypocrite label was a little harder to hang on Joe.
There's also the fact that no one really thought Joe Biden stood a chance at the nomination. He was gaffe prone. He infamously 'borrowed' from another for a big speech in a previous run. He wasn't seen as a viable candidate by the press.
What's different now?
Sexism will be called out. I'm not just referring to Anita Hill (Parnes covers that). I'm also referring to the media itself. In New Hampshire, speaking publicly, Hillary's eyes well. She does not cry, she does not sob. But Bill Moyers, Jesse Jackson Jr. and countless others mocked her for that, ridiculed her for that, etc. Months later, Joe Biden, then on the ticket as Barack Obama's running mate, starts crying on stage in the middle of a speech. It's not even one day's coverage, let alone the weeks of coverage Hillary endured.
Things have changed and they won't help Joe. Most of all, his Iraq-free card won't exist this time, not after he shamed himself by publicly praising Bully Boy Bush at an awards ceremony last year. Joe's popularity is as an idea. As an actual person? If he runs, his popularity will plummet.
We heard attacks from warmongers in politics/media before. Those opposed to Iraq/Libya/Syria regime change wars are called “dicatator-lovers” or “cozy” with evil regimes. Rather than defend their position, they resort to name-calling & smears. American people wont fall for this.
US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard is running for the 2020 Democratic Party nomination and you know she makes some tremble by the vicious media attacks she's already enduring.
Last Saturday, she officially launched her campaign.
Tulsi Gabbard officially announced her candidacy for President of the United States and kicked off her campaign on Saturday, Feb. 2, 2019, in Hawaii. She was introduced by Ryan Soon, a fellow member of the Hawaii National Guard who served with her in Iraq and Kuwait. Tulsi's friends, family, and supporters gathered to hear her vision for the future of our nation. More than 3,500 private and public watch parties across the country were coordinated by grassroots supporters to take part in the live-streamed event.
In her remarks, Tulsi Gabbard said, "When we raise our right hand and volunteer to serve, we set aside our own interests—to serve our country and to fight for ALL Americans. We serve as one—indivisible and unbreakable, united by this bond of love for each other and love for our country. It is this principle of putting service above self, that is at the heart of every soldier, every service member. And it is in this spirit that today I announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America.
"I will bring a soldier's values and principles to the White House—restoring the values of dignity, honor, and respect to the presidency. And above all, love for our people and love of country. I ask you to join me, in this spirit of putting service before self, to stand up against the forces of greed and corruption."
Possibly some of the press attacks stem from the press fear that Tulsi will bring Iraq into the conversation. Parnes, for example, is convinced that Iraq's not an issue in 2020.
Really?
Senator Elizabeth Warren's running for the nomination and she's contributed a major paper to COFR's FOREIGN AFFAIRS:
A foreign policy that works for
all Americans must also be driven by honest assessments of the full
costs and risks associated with going to war. All three of my brothers
served in the military, and I know our service members and their
families are smart, tough, and resourceful. But having a strong military
doesn’t mean we need to constantly use it. An effective deterrent also
means showing the good judgment to exercise appropriate restraint.
Over the past two decades, the
United States has been mired in a series of wars that have sapped its
strength. The human cost of these wars has been staggering: more than
6,900 killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, another 52,000 wounded, and many
more who live every day with the invisible scars of war. By financing
these conflicts while cutting taxes, the country has essentially charged
the costs of war to a collective credit card for future generations to
pay, diverting money that could have been invested in critical domestic
priorities. This burden will create a drag on the economy that will last
for generations.
The costs have been
extraordinarily high, but these wars have not succeeded even on their
own terms. We’ve “turned the corner” in Afghanistan so many times that
it seems we’re now going in circles. After years of constant war,
Afghanistan hardly resembles a functioning state, and both poppy
production and the Taliban are again on the rise. The invasion of Iraq
destabilized and fragmented the Middle East,
creating enormous suffering and precipitating the deaths of hundreds of
thousands of people. The region remains a tangled mess—the promise of
the Arab Spring crushed, Iran emboldened, Syria devastated, the Islamic
State (or ISIS) and its offshoots stubbornly resilient, and a massive
refugee crisis threatening to destabilize Europe. Neither military nor
civilian policymakers seem capable of defining success, but surely this
is not it.
A singular focus on
counterterrorism, meanwhile, has dangerously distorted U.S. policies.
Here at home, we have allowed an imperial presidency to stretch the
Constitution beyond recognition to justify the use of force, with little
oversight from Congress. The government has at times defended tactics,
such as torture, that are antithetical to American values. Washington
has partnered with countries that share neither its goals nor its
ideals. Counterterrorism efforts have
often undermined other foreign policy priorities, such as reinforcing
civilian governance, the rule of law, and human rights abroad. And in
some cases, as with U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s proxy war in Yemen,
U.S. policies risk generating even more extremism.
As a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, I have seen up close how 17 years of conflict have
degraded equipment, sapped forces’ readiness, and forced the
postponement of investment in critical military capabilities. It has
distracted Washington from growing dangers in other parts of the world: a
long-term struggle for power in Asia, a revanchist Russia that
threatens Europe, and looming unrest in the Western Hemisphere,
including a collapsing state in Venezuela that
threatens to disrupt its neighbors. Would-be rivals, for their part,
have watched and learned, and they are hard at work developing
technologies and tactics to leapfrog the United States, investing
heavily in such areas as robotics, cybersecurity, artificial
intelligence, synthetic biology, and quantum computing. China is making
massive bets in these and other areas in an effort to surpass the United
States as a global technological power. Whether the United States will
maintain its edge and harness these technologies for good remains an
open question.
It is the job of the U.S.
government to do what is necessary to protect Americans, but it is long
past time to start asking what truly makes the country safer—and what
does not. Military efforts alone will never fully succeed at ending
terrorism, because it is not possible to fight one’s way out of
extremism. Some challenges, such as cyberattacks and nuclear
proliferation, require much more than a strong military to combat. And
other dangers, such as climate change and the spread of infectious
diseases, cannot be solved through military action at all. The United
States will spend more than $700 billion on
defense in the 2018–19 fiscal year alone. That is more in real terms
than was spent under President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War and
more than all the rest of the country’s discretionary budget put
together. But even as Washington spends more and more, U.S. military
leaders point out that funding a muscular military without robust
diplomacy, economic statecraft, support for civil society, and
development assistance only hamstrings American national power and
undercuts any military gains.
As a candidate, Trump promised to
bring U.S. troops home. As president, he has sent more troops into
Afghanistan. On the campaign trail, Trump claimed he did not want to
police the world. As president, he has expanded the United States’
military footprint around the globe, from doubling the number of U.S.
air strikes in Somalia to establishing a drone base in Niger.
As a candidate, Trump promised to rebuild the military, but as
president, he has gutted the diplomatic corps on which the Pentagon
relies. He promised to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation, but
he has undermined a successful nuclear deal with Iran, has failed to
roll back the North Korean nuclear program, and seems intent on spurring
a new nuclear arms race with Russia.
These actions do not make
Americans safer. It’s time to seriously review the country’s military
commitments overseas, and that includes bringing U.S. troops home from
Afghanistan and Iraq. They have fought with honor, but additional
American blood spilled will not halt the violence or result in a
functioning democratic government in either place.
We've noted that several times before. We've also noted that foreign policy will be an issue in the 2020 election. How much of an issue, I don't know. Even I was shocked by (see Wednesday's snapshot) the "CBS NEWS poll showed that the most pressing topic on the mind of Americans was foreign policy and national security. Respondents ranked that the number one issue (93%) with jobs and economy second (92%) and healthcare third (80%)."
In Iraq, a death continues to garner attention.
So sad, so tragic. The well-known and award-winning Iraqi novelist Alaa Mashthob Abboud was shot dead on 2 February. We strongly condemn this henious assasination. @pen_int
#Iraq: Writer and novelist Dr. Alaa Mashthob Abboud assassinated
gc4hr.org/news/view/2053
#Iraqi activist and novelist, Alaa Mashthob, assassinated in Karbala
Writer and novelist Dr. Alaa Mashthob Abboud assassinated: Gulf Centre for Human Rights gc4hr.org/news/view/2053 | More w/ RSS:
Along with @pen_int, PEN SA strongly condemns the murder of Prominent Iraqi Writer, Alaa Mashthob Abboud.
Read the full statement here: bit.ly/2MSOxAy
This morning, MIDDLE EAST MONITOR notes:
Leader of the Abu Al-Fadl Al-Abbas Forces
of the Popular Mobilisation Forces, Aws al-Khafaji said on Wednesday
that Iraqi renowned novelist Alaa Mashthob was assassinated because he
had criticised Iran.
“My cousin, Alaa
Mashthob wrote an article against Iran. Some men came and killed him in
love of Iran,” he said, calling to reject all foreign presence and
Iranian interventions in Iraq.
The remarks were too much and, apparently, had to be silenced. KURDISTAN 24 reports:
Iraq’s Iranian-backed Hashd al-Shaabi militia on Thursday arrested the leader of the Abu al-Fadhl al-Abbas Brigade, Aws al-Khafaji, after he repeatedly criticized policies of neighboring Iran in his country.
A group of Hashd al-Shaabi fighters, also known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), stormed the headquarters of the Abu al-Fadhl al-Abbas Brigade in Baghdad’s Karrada district and arrested Khafaji.
Khafaji has long criticized Iran’s policies in Iraq and has repeatedly expressed disapproval of local clerics and leaders “exaggerating” in their defense of Iran. He has also been vocal about Iraq’s sovereignty needing to be “preserved and respected.”
It was Barack's puppet Hayder al-Abadi that took these militias and made them part of the Iraqi military forces. Even bowing to them repeatedly, however, could not garner their support in the 2018 election.
The new prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi is not making any headway. He still can't find a Minister of Defense or Minister of Interior all these months later. He can't address the ongoing Basra protests in any significant way.
I knew there were a good number; 7K seems like a lot but not improbable given that many were just for intimidation & not necessarily carried out to arrest. But from the way they've handled the Basra protests, its is clear that Iraqi personnel do not get "civil liberties."
Protests in #Iraq’s #Basra likely throughout 2019, but security force presence mitigates disruption risk to oil sites buff.ly/2SdYG0g
The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan, ANTIWAR.COM and THE PACIFICA EVENING NEWS -- updated:
Tweet of the week
10 minutes ago
Tulsi
6 hours ago
AMERICAN DAD
6 hours ago
No proof
6 hours ago
HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER
7 hours ago
Allan Nairn is worthless
8 hours ago
Jill Abrmason 'truth' talker
9 hours ago
THIS JUST IN! COPY CAT JILL TALKS!
9 hours ago
