1/24/2025

grease is the word

 



don't we all love 'grease'?  i do.  it's 1 of my favorite movies of all time.  and john travolta and olivia newton-john are perfect in the film.  but so is stockard channing.  without a great riz, the film doesn't work.

over the years adrienne barbeau has whined and moaned and bitched that she didn't get the part. 'i played it on broadway!' yeah and you weren't very good in the role and you didn't really make an impact on t.v. (a supporting player in 'maude' does not a t.v. career make) or in film.  you didn't have what it took.

that's before we deal with the reality that john and olivia knew: they really were too old for their parts.  olivia even tried to beg off when offered the role.

but their talent helped them pull it off as did stockard channing in the role. (adrienne has insisted channing was too old.)

no 1 could have pulled off rizzo onscreen.  maybe rosie o'donnell.  she was good in the role on broadway - i've seen 'grease' on broadway repeatedly over the years. 

i marvel over stockard's talent.  and that's pretty much with any role she plays.  no 1 else could have done so much with cynthia in 'the first wives club.'  she moved us with so little and set the whole tone for the film in those few minutes at the start of the movie. 



Stockard Channing has shared details about an uncomfortable interaction she had with a male co-star that left her wincing.

The 80-year-old American actor played Betty Rizzo in the 1978 film, Grease. The romantic comedy and musical starring John Travolta as Danny Zuko and Sandy Olsson as Olivia Newton-John became a cult classic, propelling its cast to international stardom.

Channing played the dry and sarcastic Rizzo, who is frenemies with Sandy. She went on to a successful career in film and TV, becoming nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress for her role in Six Degrees of Separation in 1993, in which she starred alongside Will Smith.

“I’m not going to name the actor, but we were in a movie together and we were doing a press tour,” she told The Times. “We passed each other from one press table to another, and he said, ‘you were my wet dream when I was 12.’ Oh, thank you so much. A little too much information.”

Reflecting on her work during Grease she said: “I gave [Grease] my all, and I’m proud of the performance and proud of the character. But at the time, it was not taken at all seriously. The money that it was making was resented. I was resented. It’s a kid’s movie — it was really p***ed on.”



i love 'grease' and '1st wives club.'  stockard's been good in so many films - even in the brief scene in the drugstore where the ladies talk about margaret (barbra streisand) in 'up the sandbox.'  if you're new to her, i would recommend the comedies 'the fortune' (with jack nicholson and warren beatty), 'the cheap detective' (with peter falk, madeline khan, eileen brennan, ann-margret and more), '6 degrees of separation,' 'to wong foo, thanks for everything! julie newmar' and 'practical magic' plus - and you have to see this - the t.v. movie 'the girl most likely to ...' - a hilarious revenge comedy written by joan rivers.





let's close with c.i.'s 'The Snapshot:'


Thursday, January 23, 2025.  Donald Chump's attacking Civil Rights, abortion rights, workers rights and so much more.  


Let's start with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:

ICYMI: On Roe Anniversary, Senator Murray, Democrats Hammer Republicans for Pushing Anti-Abortion Lies and Dangerous Extremism Rather Than Lowering Costs, Helping Families

ICYMI: Murray, Senate Democrats Slam Republicans for Pushing Anti-Abortion Extremism Instead of Legislation to Lower Costs and Help Families

***VIDEO of Senator Murray’s remarks HERE**

Washington, D.C. — Today U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, delivered the following remarks in opposition to S.6 ahead of a Senate vote on the legislation, which would create a new government mandate overriding the best judgment of grieving families facing fatal fetal diagnoses, threaten providers, and create even more barriers to reproductive health care in America. Earlier today, Murray led a press conference with Leader Schumer and Senators Shaheen and Smith highlighting how, in week one of the Trump administration, Republicans are doubling down on anti-woman, anti-abortion extremism instead of doing anything to help working families or lower costs.

Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered on the Senate floor ahead of the vote today:

“Earlier this week, we lost a friend and a champion for reproductive rights—Cecile Richards. She helped countless women, and changed the conversation around women’s health and abortion. And I know if she were here, she would say the fight continues. And that is very clear given what Republicans are choosing to focus on today.

“Of all the bills that we could be voting on—lowering the cost of health care, expanding child care, helping our families—it’s an absolute disgrace that Republicans are spending their first week in power attacking women, criminalizing doctors, and lying about abortion.

“I am not going to let anyone perpetuate disgusting lies about people who have abortions and the providers who care for them.

“This isn’t how abortion works; Republicans know it. All babies are already protected under the law, regardless of the circumstance of their birth. Doctors already have a legal obligation to provide appropriate medical care. And we already know this sham bill from Republicans is not going anywhere.

“We’ve been here, before. Last time we voted down this bill, I actually spoke about something Republicans refuse to acknowledge in this debate: the struggles, the struggles of a pregnant woman, who has received tragic news that her baby had a fatal medical condition and would not be able to survive, and who were able to make the choice that was right for their family.

“But now, here we are, already hearing stories of women who were denied that choice by extreme Republican abortion bans.

“Can you imagine what it is like to go for months, pregnant with a baby you know will not survive, and getting questions and comments like “oh, is this your first child?” and “are you excited?”

“Do you know what it’s like fighting back tears as you try to decide whether to nod politely somehow, or explain that actually your world is falling apart? I can’t imagine that. But it happens.

“Mr. President, all the while, you know you have to go through this against your will—because some politician decided they knew better than you, and your family, and your doctor.

Now, Republicans have a bill today to take that issue nationwide. That’s what we are voting on. That is their top priority now that Trump is in office.

Shame on them. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.”

###


Now let's stay with the US Senate and think for a moment what it would mean to be a member.  We are told that they're noble, Jimmy Stewart-like film characters.  But is that what you see right now when you look at Joni Ernst?  

We all know she knows Pete Hegseth is not just unqualified to be Secretary of Defense, he's also a threat to the office and to the safety of the American people. But she's apparently going to vote for him.  Because?  MAGA was mean to her online and because Donald Chump's threatened to primary her.  

She was elected to the Senate in 2014. 

When does she take her brave stand.  When does she follow her duties outlined in the Constitution she took an oath to uphold?

A decade in the Senate and she's not willing to do the right thing because she's afraid of losing her Senate seat?  Why is the seat needed when she's not going to do what she knows is right?

As someone who's served, she knows his statements and views about women in the military are repugnant, out of step and a threat to US service members -- female and male.  She knows that.

If she weren't such a coward right now, she's grasp that doing the right thing on this vote is how she easily wins elections.  Elon starts pouring money to some competitor?  "Iowa, I have stood up for you and plan to continue to stand for you.  A man born in South Africa thinks he can buy our votes just because of his vast wealth.  Are we for sale?  No."  You make that the rallying cry.  Iowa's twice elected her to the US Senate.  She held offices in the state's government prior to that.  

But she wants to be a coward right now.

And what's the worst that happens if she does lose next time (2026)?  

She has to make her money on TV as a commentator?  

She's not going to be poor.  She's not going to be on welfare.  

But she apparently would rather be a coward than do the right thing.

She's not alone in that by any means.

But this vote has meaning to her that it doesn't for others.  She served in the military -- we've even noted that she'd be more than qualified to be Secretary of Defense herself and that Trump should have nominated her -- so she knows what's at stake.

And yet she'd rather go along to stay in the Senate.  Why?  If you're not going to stand up, why do you need to be in the Senate?  She's been elected to it twice, she's got her yearbook credit, if she's not going to do anything of value, she doesn't really need to be in the Senate.

Democrats should be personalizing these votes in 2026.  The people who vote for the unqualified, hang it around their necks.  And if, like Hegseth probably, they get into the post and they have a scandal, make it about, "Even with all the warnings, Senator Ernst chose to vote for Hegseth."  

Mark Cuban makes a point on BLUESKY.




I understand what he's saying but he's wrong.  He's also right.

The hideous Kavenaugh would not be on the Court today were it not for Senator Dianne Feinstein.  As we've noted many times before, she never knew what she was doing.  That didn't come with advanced age.  Back in the '00s, as noted here in real time, she was screwing up on the Judiciary Committee constantly as the late Ted Kennedy was pointing that out to me and anyone else who would listen.

She screwed up on Kavenaugh and if Teddy had been alive then, I think he would have said her big mistake there was constantly feeding the press.  She miscalculated  and it came off like a political hit job.  I'd guess that is what Cuban fears.

But that's not the same issue in this case.  These charges and accusations?

The military has a different standard. 

Do you not remember David Petraeus?



When former General David Petraeus was caught in an extramarital affair, questions immediately began swirling about the timeframe of his infidelity. According to Petraeus, his affair with biographer Paula Broadwell did not begin until after he had retired as an Army general.

Why is it an important distinction? While the scandal caused Petraeus to resign his post as the Central Intelligence Agency Director, it is unlikely he will be charged with a crime; on the other hand, had Petraeus still been in the military at the of the affair, he could have faced a criminal prosecution for adultery.

General Petraeus' case serves as a powerful reminder that those serving in the U.S. Armed Services are legally held to a higher standard of behavior than members of the general public. Many military crimes would not be punishable in the civilian world, and even for those military criminal offenses that do have a civilian counterpart, military sentences can be far more severe.
Discipline is the focus of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Unlike civilians, military members are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Uniform Code is a federal law enacted by Congress. The President is authorized under the Uniform Code to establish rules and procedures for implementation.

A primary objective of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is to maintain discipline in the ranks. Adultery is one example of a crime in the Uniform Code that remains an offense for military members even though it has been decriminalized in many American jurisdictions.

The reasoning behind the military's adultery prohibition is twofold. First, it is meant to reduce distraction and the potential morale impact that such interpersonal behavior can have on soldiers who need to bond effectively to work together. Second, it is especially important for military subordinates to respect their superiors, and discouraging adultery as much as possible helps the military preserve the moral stature of its leaders. Commanders have great discretion in deciding whether to prosecute adultery, and only tend to do so when it occurs between people in the same unit, between ranks, or otherwise has the potential to detract from military order.

Adultery is far from the only way standards for military members differ from those for civilians. For example, if an enlisted soldier is issued a traffic ticket or falls behind on personal loan payments, his or her commanding officer will be informed; domestic violence charges are often career-ending for soldiers; and, drug use is typically punished far more harshly in the military world.


The people under him are going to have to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- something Pete Hegseth cannot do.  


Senator Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran, yesterday on MSNBC, discussed Hegseth's nomination.  She's exactly right that he would not get advanced in the military for his actions. 





Let's turn the focus to Convicted Felon Donald Chump.  Tabitha noted his attack on the Civil Rights in a video yesterday.





President Trump issued a sweeping executive order revoking decades of diversity and affirmative action practices in federal government.

Why it matters: This takes the current pushback on diversity, equity and inclusion into the next stratosphere — abolishing decades of government standards on diversity and equal opportunity, and seeking to crackdown on the same in the private sector.  

Zoom out: Trump's order revokes one that President Johnson signed on September 24, 1965, more than two years after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I Have A Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial.

  • LBJ's order gave the Secretary of Labor the authority to ensure equal opportunity for people of color and women in federal contractors' recruitment, hiring, training and other employment practices.
  • It required federal contractors to refrain from employment discrimination and take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity "based on race, color, religion, and national origin."
  • The order came more than a year after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and just months after he signed the Voting Rights Act following violent attacks on voting rights advocates in Selma, Ala.

The intrigue: The reversal comes after five GOP presidents—including Trump during his first term—kept the Johnson executive order in place, while others expanded it through amendments.


As Tabitha concludes in her video,  "Elections have consequences and, here we are, the consequences of your actions."

Where's the grifter Jill Stein now?  We know where Rashida Tlaib is -- making tiny gestures on Chump's deportation plans but never owning that she helped put him into office.

Her job was to defend her country which is the United States of America.  She failed to do that.  She voted twice to impeach Donald Chump during his first term because she thought he was a grave threat to the country.  But four years later, he's running for re-election and she's telling people to vote for Jill or not vote or vote for Trump.

She can't walk away from this and she shouldn't be allowed to.  She has destroyed the safety of so many communities with her actions, immigrants, those who look like they might be immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, women, Black people, the disabled and so many more.

She didn't defend the country.  She helped put a known threat back into the White House.

That doesn't go away.

We don't get a do over.  We're stuck with that she did.  

And unlike Rashida, let's not forget the very real threat to climate, to the health of our planet, that Chump is.  Matthew Rozsa (SALON) explains:


On Monday, President Donald Trump opened his second term with an inaugural address declaring that America has a “national energy emergency.” Vowing to tap into the country’s vast oil and gas reserves, Trump dismisses the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases that overheat the planet.

Instead of trying to curb emissions on those gases, Trump signed executive orders withdrawing the United States from the 2015 Paris climate deal. He also announced initiatives promoting Alaskan oil and gas development and reversing outgoing President Joe Biden’s policies protecting Arctic lands and U.S. coastal waters from drilling and encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles.

Climate scientists, as well as other experts on environmental and energy policy, say that Trump's emergency doesn't actually exist. They emphasize that the president's desire to ramp up fossil fuel use is a self-destructive move, as Earth’s temperature is already 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, one that will hurt both the planet and the economy.

“There is no national energy emergency — and certainly no emergency as President Trump has defined it,” Julie McNamara, deputy policy director with the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Salon. “President Trump is simply doing the bidding of fossil fuel executives, attempting to slash critical climate and public health protections and basic project accountability to boost their bottom lines.”

 

Weeks later, he was back to begging again.  Dharna Noor (GUARDIAN) reported:


Donald Trump was continuing to ask fossil-fuel executives to fund his presidential campaign on Wednesday, despite scrutiny of his relationship with the industry.

The former president attended a fundraising luncheon at Houston’s Post Oak hotel hosted by three big oil executives.

The invitation-only meeting comes a day after the defense rested its case in Trump’s criminal hush-money trial, and a week after Houston was battered by deadly storms. The climate crisis, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, has created the conditions for more frequent and severe rainfall and flooding, including in Texas.

“Houstonians are staring at Trump in disbelief as he flies in to beg big oil for funds just days after the city’s climate disaster,” said Alex Glass, communications director at the climate advocacy organization Climate Power, and a former Houston resident.

It also follows a fundraising dinner at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club last month, where the former president reportedly asked more than 20 oil executives for $1bn in campaign donations from their industry and promising, if elected, to remove barriers to drilling, scrap a pause on gas exports, and reverse new rules aimed at cutting car pollution.
 

CREW noted in June:

The FBI and Department of Justice should investigate whether Donald Trump violated the law by promising political favors, if re-elected, to the oil and gas industry in exchange for $1 billion in campaign donations, according to a complaint filed today by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. In a closed door meeting in April, Trump reportedly told a group of oil and gas executives that they should raise $1 billion for his campaign and promised that he would take specific actions, including issuing drilling and export permits that some oil and gas companies have pursued for years, on “day one” of his next presidential term. 

Trump reportedly described the offer as a “deal,” and public reporting shows that since this meeting, Trump’s fundraising from the oil and gas industry has picked up substantially and that the industry has been drafting executive orders that its members hope Trump would quickly implement as president. 

 “We cannot have government officials making important policy as a result of corrupt exchanges that benefit them, rather than what is in the interest of the American people. That’s why the law is clear that a request for a benefit, including campaign contributions, in exchange for an official act is a bribe,” said CREW President Noah Bookbinder. “Donald Trump’s actions here follow a pattern of Trump opening himself up to corrupt influence, courting conflicts of interest, and using official positions to enrich himself–and in this case may run afoul of the criminal law.”


Should he regain the presidency, Trump will be in a position to lead and pressure the federal agencies responsible for regulating the oil and gas industries and to issue executive orders that will directly affect those industries.

“It is crucial that we have a quick and thorough investigation to determine whether Donald Trump’s conduct with oil and gas executives violate core corruption laws which are meant to protect the government from undue influence and corruption,” said Bookbinder. “The public deserves to know whether Trump’s request for $1 billion went beyond merely epitomizing our system of excessive corporate influence on politics and in fact crossed the legal line.”



These are not new or suppressed details.  They were reported well ahead of the election.  There was no reason for Rashida and her sister to work to defeat Kamala Harris other than they just didn't care what happened to the American people.

She's going to be held accountable for this and all her fans can lie all the want but she is responsible and she will be held accountable.  

Others who need to be held accountable include Amy Goodman (DEMOCRACY NOW) and Karina vanden Heuvel (THE NATION) who used their outlets to attack Kamala over and over for three months.  Don't give money to them.  THE NATION should go under for its efforts to tank the campaign of what should have been the first Black woman president.  That's 100% against the aims and goals of the people who started the magazine over a century ago.


Amy Goodman is nothing but a thief.  Not a petty thief.  She takes millions from PACIFICA RADIO and the sweetheart deal her buddy Community Leslie Cagen set up for her results in the fact that PACIFICA doesn't even own the show that they started.  No, Amy retains rights to every program.  But she siphons off millions from PACIFICA every year.  It's amazing no one wants to report on that story just like it's amazing how people disappear from the PACIFICA airwaves when they touch just a little bit on this story.  

So she had no ethics.  

And those are the people who created the culture of hate around Kamala as actual Democrats were working to turn out the vote.



Zack Beauchamp (VOX) serves up a primer on what we can expect:



When I was researching my book on anti-democratic politics, I found a striking pattern in modern incarnations of it — that these movements, almost uniformly, claim their most aggressive anti-democratic policies are actually defenses of democracy. 

While Donald Trump worked to overturn the 2020 election, for example, he insisted that he wasn’t trying to steal an election — but rather to “stop the steal” Joe Biden had already pulled off.

When Trump returned to power this year, I expected to see the same rhetorical maneuver deployed to justify his inevitable power grabs. And indeed, many of Trump’s Day 1 executive orders did exactly this.

Take, for example, Trump’s revival of Schedule F — a move that, in theory, could allow Trump to fire tens of thousands of nonpartisan civil servants and replace them with MAGA cronies. Such a move would be a serious threat to democracy, in that it would consolidate key powers of state in the executive’s hands in a manner that proved crucial to the rise of elected authoritarians like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. 

Yet in the text of the order, Trump sells the move as a vindication of democratic principles. Because the president and vice president are the only executive branch members “elected and directly accountable to the people,” they must be able to assert greater control over civil servants “to restore accountability to the career civil service.”

The same is true of other executive orders that might aid in Trump’s efforts to consolidate power.

An executive order on “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship” does not provide any concrete protections against abusive surveillance or internet control practices. It does, however, order the attorney general to set up an inquiry into Biden administration policies that could serve as a pretext to harass and dismiss federal employees who don’t share Trump politics.

An order claiming to combat the “weaponization” of the federal government similarly does very little to prevent Trump from, for example, ordering the attorney general to investigate his political enemies or the IRS to audit them. In fact, it lays the groundwork for two separate probes into Biden administration policies that could end up targeting both federal employees and private citizens. 

Another personnel order, billed as a means of making the government “properly accountable” to “the American people,” imposes greater political controls on the Senior Executive Service (SES) — an upper rung of the civil service. Among other things, it dismisses everyone currently serving on the executive resources boards that oversee hiring into these positions, and requires that the boards be restaffed with a “majority” of “noncareer officials” — meaning, most likely, Trump political appointees.


Going forward, Trump will almost assuredly not do anything as blatant as abolishing elections. Instead, every move will be given a democratic defense, every power grab described as a victory for the American people against the “deep state.”

The aim is to make the reality of the situation into just another partisan debate, where Trump says one thing while Democrats (and the media) say another. The erosion of core democratic principles, like separation of powers and political noninterference with government functions, will appear to many like a perfectly normal part of democracy.


We opened with Senator Patty Murray's office, let's wind down with it:

Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, issued the following statement on President Donald Trump’s Executive Order attempting to eliminate the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ (OFCCP) authority to fight discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin in federal contracting. OFCCP is an agency within the Department of Labor (DOL) that was established in 1965 and plays a unique and vital role in combating unlawful employment discrimination for federal contract workers. Federal contract workers make up about one-fifth of the entire U.S. labor force, doing essential work in nearly every sector imaginable—from construction, to research, to IT, to radioactive and toxic waste cleanup, including at the Hanford site in Washington state.

“Donald Trump wants taxpayer funding to go to employers who illegally discriminate—that’s the clear message from his Week One move to try and gut core civil rights protections and eliminate the core authority of an agency to protect the rights of federal contract workers and combat illegal employment discrimination. It makes no sense to hamstring an agency that has, for six decades, played an essential role in upholding American workers’ basic civil rights and holding corporations accountable for illegal discrimination—and it’s a dark signal to working people about where the Trump administration’s priorities lie.”

Throughout her career, Senator Murray has championed workers’ rights and fought to combat employment discrimination, including as the top Democrat on the Senate labor committee from 2015-2022—among other things, Senator Murray fought back against a proposed DOL rule by the Trump administration that would allow federal contractors and subcontractors to justify discrimination against women, LGBTQ+ people, and members of certain religious groups on ideological grounds. Senator Murray first introduced the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act—comprehensive labor legislation to protect workers’ right to stand together and bargain for fairer wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces—in the 116th Congress, and also leads the Bringing an End to Harassment by Enhancing Accountability and Rejecting Discrimination (BE HEARD) in the Workplace Act, comprehensive legislation to prevent workplace harassment, strengthen and expand key protections for workers, and support workers in seeking accountability and justice.

###





The following sites updated:


Posted by at

1/23/2025

will trent

so episode 3 of 'will trent' aired last night on abc.  angie's still not back on the police force but did catch a killer.  betty (will's dog) misses angie.  i miss will and angie together.

this year - season 3 -- the show airs in the 1st hour of prime time on abc.  that move could have been a problem.  instead, 'will trent' is getting better ratings this year then in the previous 2 seasons.   but then, the show did better in season 2 than in season 1.

and that is an exception.  most shows in the last 20 years have tended to lose viewers each season.  'will trent' increases each season due to word of mouth.  it really is a great show.

and this is important from bluesky.


Emergency video! In this i discuss the pardons of criminals, and much more! adamkinzinger.substack.com/p/emergency-...

[image or embed]

— Adam Kinzinger (@adamkinzinger.bsky.social) January 22, 2025 at 6:49 PM



let's close with c.i.'s 'The Snapshot:'


Wednesday, January 22, 2025.  We need to be planning now on how to weaken outsiders attacks on the next Democratic Party presidential nominee, that means not letting people rewrite history, Chump is on a rampage to destroy all that's good in this country and, yes, those who helped elect him need to be held accountable.

Let's start with this.


Blue MAGA?  Let's give Matt applause for at least being honest about what he is:  A Socialist.  And Socialists and Democrats are not the same thing.  The closet cases give us a bad name because the GOP tars and feathers us all as Socialists and Communists.  That's one of their tools to frighten the American people from Democrats.  So I will applaud Matt for not being closeted.


His sentiment is 100% accurate for a non-Democrat.  

It's not accurate in any other way.

Rashida ran as a Democrat and was elected as a Democrat and took campaign money from the Democratic Party.  So those of us who are Democrats -- not Blue MAGA -- have every right to be furious that she backstabbed the party and the country.  

She helped put Donald Chump into the White House and that was her goal.  

She deserves the anger.  As this country begins four years of hell, Rashida's earned the blame.  


Again, good for Matt for being public about being Socialist.  Because I really don't feel like being tarred and feathered in the next election with his views passed off as being the views of a Democrat.  



Exactly.  They are responsible for their actions.  

And let's note again that Rashida believed Donald Chump was such a threat to this country that she twice voted to impeach him.  But in 2024, when he ran for re-election, she campaigned against Kamala.  That's what she did.  And so, reality, she and her followers?  They are the Blue MAGA.

We're the Democrats, Matt, the same Democrats you've hated your whole life.  But Rashida is your type of politician because she's proven she's not really a Democrat.  So you have her.  I grasp where you're coming from and I understand why you feel the way you do.  

And we can all see that this is a highly popular take among Socialists.

Socialist do not control the Democratic Party.  They'd like to.  That's why so many stay in their political closets.  That's why they come up with "Justice Democrats!" and other slogans to pass Socialists off as Democrats in their attempt to take over our party.

But again, to fool people, they have to lie about who they are so they hide in political closets.

Applause for Matt for being honest about who he is.

You saw the Socialists look the other way in 2024 when Bernie ran for re-election.

He was 83 years old.

That's too damn old.

And he's not a Democrat.  And he's not an "independent."  He's a Socialist.

Which is why we could call it out but THE NATION, DEMOCRACY NOW, COMMON DREAMS eat al looked the other way and acted like it wasn't happening.

They rightly have noted that there are too many people in government who refuse to leave at a reasonable age.  And that's where you can find Democrats and Socialists in agreement on an issue.

But when it's time to call out Saint Bernie, the Socialists look the other way.  When he was calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist, they looked the other way.  They blamed it on him being Jewish and they excused it with "The ADL has the same position!"  

Nelson was a political prisoner and the leader of a movement.

Bernie was wrong then.

Most Black people are aware of his history.  He gets to avoid it in part because he'll insist he doesn't want to do "identity politics."  Sorry, Bernie, calling Nelson a terrorist is not something Black people are going to let you escape from no matter how many Socialists stooges -- especially those who blame the US government for the deaths of their parents -- looking at YOUTUBER -- to work on your campaign.

We're bring up Bernie for a reason.  It's really too late for the Socialists to find their spines and call Bernie out for running for re-election to a six year term at the age of 83.  

But you can certainly call out the latest news.  Sophie Clark (NEWSWEEK) reports:

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has filed to run for reelection in 2030, when he would be 89 years old.

On Monday, Sanders, who has been vocal against what he sees as an oligarchy looming over the U.S. government, expressed his desire to fight back against the Trump administration and has opened the door to running for the Senate again at the end of this decade.


Now we'll all see if the majority of Socialists have backbones or not?

They've covered for or ignored Bernie's long history of racism -- which also includes his trade policies -- and last year they ignored that he was too old to run for re-election.

Now he's expressing his intent to run for re-election in 2030.

Will his Socialist fan base call him out or not?  I think a number of them will stay silent and that, children, is the real Blue MAGA.

Red MAGA?

Disgraced Congress member Matt Gaetz was Convicted Felon Donald Chump's first nominee for Attorney General a few months back.  That imploded.  No, not because Matt's inflated looking face sprung a leak.  Instead, it was because Matt has no ethics at all.  Drugs, prostitutes, underage females.  When a man's got an ass as fat as Matt's, they're going to land on it and Matt hopped his ample ass on over to TV.  If anyone wanted to wish him well, they should avoid Adam Gabbatt's review at THE GUARDIAN:



Matt Gaetz’s brand new show on the far-right wing One America News Network began with him looking absolutely bizarre.

It was unclear who had applied the disgraced congressman’s makeup, but the combination of very light concealer around his eyes and dark foundation on the rest of his face made for an odd look, like a sort of reverse Hamburglar.

That distracting appearance proved to be the only memorable thing about his first episode. Gaetz spent 60 minutes waddling through boilerplate conservative talking points in front of a cheap-looking green-screen, all in an attempt to continue his time in the public eye.



Is there money in the program's budget for JD Vance?  Miss Sassy know more than just eye liner -- remember those photos of JD in drag? And he has so much free time now that he's the Unwanted Visitor at the White House.  Donald didn't even introduce JD Sunday night -- but Donald did bring Elon Musk on stage. 

Pete Hegseth is Donald's drunken nominee for Secretary of the Army. As we noted in yesterday's snapshot, he's refusing to meet with Senator Patty Murray.  He had agreed to meet with on January 15th but then cancelled the meeting.  The senator is the Vice Chair on the Senate Appropriations Committee -- that means defense spending.  A qualified nominee for Secretary of Defense would grasp the importance of building a relationship with all the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.  It goes to yet again how unqualified Hegseth is for the job.  And we know his history of sexism. So if this has anything to do with that, it's worth noting the Chair of the Committee is Susan Collins.  Both the chair and the vice chair are women and both were elected to the US Senate.  Maybe it's hard for a basic cable TV personality to grasp that or that when he refuses to answer to those senators, he's refusing to answer to the American people?  As Murray's office noted, Hegseth has said he'll catch her after his confirmation.

Pass.

She needs to meet with him to ask her questions ahead of that vote.  As she's observed, "I expect every nominee to be willing to meet with Senators, regardless of their party, to answer basic questions about how they would approach their role if confirmed. Conducting these meetings is the absolute bare minimum given the role of each Senator and the constituents they represent. And should Pete Hegseth be confirmed, we have to be able to meet and communicate."  Exactly.

Steve Benen (MSNBC) reports the latest on that still troubled nomination:


Even if Pete Hegseth’s personal life were that of a teetotaling and celibate monk, the former Fox News host would still be the most controversial defense secretary nominee in American history. We are, after all, talking about a man who’s been accused of financial mismanagement at the two veterans-related charities he ran. (He has denied the accusations.)

Alas, that’s just the start. President Donald Trump’s choice to lead the Pentagon has also never led a large organization, has written bizarre and conspiratorial books, did not attain a high rank during his tenure in the military, and has touted highly provocative ideas related to American women serving in combat and the Geneva Conventions. After Hegseth’s recent Senate confirmation hearing, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank added that the nominee “also appears to have no idea what he’s doing.”

But just as importantly, the former television personality has most definitely not lived the life of a teetotaling and celibate monk. On the contrary, Hegseth has faced allegations of excessive drinking and sexual misconduct, which he has repeatedly denied.

Given the traditional norms of American politics, Hegseth’s odds of confirmation would be around zero. Given the state of American politics in 2025, Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee have already voted unanimously to advance Hegseth’s nomination to the full floor for final consideration.

It’s unclear if anything could convince senators in the GOP majority to think twice ahead of the confirmation vote, but as NBC News reported, Hegseth is facing new allegations that have reached Capitol Hill in the form of an affidavit.


Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and the Senate Armed Services Committee’s ranking member, asked Danielle Hegseth to detail what she knew of “instances of abuse, or threats of abuse, perpetrated against any other person” and “mistreatment of a spouse, former spouse, or other members of his family,” among other requests. 

Reed said in a statement, “As I have said for months, the reports of Mr. Hegseth’s history of alleged sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and public misconduct necessitate an exhaustive background investigation. I have been concerned that the background check process has been inadequate, and this sworn affidavit confirms that fact.”

The Democratic senator, who voted to confirm Trump’s Pentagon nominees in the Republican’s first term, added that “the alleged pattern of abuse and misconduct by Mr. Hegseth is disturbing. This behavior would disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military, much less being confirmed as the Secretary of Defense.”

NBC News’ report added that Danielle Hegseth’s affidavit described allegations “of volatile and threatening conduct by Hegseth that made his second wife, Samantha Hegseth, fear for her safety.” (She says she didn’t witness the conduct firsthand.)



He's not qualified.  He has anger management issues at best.  At best he can't handle stress.  Do we think Secretary of Defense is not a stressful job?  When he goes on a drunken bender -- he swears that, if confirmed, he'll stop drinking -- when he goes on a drunken bender as a result of being given a job he can't do, will the Senate be legally responsible?  Are they opening themselves up to litigation?

Should Joni Ernst vote to confirm him, would that make the Republican senator even more liable then others since she herself was a victim of assault?


 Tom Vanden Brook, Cybele Mayes-Osterman and Davis Winkie (USA TODAY) note some of the assertions made by Danielle Hegseth:

 

  • Hegseth's second wife sought refuge in a closet after Hegseth threatened her.
  • She was so concerned about her safety that she shared a code word with her sister-in-law to alert her when Hegseth threatened her. She texted the code word to the sister-in-law in 2015 or 2016.
  • The complainant witnessed Hegseth drunk on several occasions, including one Christmas when he vomited and passed out. In another instance, at a bar in 2013 in Minneapolis, Hegseth danced with drinks in both hands, broke glasses and was dragged out. On the walk home he made comments that implied he condoned non-consensual sex.
  • On another occasion in 2009, Hegseth was found drunk at a strip club in downtown Minneapolis in his military uniform, drunk and getting lap dances. He had to be dragged out of the club.
  • He disparaged Hispanic people and said Christian people needed to have more babies than Muslims to avoid being overtaken.



A Department of Defense scholar claimed that Trump nominee Pete Hegseth's objective to bring "warrior culture" back to the Pentagon is a "terrible idea."

"We need soldiers, not warriors," wrote Eliot A. Cohen in an article for The Atlantic.

Hegseth, who served as an infantry officer in the Army National Guard, said at his defense secretary hearing, "When President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was—to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense. He, like me, wants a Pentagon laser focused on warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards, and readiness."

In his article, Cohen gave the definition of warriors as "people who exult in killing, who prize individual courage and daring, who obsess about honor (often in self-destructive ways), who frequently take trophies from the bodies of their enemies, and whose behavior on and off the battlefield often veers into atrocity."


While I believe most people can grasp the point Cohen's making, I'm not sure Hegseth can.  He has no control over his rage as evidenced by one nasty episode after another.  That's probably why he's skipping out on Senator Murray who has noted, "If Pete Hegseth is determined to make the role of Secretary and Department of Defense partisan by refusing to meet with Senators as part of his confirmation process -- then he shouldn't be confirmed as Secretary of Defense. I think most Americans would agree that you shouldn't get the job if you decide you can just skip the job interview. Mr. Hegseth's refusal thus far to commit to meet with me before a confirmation vote is unacceptable and I hope all of my colleagues will condemn this unprecedented effort to ignore the Senate’s role to advise and consent."



Donald Chump is on a destruction spree.  Emery Winter (VERIFY) observes:


President Donald Trump issued a flurry of executive orders during the first day of his second term, including a single sweeping order revoking dozens of executive orders issued by the Biden administration.

Viral social media posts claim that one of the orders revoked was one that lowered prescription drug costs for people on Medicare and Medicaid. Several VERIFY readers asked us if these posts are true.


[. . .]

Yes, Trump did rescind a Biden order to lower prescription costs for people on Medicare and Medicaid.

WHAT WE FOUND

Trump rescinded an executive order that required the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to develop and test ways to lower drug prices for people on Medicare and Medicaid. 

Since former-President Joe Biden's 2022 order, CMS had been planning out and preparing to test three models to lower prices. None of them had fully gone into effect. Therefore, current Medicare and Medicaid enrollees will not see their drug prices go up. They will also not see some of the proposed price cuts scheduled to go into effect in the future.




Wow.  I guess we were so lucky to have Rashida Tlaib and others insisting that there was no difference between Kamala Harris and Donald Chump, that people should vote for grifter Jill Stein or sit it out and don't vote or even vote for Chump.  Weren't we lucky?  I don't feel lucky about it, do you?

Their actions have consequences and Blue MAGA can deny responsibility all they want but they were calling it a "movement" in real time.  And this what their "movement" produced: Four more years of Convicted Felon Donald Chump.

No, it is not forgotten.  They want us to because they really want to act out and have their tantrum in 2028.  That's why we need to get honest so all their tricks and whoring are known ahead of time.  So people can pay attention when Red Diaper Baby Amy Goodman brings on guest after guest in three months before the election who hate the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.  She doesn't tell you that they're Socialists.  She let's you assume this is the reaction of the average Democrat.  Hell, she doesn't even tell you that Naomi Klein needs to shut her mouth and sit her ass down because her lukewarm 'praise' of Kamala doesn't matter -- she was born in Canada and raised there and should not be considered an American citizen when the reason her family was in Canada was because her father deserted during Vietnam.  But by all means, let's bring Socialist Naomi on the program and let her speak to the ills of Kamala with no context because Amy's entire point was to tank the election.

We don't need these fake asses trying to trick people again.








President-elect Donald Trump is now — once again — President Donald Trump, and in the roughly 24 hours since he has taken office, he has very publicly claimed for himself an extraordinary amount of executive power: He issued more executive orders on Day 1 than any previous president, including one to end birthright citizenship (a right guaranteed in the Constitution) and one blocking the enforcement of a ban on the video streaming app TikTok that was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. He also pardoned rioters who breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Even before these latest actions, a significant number of Americans were worried about the U.S. becoming less of a democracy and more of an authoritarian state under Trump's second term. A Dec. 3-5 poll from Marist College found that 73 percent of adults thought there was a serious threat to the future of our democracy. And according to an Ipsos/Public Religion Research Institute poll from last August-September, 49 percent of Americans thought there was a real danger that Trump would use the presidency to become a dictator.

But when people think of Trump becoming a dictator, they're probably thinking of something akin to him going on TV one day and declaring himself president for life. (For instance, host Nikki Glaser memorably joked at the Golden Globes about there not being a next election.) There are a myriad of legal and practical reasons why that is extremely unlikely to happen — but that doesn't mean he won't pose a threat to democracy. Political scientists who have studied the erosion of democracy in other countries emphasize that it's a gradual, even subtle process that often leaves the trappings of democracy in place. In fact, those experts say, U.S. democracy was already eroded under Trump's first term — and the most serious danger is that his second will see more of the same.


Protections in place?  Hmm.  When Congress passes a law -- and the Supreme Court doesn't overturn it -- then it's settled law and executive orders aren't supposed to be able to get around it. Nor are executive orders supposed to be able to circumvent our Constitution.  But Chump's currently trying to do both things. 


There are two ways Trump could try to prevent it -- on sketchy legal ground but it could happen.  No, I'm not revealing it here -- I'm not here to provide destruction plans to the despot in chief.  



President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. on Monday to withdraw once again from the 2015 Paris climate agreement — instantly isolating the country from the global campaign to stem catastrophic warming.

This time, Trump’s repudiation of the worldwide climate effort could bite deeper by taking effect more quickly and at a time when the new president has more far-right allies overseas and at home.

Language in Trump's executive order said the U.S. would consider the withdrawal to take effect "immediately." It didn't mention the one-year notice period that the climate pact spells out.

The order, which Trump signed with public fanfare just hours after taking office, collides with a rise in climate havoc around the world, including the devastating Los Angeles wildfires and revelations that last year was the hottest ever recorded. It marks the launch of an aggressive agenda to roll back U.S. climate policy, driven by an emboldened president who invites confrontation over the scientific underpinnings of climate change.

The long-promised exit will jettison the United States' Biden-era promise to cut climate pollution by up to 66 percent within a decade. It also calls into question a host of other U.S. commitments, such as providing billions of dollars in support to poorer nations suffering from unprecedented heat waves, floods and rising seas.





President Donald Trump has cancelled flights for 1,660 refugees from Afghanistan who were previously cleared by the government to come to the U.S., according to Reuters.

The 1,660 Afghan refugees who have been taken off flights include family members of active-duty U.S. military personnel, unaccompanied minors flying to the U.S. to reunite with family, and those who fought for the former U.S.-backed Afghan government.


Trump's suspension of U.S. refugee programs and subsequent cancelling of flights is detailed in a report from Shawn VanDiver, the head of the #AfghanEvac, a coalition of U.S. veterans and advocacy groups, and an anonymous U.S. official.


Allie Kelly and Noah Sheidlower (BUSINESS INSIDER) report:


President Donald Trump's mass deportation plans could have a significant economic side effect: draining the Social Security fund.

As more Americans reach retirement age — many without adequate savings — Social Security can be a financial anchor. The checks average $1,976 monthly, and thousands of older adults told Business Insider they rely on the money to pay for essentials. However, the checks often aren't enough to live on.

Trump's vow to carry out a mass deportation of people living in the US illegally could make matters more difficult because the Social Security fund is largely financed by payroll taxes from American workers. The Social Security Administration told BI that deportations could cut annual cash flow by $20 billion — potentially reducing retirees' benefits over time.

Immigrants living in the US illegally, about 8.3 million of whom work, also pay payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare. They are ineligible to claim these benefits themselves.



Are you getting why we can't afford, in 2028, to let non-Democrats pose as Democrats and attack our presidential nominee?  They're doing the same thing FOX "NEWS" does when they pass off someone as a Democrat -- Tulsi for instance -- and say, "See even Democrats don't support this."  It cannot happen again.


We'll wind down with this from Senator Elizabeth Warren's office:


Following President Donald Trump signing Day One executive orders, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released the following statement:

“Donald Trump ran on the promise that he would make life more affordable for hardworking Americans, but he spent day one of his presidency doing next to nothing to lower costs. Instead, he spent his time on an agenda of revenge, division, and cruelty with a side helping of cozying up to billionaires. If Day One is a sign of what a second Trump term will look like, it will be great for his billionaire donors and giant corporations, and pain and costs for everyone else.” 

### 




The following sites updated:


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)