3/21/2020

will & grace


not a great episode this week.  it was more of a wasted episode, to be honest.

i don't like the actress debra messing but she wasn't the problem.  she actually delivered and was funny.  nurse sheila was back on and the phone call between her and debra messing's grace was perfect and each actress did an excellent job.

the story could have been better - grace has the answer to the gender of her baby in a balloon but can't deal with it so she sets the balloon free on the terrace.  after it's gone, she wishes she hadn't.

karen and jack were giving jokes but no real storyline which harmed the episode.

but what destroyed it was the will story.

somethings just aren't funny.  will spying on his surrogate?  not funny.  yes it does get to his controlling nature but it was not funny.

i wanted more.  especially when the show is ending.

hopefully, next week's episode will be better.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


Friday, March 20, 2020.  What's more stupid: Someone betraying you or zombies insisting that you weren't betrayed as they offer lies to justify and minimize the betrayal?

Starting in the US where the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues.  Tulsi The Fake Ass Gabbard.

@TulsiGabbard
The anti war candidate Tulsi endorsed the war monger Joe Biden. Profiles in courage.


Yesterday, Tulsi dropped out.  She also endorsed Joe Biden.  That didn't surprise me.  See the August 1, 2019 snapshot if it surprised you.  When I argued for her to be on the stage (March 4, 2020 snapshot) at the debate, I noted she wouldn't be there helping Bernie:

  Unless she drops out before March 15th, she should be on the stage at the CNN debate.  That's basic fairness and she's earned her spot.  The DNC was more than happy to break the rules to let Bloomberg on the stage.  They should have the decency to allow Tulsi on the stage.

I am not a Tulsi supporter.  I'm also not a Joe Biden supporter and I'm aware that Tulsi on stage likely means Tulsi making excuses for Joe -- as she did in the debate that took place at the end of July.  There is no benefit for the candidate I'm supporting (Bernie Sanders) for Tulsi to appear on the stage.

But this is about democracy with the little "d" and about the people's right to be informed.  Tulsi deserves to be on the stage.


She did deserve to be on that stage but she was never going to help Bernie.  July 30th, she made that clear in a debate where she also made it clear that she was going to lie and whore for Joe Biden.  Which she did in interviews on August 1st and August 2nd.

The Michael Traceys -- online idiots -- were so thrilled that she took out Kamala Harris in the July 30th debate.  They love their woman-on-woman action.  The reality was that Kamala was not in the lead.  The poll released right before the July 30th debate would find Joe Biden in the lead, followed by Elizabeth Warren and then by Kamala Harris.

Going after Kamala was nonsense.  Her support was usually in the single digits -- though not as low as Tulsi's support.  Had she gone after Joe Biden in that debate, she could have stopped him.  Instead, she wanted to go after Kamala.

That's because Kamala voted for the Iraq War and overturned the Iraqi people's 2010 election in order to give thug Nouri al-Maliki a second term which led to the rise of ISIS in Iraq.

Huh?

Kamala didn't do that?  Oh, that's right, it was Joe Biden.

And when Tulsi offered her excuses for him even moderator Jake Tapper was shocked and made a point to go back to her on the topic of Iraq one more time.  Tulsi repeated her nonsense.

Let's deal with some reality.

Jai Gabbard -- or someone posing as him -- has been all over the internet since yesterday with claims that Bernie was mean to Tulsi and didn't even want her endorsement anyway.

That's what Jai Gabbard says.

Who the f**k believes or cares what that piece of filth says?

The Gabbards are homophobic.  They get that from their father and his long career of homophobia and they helped him with his fights against gay people.

Now Tulsi was fine with Daddy's homophobia until she was trying to become president and then, in 2019, she finally has a statement where she loves the gays, some of her best friends are the gays, she wants the support of the gays.

Whatever, Tulsi.

Maybe she was telling the truth, maybe she wasn't.  Nothing in her campaign ever suggested she was telling the truth.  In interview after interview, she never acknowledged any issues that might be effecting gay Americans -- this despite that in some states a gay person can still be fired because they are gay.

But while Tulsi made a statement insisting she was not homophobic we never heard from her sister or Jai who were both part of the campaign.  They stayed silent with Daddy.

So Jai's a homophobe and I really don't give a damn about the opinion of a homophobe.  I don't.  They're liars and they're creatures of hate.

But if you embrace homophobes like Jai Gabbard -- and maybe Tulsi, let's be clear -- then look at what he's claiming.

Oh, no, Tulsi wasn't treated fairly by Bernie.  Since when?  Since she began campaigning for Joe on July 30th?

I thought Tulsi was about politics, was about issues.

Apparently, she's just a bitchy little girl who can't do big thoughts and who just knows how to play catty.  Thanks, Tulsi for preaching steroetypes.

Some Tulsi apologists -- and homophobes because that's what you are if you embrace Jai -- are insisting Bernie Sanders will endorse Joe Biden at some point.

He very well may.  If he drops out, there will be no one else in the race.  If he drops out, he may endorse Joe as he announces he's resigning.

That's not what Tulsi did.  Tulsi was never going to be president -- and saw her support fall in half after July 30th when she was so ridiculous on the debate stage.

But Tulsi dropping out still left two candidates in the race -- the only two who ever mattered in terms of having a shot at the nomination.

Two candidates.

Tulsi was not required to endorse anyone.  Elizabeth Warren still hasn't and I've noted over and over since she dropped out that Elizabeth is probably not going to endorse until one of the two men drops out.  There's nothing in it for her and she knows that.

Endorse Bernie and she risks that wrath of the DNC establishment.  Endorse Joe right now and she'll look like a hypocrite.

Tulsi could have stayed on the sidelines like Elizabeth.

Especially after she quickly dropped her support for Medicare For All, Tulsi was a one-issue candidate.  What was that issue?

The never-ending wars.  She wanted to stop those.  She believed they were hurting the American people.

She never voiced real concern for the Iraqi people -- a point many of us made including me.  It was a funny kind of opposition to war that, please note, could be overcome and will be when we use robots in battle.  But as long as American humans are used, Tulsi cares -- not enough to do anything, but enough to flap her useless lips over.

You don't give a damn about ending endless wars and then endorse a man who has made them possible (Joe Biden).  And if you give even two s**ts about endless wars, you certainly don't use the 17th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War to endorse War Hawk Joe Biden.

Tulsi's homophobe brother Jai wants us all to know that Tulsi endorsed War Hawk Joe because Bernie was mean to little Tulsi.  If you buy that garbage, register that we're being told that Tulsi has no beliefs, has no core and just cares what other people say about her.

She leaves the race an embarrassment.  Unable to stick up for the only issue she supposedly believed in, she betrays her supporters and she betrays what she claimed to stand for.

On the positive, Tulsi has demonstrated that a female candidate for the presidential nomination can be just as much a whore on the national stage as a man.  You've gone a long way, Tulsi, backwards.


The liars can't stop lying.  Aaron Mate?  Wouldn't allow that sexism was at play in the primaries at all.  Now he's rushing to defend his Tulsi Gal and he wants you to know the DNC went after her with sexism.  No, they didn't. There was a time when the press was being very sexist towards Tulsi.  Seth Moutlon was in the race then.  A number of us pointed out to various outlets the way they were covering Seth versus the way they were covering Tulsi.  That took care of most reporters for corporate media.  But it's interesting that Tulsi betrays everything she believes in and suddenly Aaron Mate is interested in sexism.  Welcome to the new world, Christopher Columbus.

As for his new found interest in sexism, where was Aaron when Michael Tracey was in the midst of his sexist rage at Kamala Harris?  Sitting there silently.  Pathetically.

If you're not able to look at your own self and take accountability, don't point the fingers at others.  Yes, Amy Goodman is a huge disappointment but don't pretend, Aaron, that you aren't as well.


Michael Tracey's sputtering like only a fool like him  can as he tries to justify what Tulsi did.  The primaries are over!  He screeches and bellows -- like he did when Maxine Waters 'beat' him up, remember that?

It sure is nice that Michael can speak for the states who have yet to vote and announce the primaries over.

These little dicked boys got into their heads that Tulsi was their wet dream angel and they whored for her and they lied for her and now they're working overtime to keep from looking stupid.  Too late, boys, too damn late.

None of them note the Iraq War.  17th anniversary but they can't note the Iraq War.  They're too busy with fluff and lies.






17 years ago today, George W. Bush started dropping bombs on people in Iraq, based on lies and just for oil, in a war that Joe Biden supported. The largest protests in human history against that war and Biden didn't care. At least 288,000 people died.


Actually, over a million Iraqis were dead before Bully Boy Bush left the White House.

You never hear Joe talk about the dead Iraqis and you never heard Tulsi talk about them either.

They don't exist, apparently.  Or maybe it's just that the Iraqi people didn't matter to Joe and Tulsi when they were alive so why should they matter in death?


In Iraq, the people continue to fight.



While people in many countries are literally fighting over toilet paper, this is the scene in Iraq, where people have put food supplies on the street overnight, so anyone who needs them can pick them up! That’s what God-consciousness does. Via
@smortadha

0:14
22K views
From

مرتضى المدرسيc 




""

On the coronavirus, journalist Jamie Dupree Tweets:


Here's a sale about the same time by Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-CA. In terms of price, Allogene Therapeutics was around $22/share for that sale. It's now $20.29/share.

Image

Show this thread


If that's accurate, she needs to go.

Senator Richard Burr needs to go.   Julie Conley (COMMON DREAMS) reports:

 A look at financial records reveal that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Burr last month—just as he was warning big-dollar donors, but not the general public about the looming threat of the coronavirus—personal stock holdings worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, many of them in industries now seriously impacted by the outbreak.
According to Open Secrets:
Burr and his wife Brooke sold between $581,000 and $1.5 million in publicly traded stocks on Feb. 13 and didn’t buy any new positions, according to a recent financial disclosure filed with the Senate. 
Around the time that Burr sold his shares of major corporations, including several hard hit hotel companies, he publicly expressed confidence about the U.S. government's ability to fight the virus. However in late February, Burr privately warned that the virus is "much more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent history," according to a recording obtained by NPR.
Between the Burrs’ two accounts, they sold up to $150,000 worth of stock in Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, which lost almost two-thirds of its market value since Feb. 13. They sold up to $150,000 in Extended Stay America, another hotel company that lost half its value over the last month. Burr also sold between $15,001 and $50,000 of stock in Park Hotels & Resorts, which saw its stock price drop from nearly $24 to under $5. The hotel industry is asking President Donald Trump for a bailout as Americans increasingly avoid travel.
In an audio recording obtained by NPR, the North Carolina Republican was heard telling donors at a luncheon on Feb. 27 that the coronavirus, officially called COVID-19, would likely spread through the population aggressively—and suggested it could kill hundreds of thousands of people.
"It is much more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent history," Burr said. 

"It is probably more akin to the 1918 pandemic," he added, referring to the flu pandemic which killed more than 600,000 Americans.


What Richard Burr did was unethical and a massive betrayal of the public trust.  People are outraged right now.  As the death toll mounts from the coronavirus in this country, that outrage will only increase.  He needs to resign.  Barring that, he needs to be kicked out of Congress.  I take no pleasure in saying that.  It's very sad that anyone in Congress would do what he did.  He needs to go and anyone else who did the same needs to go as well.

Dianne?  She's been skirting ethical requirements for years to enrich her husband.

Dom Calicchiou (FOX NEWS) notes:

 Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and three of her Senate colleagues sold off stocks worth millions of dollars in the days before the coronavirus outbreak crashed the market, according to reports.
The data is listed on a U.S. Senate website containing financial disclosures from Senate members.
Feinstein, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and her husband sold between $1.5 million and $6 million in stock in California biotech company Allogene Therapeutics, between Jan. 31 and Feb. 18, The New York Times reported.
When questioned by the newspaper, a spokesman for the Democrat from San Francisco said Feinstein wasn’t directly involved in the sale.
“All of Senator Feinstein’s assets are in a blind trust,” the spokesman, Tom Mentzer, told the Times. “She has no involvement in her husband’s financial decisions.”
Reports identified the three other senators as Richard Burr of North Carolina, Kelly Loeffler of Georgia and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, all Republicans.



The following sites updated:


Posted by at

3/19/2020

tulsi the fraud gabbard

sally hunt tweets:

Tulsi Gabbard dropped out and endorsed Joe Biden. What a fraud. Biden is the biggest war hawk ever. She pretended to be against regime change wars, and yet she never once called out Biden. She also pretended to be opposed to the Dem establishment. She’s full of shit.


she is full of shit.

c.i. called her back when it mattered.  liars like aaron mate and michael tracey looked the other way.  even glen ford of black agenda report refused to call tulsi out and reviewed that debate (on the last night of july) as tulsi showing bravery.

she showed no bravey.  she was a 2-bit whore making excuses for joe biden.  even jake tapper, the moderator, couldn't believe what he was hearing so he went back to her a 2nd time asking her to comment again and she offers up crap like 'joe's apologize for his vote.'

shut the fuck up, whore.

he didn't apologize.  he blamed his vote on bush.  he said he'd been tricked.

fucking whore.

get your acne scarred face out of her, tulsi.  no 1 wants to ever hear from your whoring ass again.

what a fucking fraud.  what a liar.

she needs to refund every penny any 1 donated to her.

fraud.

ryan herbert tweets:

@TulsiGabbard
is a sellout fraud #Trump2020 #NeverlyingBIden progressives #DemExit


ras tweets:

You are such a fraud. But perhaps even worse than this, you're an incompetent politician. You had very little left in this election cycle but the pretense of integrity. And you just traded that away for a cheap endorsement. Jesus.


mary rooney tweets:

TULSI GABBARD FOOLED MANY AND IS A FRAUD. I am ashamed to have ever supported her. She backstabbed all who supported her “anti-war machine” platform that was all for nothing



let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


Thursday, March 19, 2020.  Tonight, the ongoing Iraq War will be 17 years old, should Bernie Sanders drop out, am I being revisionary about a 1918 pandemic, and much more.

Tonight, at 9:34 EST, the Iraq War hits the 17 years mark.

Yes, the Iraq War continues despite lies otherwise.  From Andrew Milburn's "The Iraq War is not over yet  (MILITARY TIMES):
 Five coalition servicemen died this past week in Iraq. Capt. Moises Navas and Gunnery Sgt. Diego Pongo, both Marines, were killed in northern Iraq by Islamic State fighters, while a few days later, Army Spc. Juan Covarrubias, Air Force Staff Sgt. Marshal Roberts and British medic Lance Cpl. Brodie Gillon died in a rocket attack launched by a Shia militia group.
If media attention hadn’t been fixated on Covid-19, their deaths might have raised the question of what the United States is still doing in Iraq. It’s a fair question. The Islamic State’s physical caliphate is no more, and in the wake of assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the Iraqi parliament recently voted to expel U.S. forces. Now, with Iranian-backed militia groups targeting U.S. troops, it’s probably a good time for the administration to assess its policy objectives in Iraq.

To be clear, this isn’t going to be diatribe against military involvement overseas. I have, over the course of a 31-year career, seen my share of wasted effort and lives in pursuit of incoherent policy objectives, but am not of the view that the U.S. can simply retreat behind its borders and expect its national interests to take care of themselves. And there is good reason for continued U.S. military involvement in Iraq: to pre-empt a resurgence of the Islamic State — a threat which, as this recent incident illustrates, has not gone away — and as a check on the malign influence of Iran. The 5,000 U.S. troops currently there might be a relatively small price to pay to achieve those goals, if that is indeed the plan. But at a time when the United States finds itself again at a decision point in Iraq, I am concerned that once again there are no clear policy objectives to guide U.S. military involvement.


While he feels there may still be a role for the US military in Iraq, I do not.

Why are propping up a government with our military when the government has killed protesters and reporters -- not in the distant past but in the ongoing present?

From Amnesty International:

 From October onwards, security forces, including factions of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), used excessive force against protesters involved in nationwide demonstrations, killing over 500 and injuring thousands; many of those killed were shot with live ammunition or hit with previously unseen tear gas canisters. Activists, as well as lawyers representing protesters, medics treating injured ones and journalists covering the protests, were subjected to arrest, enforced disappearance and other forms of intimidation by intelligence and security forces. Authorities blocked access to the internet, apparently to prevent the circulation of images of abuses by security forces. Approximately 1.55 million people remained internally displaced; many faced severe restrictions on their freedom of movement. Abrupt camp closures in Anbar and Ninewa governorates forced many families into secondary displacement. Thousands of men and boys remained missing after being forcibly disappeared by Iraqi security forces, including the PMU, while fleeing IS-held territories. There were widespread reports of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees held by central Iraqi and KRG forces, particularly of those suspected of affiliation with IS. Iraqi courts continued to pass down death sentences, some after unfair trials. IS targeted civilians, carrying out bomb attacks in cities and assassinating community leaders.


From Human Rights Watch:

 Unidentified armed forces, apparently in cooperation with Iraqi national and local security forces, carried out a brutal spate of killings in Baghdad’s main protest area on December 6, 2019, Human Rights Watch said today. Estimates range between 29 and 80 dead, and 137 injured. Electricity to the area was cut during the attack, making it harder for protesters to identify the killers and flee to safety. Police and military forces withdrew as the unidentified militia, some in uniforms, began shooting.
The killings come three months into protests in Baghdad and southern Iraq, in which the death toll has reached 511 people, according to the Ministry of Health. Given the level of unlawful killings by the state forces, countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Iran – that provide military and law enforcement training and support to Iraq – should end such assistance until the authorities take effective action to stop the killings and hold abusers to account. The United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva should hold a special session into the killings of protesters in Iraq.
“The US, UK, and Iran can’t have it both ways, calling on the Iraqi government to respect the rights of protesters while supporting the Iraqi forces killing protesters or standing by,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “With killings of protesters continuing day after day, they should end this support.”
Five witnesses to the killings told Human Rights Watch by phone that on December 6 about 1,000 protesters were present in Baghdad’s al-Khilani Square, 600 meters north of Tahrir Square, and in al-Senak Garage, a five-story parking garage just off al-Khilani Square they had been occupying since November 16. At about 7:30 p.m., they said they saw seven pickup trucks speed into al-Khilani Square and slow down. As the vehicles drove through the square slowly, gunmen in plain black uniforms and civilian dress opened fire with AK-47s and PK machine guns above the protesters, before lowering and firing directly at them. At the time, the witnesses said the protesters were gathered peacefully and not threatening any violent acts.

The witnesses said they saw about two dozen Federal Police and Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), who were manning two checkpoints in the square, leave by car as the gunmen arrived. Some nine hours later, at 4:30 a.m. on December 7, the armed men left, they said, and within a few minutes security forces returned.



Grasp that the above, what the government of Iraq is carrying out on the people right now, that's what leads neoliberals like Samantha Power -- the Cruise Missile Left crowd -- to call for regime change and war.  Grasp that.  The government in place, the one US troops are on the ground in Iraq supporting, is carrying out acts that would lead elements in the US to call for war.

Those of us old enough to remember the start of the ongoing Iraq War should be highly familiar with A Problem From Hell Samantha Power and the others in the Cruise Missile Left.  But let's make sure we're all on the same page.

I'm not sure if Edward S. Herman coined the term or not but he certainly popularized it.  This is from a piece at ZNET that he wrote months before the start of the Iraq War:

A prominent set of commentators claiming to speak from the left
have aligned themselves with the national leadership in support
of an aggressive military interventionism and projection of
power abroad. This is by no means a genuine left—that
is, one that opposes the powerful in the interest of the non-elite
majority. I call them a “cruise missile left” (CML)
because of their alignment with power and their eager support
of external violence, which is a very important component
of their intellectual labors. One of their cohort, Christopher
Hitchens, even explicitly lauds cruise missiles themselves—“precision-guided
weaponry”—which he finds “good in itself,”
but especially admirable when decimating the forces of evil
that are the official targets (“Its a Good Time for War…,”
Boston Globe,
September 8, 2002).

CMLs often designate themselves the “pragmatic,”
“rational,” and “decent” left and they
spend considerable energy attacking their erstwhile comrades
for failing to keep in touch with the U.S. public, for “reflexive
anti-Americanism” (Todd Gitlin), for “genuflecting
only briefly—if at all—to the [9/11] dead”
(Marc Cooper), for “refusing to acknowledge that the
country faced real dangers” and has a right to defend
itself (Michael Walzer), and for not crediting U.S. policy
with successes when it attacks and removes bad men from power
(Michael Berube et al.), among other leftists’ failings.

CMLs are of course welcomed by the mainstream media, because
they not only support the elite political agenda, they attack
its real left critics with great vigor and with the credibility
of alleged leftists who have escaped “the politics of
guilt and resentment” (Walzer, “Can There Be a Decent
Left?,” Dissent, Spring 2002). Marc Cooper recently
published a second article in the Los Angeles Times
that focused on the recent failures of the peace movement,
attributed to the influence of a left faction “steeped
in four decades’ worth of crude anti-Americanism,”
although why he and the “decent left” haven’t
successfully stepped into the breach and revitalized the movement,
Cooper never makes clear (“Protest: A Smart Peace Movement
is MIA,” LAT, September 29, 2002). CMLs even speak
of the “Chomsky-left” as a generic class of leftists
who are extremist, angry, reflexively anti-American, etc.,
and attacking Chomsky is a favorite outing for CMLs. This
helps improve their access to the mainstream media, where
in addition to garnering publicity they are relatively free
from critical response.


One problem with the CMLs is that, not really being on the
left, they have lost sight of what the left is all about.
The left’s criterion of success is not the extent to
which it is listened to or heard, irrespective of message
content; it is its success in getting a left message across
(and on some issues, like “free trade,” and the
merits of overseas military ventures [except in the heat of
battle and under a furious elite propaganda barrage], the
“radical left” is far closer to mainstream opinion
than is the “decent left,” and it is listened to
on those issues by ordinary citizens when they can be reached).
On issues where it is in a minority position, a real left
does not abandon its position in order to be acceptable. Marc
Cooper objects to the left’s “scold mold” and
its “alienation from its own national institutions,”
and Gitlin calls on the left to be “practical—the
stakes are too great for the luxury of any fundamentalism.”
One can readily imagine the Cooper, Gitlin, Walzer, Berube,
and Hitchens equivalents of the 1850s explaining to the abolitionists
that they must tone down their message and alter or even drop
their anti-racist and anti-slavery message given the “political
realities” and public sentiment. But then, as now, a
genuine left focuses on the struggle against basic exploitative
and unjust policies and structures—it does not give up
its radical educational and organizing role in order to win
transitory victories and gain access and approval from the
mainstream. Most certainly it does not join militaristic bandwagons
and support wars against distant small targets on the grounds
of the evil being attacked in some particular case. 


More recently, Danny Haiphong (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) explained:

 The cruise missile left has aligned with the Democratic Party and the intelligence agencies against Trump and have dropped any anti-war, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist tendencies in the process.
Nowhere is this clearer than in its position on Syria. The cruise missile left is best represented by the likes of Democracy Now! and The Intercept. Both sources have worked together to subtly forward the agenda of US imperialism. Since 2011, Amy Goodman has never strayed from the NATO line on countries such as Libya, Syria, and Russia. Like the corporate media, Goodman and her staff at Democracy Now! have provided positive coverage of so-called humanitarian groups like the White Helmets which have long been proven to work directly with NATO-armed jihadist mercenaries ravaging Syria . The Intercept and Democracy Now! have refused to invite any guests on their show that deviate from the NATO line on Syria.
These sources have benefited from the corporate takeover of the US media. Democracy Now! and The Intercept act as an escape valve from corporate media lies, which make them more difficult to criticize when they serve the same interests as the corporate media outlets that spurred their formation. In their coverage of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, both Amy Goodman and Glenn Greenwald joined the imperial chorus that the Syrian government bore responsibility for an attack that had yet to be proven even happened. Even Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis admitted that the US lacked evidence backing up their claims against Assad. The Intercept and Democracy Now! staked their firm position against the Syrian government despite the overwhelming evidence that Syria destroyed its chemical weapons in the OPCW brokered deal between Russia and the US in 2013 and that Syria, Russia, and their allies are the only parties interested in coming to a peaceful resolution to the war.
Cruise missile leftists thus bear much of the responsibility for the US, UK, and French airstrikes conducted against Syria on April 14th. After the strikes, Amy Goodman invited Chelsea Manning and so-called activist Rahmah Kudaimi to her show. Manning was given little time to speak while over seventy percent of the joint interview was taken up by Kudaimi’s assertions that US airstrikes “enable” the Syrian “regime.” Kudaimi practically begged the US to conduct the airstrikes correctly and fulfill the legitimate demand of the Syrian people to overthrow the Syrian government. Nowhere did Amy Goodman challenge such blatant support of US imperial objectives in Syria and beyond.


There is no reason for the US military to be in Iraq.  There never was.  To remain is to prop up the government which is not representative of the Iraqi people and which actively works to attack the Iraqi people.

Grasp how unembraced that government is by the Iraqi people.   They have no real prime minister.

Adil Abdul Mahdi?  In November, he announced his resignation.  In December, he gave his I-really-really-really-mean-it-I'm-resigning notice.  Still no new prime minister.

Iraqi president Barham Salih announced Mohammed Allawi as prime minister-designate.  He wasn't able to put together a Cabinet and he announced that he was resigning as prime minister-designate.  As noted in Tuesday's snapshot, Salih has now named Adnan al-Zurufi prime minister-designate.  THE NATIONAL notes:

 Adnan Al Zurfi is a former official of the US-run authorities who took over Iraq after the 2003 invasion to remove Saddam Hussein.
Mr Al Zurfi, 54, is head of the Nasr parliamentary grouping of former prime minister Haider Al Abadi, also a US ally.

He has 30 days to form his cabinet, which must then be put to a vote of confidence in Iraq’s divided Parliament.

CGTN adds:

 Hours after Zurfi was nominated, powerful Shia blocs quickly lined up to pose their rejection. Lawmakers told Reuters that President Barham Salih had named Zurfi only after larger rival Shia political parties failed to agree on one candidate.
Some of those same groups rounded on the new candidate, who is head of the small Nasr parliamentary group of former prime minister Haider al-Abadi, a U.S. ally.
"We hold the president fully responsible for the repercussions of these provocative steps," read a statement from the Fatih alliance, which represents mostly Iran-backed Shia militia leaders in parliament.

"He's an American joker and we reject him," said Hassan Salim, a lawmaker from Asaib Ahl al-Haq Iranian-backed group which the United States designated as a terrorist organization in January.

Zurfi lived in the United States as a refugee in the 1990s after fleeing the regime of Saddam Hussein and he later became a U.S. citizen. He is seen as a comparatively secular figure in a country long dominated by sectarian parties.

Turning to the US and the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, there are people calling for Bernie Sanders to drop out of the race.

Bernie should do what Bernie wants to do.

If he's tired of the race, drop out.

But if he wants to stay in, he should.

He has more media coverage while he's in the race which allows his serious attempts to address the coronvirus to get more traction.  He can also highlight other issues.

That's one thing to remember.

Second?  You need 1991 delegates to win the nomination.  Joe Biden doesn't have that.  He has 1132.  That's a long way from 1991.  Bernie has 817.  The race is far from settled.

Third?  In the 2008 Democratic Party primary, Hillary Clinton waited until June 7th to drop out and endorse Barack Obama.  It's not even April right now.

Bernie needs to do what's going to make him happy.

But the race is not over and he gains more media attention for any proposal he makes while he is running for the nomination.

Nina Turner Retweeted


Let's all go to berniesanders.com to donate and volunteer to make calls cuz we have an election to win and our
@BernieSanders
is really busy dealing with a #F**kingGlobalCrisis.

Image



On coronavirus.  Donald Trump is linking it to China.  China is very populated country.  If he has criticism of the Chinese government and how it handled the outbreak, he should be specific that he's criticizing the government.  A number of e-mails to the public account claim that I have attacked his remarks on that and that I'm part of some revisionary movement.

Wrong and wrong.

I don't follow most of what he says.  I don't mean to mean or cruel but I don't.  I'm not obsessed with him.  I don't follow his Tweets.  He is not my life.  I'm not pathetic like Debra Messing and others who feel the need to respond to everyone of his Tweets and everyone of his remarks.  I have a life and I focus on issues that matter.  I do feel he mispoke and it might have been intentional on the coronavirus.  As I noted in a snapshot last week, being the president means being the national cheerleader on an international stage.  And I noted I wasn't going to hold some remarks against him for that reason -- while also noting that I don't believe you manage public opinion, I believe you share all information.

So, no, I haven't attacked his remarks.

As for revisionary movement, I had to ask Martha and Shirley what the drive-by e-mails are saying on that.

According to the e-mails the 1918 Influenza is 'revisionary.'  It was, supposedly, taught as the Spanish flu for decades and decades.

Was it?

I don't know that.

Ava and I called it the 1918 influenza in "TV: The future is out there" (and in pieces for community newsletters) because that's what the PBS special we saw called it.  Ava's much younger than I am and she wasn't taught "Spanish flu" but allows she doesn't remember it being taught at all.  Me?

I long ago shared I went through a trauma that wiped away my memory.  I've shared that here many times.  I've noted that's why I always operate from the belief that I'm the least intelligent person in the room.  I've shared how I had to start with children's books on various subjects to re-learn all I had lost in my memory.  This isn't new but I understand a drive-by reader isn't going to know everything that's up here.

But it is up here.  I lost everything pretty much.  So what I was taught in school vanished.  I have college and to hold my own in college I had to start with children's books on whatever subject and slowly progress.  I've compared myself repeatedly (here I've done this) to Joey on FRIENDS when he buys the one encylopedia volume and learns that and gets upset when the conversation steers beyond the letter of the volume he bought.


I can't say you weren't taught to call it the Spanish flu back when you were in school.  I can't even say I wasn't taught that.  I can say that I have no idea what I was taught in school.  I had to relearn and that's good because it does allow me to be free of a lot of prejudices that I would otherwise have ingrained into me from the indoctrination that was passed off as education -- an indoctrination that told you gays and lesbians were mentally ill, that told you slavery was noble and the slaves were happy (yes, that was actually taught in some school systems) and so much more nonsense.

I knew nothing of the influenza attack until we watched the PBS special weeks ago.  Nothing.  Couldn't have told you the year or anything about it.  Couldn't have even guessed that it was during WWI.





The following sites updated:


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)