Books (Rebecca, Ava and C.I.)
As we did in 2021, we're attempting to again increase book coverage in the community. After a review posts, we try to do a discussion with the reviewer. This go round, we're talking to Rebecca about her "robert dance - a lousy writer - knows damn little about joan crawford." The book's Robert Dance's FEROCIOUS AMBITION: JOAN CRAWFORD'S MARCH TO STARDOM. You did not like the book?
Rebecca: I hated it. I thought it would be a fascinating book. Joan Crawford became a movie star in the 20s during the silent film days, was still a star in the 30s as we got movies with sound, continued to be a star in the 40s and the 50s and even the 60s. She had affairs with everyone -- Yul Brenner, Clark Gable, you name it -- it's a very lively life. Unless you're reading this dull book. His sentences are often not actual sentences.
You noted one example in your review.
Rebecca: And I could have noted so many more. There was no editor of this book or those sentences or the many factual errors would never have made it into print. And what's really sad is this book was published by a college university -- The University Press of Mississippi. And let me repeat: DULL! You have to be a lousy writer, a really lousy writer, to write a book about Joan Crawford and have it turn out such a snooze.
Talk about the surprise in the book?
Rebecca: Sure. He has -- if it's true -- some actual news in the book. CONFIDENTIAL was a monthly magazine in the fifties. It attracted a lot of attention and a lot of lawsuits because it was supposedly exposing famous people. They exposed Tab Hunter being gay, for example. They made sexual claims about Dorothy Dandridge, for example. They were always being sued. Robert Dance reveals that after Joan Crawford married her last husband, PepsiCola exec Al Steele, CONFIDENTIAL editor Howard Rushmore went to the FBI to determine whether or not Joan was ever arrested for prostitution or had ever made a porn movie. If what he's reporting is true, that's a book in itself. Was the FBI providing CONFIDENTIAL magazine with dirt on American citizens? He doesn't even appear to realize that what's he's reporting is not normal nor is it known. What an idiot.
You took awhile reading this.
Rebecca:
Right. It was so hard to get through. I'd planned to have the review
done the weekend before. I couldn't. I was mentioning that to Elaine
and she ended up helping me because she was reading a book and wrote "Howard Zinn's A PEOPLE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES."
It was very frustrating -- reading the book.
Rebecca: It was. And there was a section that I thought was wrong and that I'm bringing to this discussion because I wanted to check with you, C.I. This is from the book and the film is WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?:
The
film was a bigger hit than almost anyone expected and took in $4.5
million in the United States and that much again overseas. For the last
quarter of 1962, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? was the third top
grossing film after The Longest Day and Girls! Girls! Girls!, and number
one for Warner Bros. Simple arithmetic shows the amount of money
Crawford made: $9 million less the cost of $850,00022 equals $8,150,000,
and multiplying that number by Crawford’s 15 percent of the net brings
her payday to over $1.2 million. This was more money than the cool
million Elizabeth Taylor was paid for Cleopatra, widely heralded at the
time as the biggest salary ever paid a film star. With later releases,
television rights, VHS and DVD sales, there might still be an income
being generated sixty years later.
Rebecca (Con't): C.I.?
You're right. The writer's an idiot. Nobody gets rich off net points. The writer probably doesn't even understand the concept of "rolling break even." At any rate, BUCHWALD V PARAMOUNT was the case Art Buchwald brought against PARAMOUNT over COMING TO AMERICA. In 1982, he pitched KING FOR A DAY and it was supposed to be made with Eddie Murphy in the starring role with PARAMOUNT taking out an option for it in 1983 and then putting it through rewrites before dropping it in 1985. In 1987, PARAMOUNT developed COMING TO AMERICA which Buchwald argued was his treatment. The court agreed. Time for money. Paramount argued that the film did not have a net profit. Yes, it had $288,000,000 from ticket sales but, due to all the casts, there was no profit. The court disagreed with the accounting but, to make it go away, they tossed out $900,000 and the suit was over. Net profits are chump change. You want a percentage of the gross and you want a percentage of the first ticket sold. Joan Crawford nor did Bette Davis. They got a percentage on the film on the net profit. Using the net -- not the gross -- Joan got $150,000 for her percentage and Bette Davis got $75,000. They didn't have equal percentage and Bette also took out a loan which they took from her percentage. Joan did not get a million dollars or even a half a million dollars. She got $150,000. Bette objected and argued she was being ripped off. She demanded an audit but those were the figures. And the film did not show a huge profit in terms of net. Equally true, the idiot author has the actual domestic rentals wrong. He can claim "simple arithmetic" all he wants but he doesn't understand net profit. Again, his figures -- for rentals, not ticket sales -- are wrong. But even if they were correct, the profit overseas is always lower than the gross from rentals or ticket sales. Overseas requires more expenses and less profit. And, again, Joan got $150,000 for the film from her percentage participation -- it was from the net profit, not the film's gross profit. The $150,000 figure was widely known and widely reported. She did not make more than Elizabeth Taylor made for CLEOPATRA and, for the record, Elizabeth got more than a million for that film. Elizabeth's salary for the film was one million. The film went beyond its planned shooting schedule. When she went into 'overtime,' on top of her one million dollars salary, she was entitled to $50,000 a week extra. She was also smart enough to demand a percentage of the gross -- not the net, the gross.
Rebecca: And that's why I saved that topic for the discussion. I knew you'd know. The only thing I recommend about this book are the photos. He has access to forgotten photos from her MGM days some of which may have never been seen before and these photos from the 1920s and 1930s are gorgeous -- great pictures of her, yes, but truly photographic art as well.
------------------
Previous book discussions this year.
"robert dance - a lousy writer - knows damn little about joan crawford," "Books (Elaine, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Marcia, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Isaiah, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Trina, Isaiah, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Marcia, Rebecca, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Ann, Mike, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Stan, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Mike, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Ann, Elaine, Kat, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Isaiah, Stan, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Trina, Kat, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Marcia, Ann and C.I.)," "Books (Ruth, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Isaiah, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Mike, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Kat, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Marcia, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Trina, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Rebecca, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Isaiah, Kat, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Stan, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Kat, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Marcia, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Ann, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Trina, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Marcia, Ava and C.I.)" and "Books (Ava and C.I.)."
---------------------
end of book discussion piece.
Channing Tatum, Florence Pugh, Diplo, Alyssa Milano, Quinta Brunson, Yara Shahidi, Dua Lipa, Sandra Oh, Jeremy Strong, and Joaquin Phoenix, among many others, signed the letter requesting an end to the "devastating loss of lives and unfolding horrors" in Israel and Gaza.
"We ask that, as President of the United States, you call for an immediate de-escalation and ceasefire in Gaza and Israel before another life is lost," the letter, published by the Artists 4 Ceasefire organization, reads. "We believe all life is sacred, no matter faith or ethnicity and we condemn the killing of Palestinian and Israeli civilians."
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
The emir of Qatar has called on the international community to restrain Israel in its fight against Hamas, saying Israeli forces should not be given a green light for unconditional killing in the besieged Gaza Strip.
In his opening speech at the Shura council’s annual session on Tuesday, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani also said the continuing war was a dangerous escalation that threatened the region.
If I knew then what I know now. For many of the guilty men and women who plunged Iraq into blood and chaos, this became something of a stock phrase. When, in 2004, the then Tory leader, Michael Howard, was asked if he would still have supported the British government’s motion backing the war – only 16 Conservative MPs rebelled a year earlier – he replied: “If I knew then what I know now, that would have caused a difficulty. I couldn’t have voted for that resolution.” “If I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted that way,” protested Hillary Clinton during her doomed first campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. “If I knew then what I knew now, I wouldn’t have voted for it,” said Labour’s then deputy leader, Harriet Harman, a few weeks later.
Prepare yourself for the revival of this phrase. As the calamity of Israel’s onslaught against Gaza becomes apparent, those who cheered it on will panic about reputational damage and plead their earlier ignorance. Do not let them get away with it this time.
The claim was nonsense even in the context of the Iraq cataclysm. As the Chilcot inquiry later concluded, Blair was warned that an invasion “would increase the threat from al-Qaida” and other groups. As a result, the inquiry did “not agree that hindsight is required”, noting that everything from “internal strife in Iraq” to Iranian intervention to the rise of al-Qaida was “explicitly identified” before the war. Warnings of the disaster to come were not confined to private intelligence briefings to Blair. From the lack of weapons of mass destruction – as former foreign secretary Robin Cook detailed in his resignation speech – to violent strife to a boost for al-Qaida, the coming disaster was widely predicted in public. There was no shortage of evidence to justify the then-secretary general of the Arab League warning that the war would “open the gates of hell”.
[. . .]
Israel is dropping leaflets on northern Gaza warning that civilians who remain there may be considered an “accomplice in a terrorist organisation”, self-evidently arguing that non-combatants can be considered fair game. Leaving aside that southern Gaza is itself being bombed, contrary to Israeli claims that it’s a safe zone, and that many are unable to flee – not least the injured and infirm – this is a public confession of what could amount to future war crimes.
When the supposed relative “moderate” foreign minister, Eli Cohen, declares that Gaza’s territory will shrink thanks to Israeli annexation, he is simply stating a longstanding open Israeli commitment. After all, when Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s ambassador to the UK, declares her support for Israel’s territory compromising the biblical territory of Judea and Samaria – that is, the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip – she merely echoes Netanyahu’s promoting a map of “Greater Israel” before the UN.
From collective punishment – by depriving innocent people of water, food, energy and medicine – to indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, there are no excuses. The UN is warning of “mass ethnic cleansing”, has denounced “crimes against humanity” and is even arguing that “there is a risk of genocide” against the Palestinians. A ground invasion has not even begun, but what will happen next is clear. So here is a prediction. As it is, just 3% of Britons say there “definitely should not be an immediate ceasefire”, the same proportion as those who believe the Earth is flat. As the atrocities mount, the public mood will be a mixture of horror and fury at those complicit in one of the great crimes of our time.
A U.K.-based Palestinian journalist took a Sky News presenter to task during a weekend interview in which the 23-year-old Gaza native challenged the Western media's misleading framing, double standards, and lack of critical context during coverage of Israel's war on the Gazan people.
Yara Eid—who is from Gaza City but lives in Edinburgh—pushed back after the Sky newsreader said that "it has been two weeks since Hamas first launched its attack on Israel that saw 1,400 people killed," and "since then, Palestinian officials say more than 4,000 people have died in Gaza."
Eid noted that the presenter referred to the Israelis murdered by Palestinian militants as being "killed," while describing Gazans slain by Israeli bombs, missiles, and artillery as having "died."
"I think language is really important to use because, as a journalist, you have the moral responsibility to report on what's happening," she said.
"Palestinians don't just die, they get killed," Eid stressed. "They are actually being subjected to ethnic cleansing, to genocide for the last 75 years."
"And you also mentioned that this is a Hamas-Israel war. This is not it," she said. "And framing it as such is very misleading because it poses the thing that Israel is an equal power, but it's an occupying power and it has the responsibility of protecting all civilian lives and children in Gaza."
"You need, as a journalist, to report on what's happening and say it as it is," Eid asserted.
Eid shared that 30 members of her immediate family—including 17 children—were killed by Israeli occupation forces.
The young journalist also said her best friend, Ain Media photographer Ibrahim Mohammad Lafi, was shot dead by Israeli troops. He is one of at least 20 journalists and 35 United Nations personnel who have been killed by Israeli bombs or bullets since the start of the war.
We write as bereaved members of the Princeton community — faculty, students, alumni, and staff — to express our unequivocal outrage over the tragic loss of Israeli and Palestinian lives during the past week as the region seems to careen uncontrollably towards an all-out regional conflagration. There is never any justification for the targeting of civilians, whether it be assaults on Israeli towns or the aerial bombardment and total siege of the Gaza Strip.
We firmly believe that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a political one. The ongoing Israeli assault upon the Gaza Strip must be stopped. We call upon the leadership of the University as well as that of elected officials in New Jersey and Washington D.C. to do everything possible to bring an end to the targeting of civilians by the relentless bombing of hospitals, homes, roads, schools, universities, and infrastructures of survival in the Gaza Strip. The international community must force Israel, Hamas, and all parties to the conflict to adhere strictly to the letter of international law, first and foremost by putting an immediate and complete halt to the unchecked collective punishment currently being deployed against Palestinians in Gaza. The free flow of humanitarian assistance must be assured for the more than 2 million Palestinians in Gaza who currently have no access to food, clean drinking water, fuel, electricity, and medical relief.
We write to voice our profound concern over the widespread dehumanization and erasure of Palestinian life in the United States and throughout the Western world, in the media, public discourse, and official governmental statements. This political environment constitutes a clear and present danger to Palestinians, while also serving to justify rising threats to and criminalization of free speech and academic freedom around the demand to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories. University students and student organizations who issue statements critical of Israeli policies or express solidarity with Palestinians are continuously subjected to harassment, intimidation, imperiled job prospects, and threats to their personal safety. We demand continuous and ironclad guarantees of the freedom of speech for our faculty but especially for our students, including concrete protections from harassment, intimidation, and discrimination. Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students have been attacked for their views, whether expressed or imputed, whether online or in the real world, but also on the basis of their identity alone, as we recently saw in the heartbreaking case of a six-year-old Palestinian-American child in Illinois being stabbed 26 times in his own home.
We welcome your statement of October 10 emphasizing that Princeton embraces both Israelis and Palestinians as part of its community, and that the situation is deeply distressing for us all. We appreciate the efforts made by the administration to reach out to Jewish community members as well as those with Israeli citizenship to check on their well-being. We find it unacceptable, however, that Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students were not and have not been accorded a similar show of respect and care. We call upon the University administration to do everything in its power to ensure that all Princetonians are recognized and feel safe and seen in this moment of accelerating grief, horror, and outright danger.
This is an epochal moment in the history of the Middle East. “In the nation’s service and the service of humanity,” we affirm. We call upon the University administration to uphold the values that Princeton stands for. We serve the nation and serve humanity by collectively working for peace and justice.
This list is as of 4:30 PM on October 21, 2023. To view a full list of signatories, please see this continuously updated document. To sign the letter, please see this link.
AMY GOODMAN: We have just been joined on the phone by Raji Sourani, who put this message out after Israel bombed his home in Gaza City. He said, “By a miracle, I survived with my family. My house destroyed tonight by [an] Israeli bombing, at 8:25 p.m. The area I’m living in Gaza city Tal Al Hawa was subject to bombing for almost two hours by F16 rockets. I lived with my beloved wife and son the [longest two] hours and the most horrific time in my life, where the three of us sure we are not going to survive and we will surely die in any coming bomb. We hear the F16. We hear the rocket launched roaring and the explosion whom for 25 consecutive times thinking will take our life.”
Raji Sourani, we have just reached in Gaza. Can you hear us? Raji Sourani is the award-winning —
RAJI SOURANI: Yes, yes, yes, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: — human rights lawyer —
RAJI SOURANI: I can hear you.
AMY GOODMAN: — and director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza.
RAJI SOURANI: I do hear you very well.
AMY GOODMAN: Hi, Raji. We can hear you, as well. Can you tell us what happened? People all over the world expressing concern, as you are a renowned human rights attorney, with your family, not knowing what had happened. What happened?
RAJI SOURANI: I think the world should be worried about the crimes going on against Palestinian civilians, who are for the 18th consecutive day in the eye of the storm. They are the target. They are the target of the F-16s, of the cannons, of the gunships, day or night, 25 hours a day. They almost destroyed — they destroyed Gaza. I mean, it’s unbelievable, this army targeting only civilians and civilian targets — towers, houses, hospitals, churches, mosques, schools, shelter places, ambulances, nurses, doctors, journalists. This is the most political army — this is the most political army in the world. This is the mighty Israel, its might and power targeting civilians. They are doing war crimes, crimes against humanity, persecution for 2.4 million people for the last 18 days.
Unfortunately, this colonial, racist West supporting them by all ways and means. They are supporting them with money, with guns, with airplanes, with all what they need to do this crime. They are complicit by supporting them politically and militarily and politically. It’s shame this is happening in the 21st century, while these war crimes not secret enough. It’s projected live on air, and the entire world see it. And the ICC prosecutor, who issued warrants against Putin because he committed war crimes against civilians, because he invaded and made occupation to Ukraine, and here we have this prolonged military occupation, we have prolonged blockade, which is criminal, suffocated people here, we have five consecutive wars, and this is the sixth, and he is doing nothing. He is doing nothing except, you know, freezing the investigation of the war crimes committed by Israel and the Israeli army.
AMY GOODMAN: Raji, you’re talking about the —
RAJI SOURANI: Gaza in unprecedented crisis —
AMY GOODMAN: Raji, you’re talking about the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Karim Khan?
RAJI SOURANI: Yes, yes. He is complicit. He is selectively dealing with the Rome Statute, with the investigations, and he’s politically charging the International Criminal Court. Shame on him. He didn’t say one statement, since day one 'til this moment. He should be the backbone of the victims who are suffering in this part of the world. And he sees that, and he knows that, and he receives reports about that. And he's doing nothing.
So, U.S. and Mr. Biden — I’m saying to him — you are complicit. You are part of these crimes, because you are allowing, with your arms, civilians to be targeted and killed. We have almost 1,200 people for almost two weeks under the wreckage and under the destroyed houses, unable to be recovered. We have 57 families deleted, don’t exist anymore, because 20, 25, 30 of them have been killed in one second. We have churches targeted, and people died in it. We have mosques, people sheltered in it, and they were killed. Why you are allowing this to happen? Why you are seeing, watching, supporting Israel? Israel right of defense? Or it should be protecting civilians at the time of war. IHL, international humanitarian law, and human rights, Rome Statute, it’s there —
AMY GOODMAN: Raji —
RAJI SOURANI: — simply, Amy, to protect —
AMY GOODMAN: Raji —
RAJI SOURANI: — civilians at a time of war. And nobody is protecting us. We are the target of the Israeli army. They want to evict Gaza, and they create a new Nakba. They don’t want anybody in Gaza. They want us to leave. We are not leaving. We are the stones of the valley. We have been here since ever, and we will continue forever. We will not be part of the Israeli plan to evacuate Gaza.
AMY GOODMAN: Raji, if you can tell us what happened to your own family? When was your house bombed? And were you dug out from the rubble?
RAJI SOURANI: I’m living in Rimal area, Tal Al Hawa, the nicest place in Gaza. I have my own villa, and it’s nice, with very nice garden. It’s a two-story building. It’s me and my wife Amal and my son Basel. And we were, like everybody, I mean, you know, at our home, watching what’s going on. And out of the blue, the bombing began, began in our area — nothing special, nothing unique, nothing consist danger; otherwise, my sense will tell me, I mean, you know, I have to leave, or I will ask my wife and son, I mean, at least, to leave. But there is nothing, I mean, in that part. It’s entirely civilian, and I can tell — and I have always the reason, I mean, to say that.
And I have — the bombing began, and we thought, yes, I mean, this might be one bomb here or there. But it was very close. And the second, and then we began to realize and feel, you know, there is something big wrong happening, because sound getting closer, closer and closer. We were holding — I mean, we were not thinking or realizing that we are going to survive. That’s not easy. And I was thinking of a lot of things, I mean, my life, how I didn’t really, you know, leave like everybody leave. Should I leave, or should I stay? Why we move just in that place two minutes before the rocket of F-16, GBU-38, hit? And I felt the heat of the flame, and I saw the ball of fire. And every time, especially this one, I thought it’s our end. And this was last one, I mean, with the hit directly to my house, and the house was literally destroyed. Lucky enough, I just moved from the place where we are staying, upon the request of my son, to one tiny corridor inside the house. And if we were where we were, we are gone. We are gone.
So, we waited almost half an hour, unable to speak any words, unable to do anything. And we were really, I mean, a state of human shock. And I waited 'til, you know, there was some siren of ambulances remotely, and that means usually the bombing stopped, and they get the green light to come in. Then we began to climb our way out. But it was rather a mission impossible. And we were lucky, I mean, you know, to get out. And when we get out of the place, we just moved to my brother's house, which is like 800 meters away from the place we are staying. This happened on the 18th. But since then 'til today, I can assure you one thing, that the entire area is of Tal Al Hawa completely abolished almost. Two-thirds of it doesn't exist. This really beautiful area of Gaza doesn’t exist anymore.
So, we survived. We were lucky. But our neighbors, I mean, they lost 29 members, Habboush family, and others and others and others and others and others. We are collecting data. We are collecting information. This is unprecedented. I never, ever thought in my life civilians can be the target of war. They are not with Hamas.
Hamas insulted them, insulted their intelligence, insulted their military. We can understand that. In two hours, they were able to destroy the security wall, which America — which U.S. took it as the standard, and many other countries. And they destroyed it in 15 minutes, and they were able to enter. And they took over 11 military strongholds of Israel, and they killed and captured many of them. And they get back to them in Gaza, and we can understand why they are angry with them. And they took the headquarters of Gaza commandment of the Israeli military army, and they arrested generals, colonel and others, and they brought them, I mean, to Gaza. Israel has the right to be angry, absolutely angry, because Hamas showed their intelligence and their military capability means nothing, and they destroyed this illusion in two hours.
But why they are revenging from us? They should rebel from Hamas. Hamas still, I can assure you, functions like a Swiss watch in Gaza, and they are not affected. I can tell that. I can see that. We feel that. They are unable to minimize their power. They are unable to silence them. They are unable to locate where their soldiers are who were taken as prisoners of war. They are unable to do anything for them. That’s why they are revenging from us. This is the shame on the army. I mean, there is rules of engagement between the army, between the resistance movement and any army. But why civilians are the target? This is the big question. This is shame this is happening, I mean, to us. And I’m telling you —
AMY GOODMAN: Raji —
RAJI SOURANI: — the reason they wanted — yes.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you — the leaflets that were dropped this weekend on Gaza, addressed to residents of Gaza, reading, “Urgent warning to the residents of Gaza: Your presence north of Wadi Gaza is putting your lives at risk. Anyone who chooses not to evacuate from the north of the Gaza Strip to the south of the Gaza Strip may be identified as a partner in a terrorist organization.” These on leaflets. I don’t know if you saw these leaflets, but you have made a decision with your family not to move south. Can you respond to what they’re saying, that anyone who chooses not to evacuate may be identified as a partner in a terrorist organization?
RAJI SOURANI: We have been here since ever, and we will stay forever. And no power on Earth will take me from here. We are the stones of the valley. They have to understand that. And even if they destroy once and again houses on our heads, even if they took our life, we are not moving anymore. Simply, we suffered from the Nakba 75 years. They committed massacres. They killed thousands of Palestinians. They pushed us out. And now it’s time for us not to do that again, at least willingly. We cannot be part of Mr. Bibi’s plan to evacuate Gaza. He said it, from a written statement, in a press conference day one: Gazans should leave Gaza. Where to? Where to? If anybody should leave, people like Mr. Bibi, not us. Enough for the occupation. We want dignity, freedom, end of this belligerent, criminal occupation. Now people from south of Gaza began to come back to north in thousands, because there is no safe haven in Gaza, no safe place in Gaza. And we are not going to be a tool in the hands of racist, criminal, rightist Israeli prime minister. No way. We are not going to do that. We are going to stay in Gaza.
AMY GOODMAN: Raji Sourani, I want to thank you so much for taking this call, human rights attorney, director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza, recipient of the Right Livelihood Award, as well as the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award. Please be safe. I know that it’s extremely difficult, with now the death toll at 5,000. Raji has chosen to stay in Gaza City near his home. People should go to our interviews with Raji over these last two weeks, of course, and beyond, before that. I also want to thank Jehad Abusalim, scholar and analyst from Gaza, executive director of The Jerusalem Fund. Thank you so much both for being with us.
Next up, “Do not use our death and our pain to bring death and pain of other people and other families.” The message of Noy Katsman about their brother Hayim, an Israeli peace activist killed in the Hamas attack. We’ll speak with Noy, as he says, “Not in my name. Not in my brother’s name.” Stay with us.
Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley has refused to perform wedding ceremonies for same- couples and decided to take her fight over religious beliefs to the state's Supreme Court.
The Texas Commission on Judicial Misconduct sanctioned Hensley in 2019 for conducting marriages exclusively between heterosexual couples. Shortly afterward, Hensley filed a lawsuit arguing that the commission punished her because of her faith, reported Daily Mail.
Fast forward to 2023, and that is not so clear anymore. The current Supreme Court—with Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, put on the court by Trump—has ruled in favor of blatant discrimination, all in the name of religious freedom. And Thomas and Alito may now have the chance to “fix” yet another “problem” they claim the court created.
The Waco, Texas, justice of the peace at the center of the current case, Dianne Hensley, refused to perform same-sex marriages in 2019 based on her religious beliefs as a Christian. She was formally sanctioned by the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct. She filed a lawsuit, arguing her rights were violated under the Texas Religious Restoration Freedom Act. The case was dismissed by a state district judge, and that decision was upheld upon appeal. Hensley then appealed to the very right-wing Texas Supreme Court, and it decided on Friday to take her case.
Hensley’s lawyers at the First Liberty Institute, a Christian nationalist law firm with ties to corrupt, viciously anti-LGBTQ Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, are using the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision last June in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, in which the court’s conservatives ruled that a Colorado web designer can’t be forced to serve same-sex couples seeking wedding websites based on her religious beliefs—even though no same-sex couple had actually sought the web designer’s services. Per the Texas Tribune:
Justin Butterfield, an attorney for Hensley at First Liberty Institute, has maintained throughout the lawsuit that religious liberty is Hensley’s right as a citizen.
Mark Burns, a MAGA supporter and pastor, announced he’s opening a Christian military school despite fabricating details of his military experience.
During the 2016 presidential election, Burns was a fierce supporter of former President Donald Trump. He spoke at the RNC and was a dedicated surrogate for the former president.
Burns had claimed that he served in the Army Reserves but in 2016, it was revealed that Burns actually served in the South Carolina National Guard, Politico reported.
He had also claimed to be a graduate of North Greenville University, but the school confirmed he had only attended the institution for one semester, according to Politico.
Earlier this month, Burns announced plans to open the Burns Military Academy, writing in a Facebook post that the school’s mission is to provide “an affordable, pro-American education with a strong emphasis on biblical teachings.”
New College of Florida, the small liberal arts college historically ranked among U.S. News and World Report’s top 75 institutions, has fallen 24 places. Now it risks dropping out of the top-100 category entirely.
This double-digit tumble is due in part to Governor Ron DeSantis’ overhaul of the school to transform it into a decidedly right-wing institution—a “Hillsdale of the South,” in reference to the conservative college in Michigan. DeSantis appointed right-wing activists to the board of trustees, replaced the college’s president and other administrators with political allies who have no experience in higher education, and gutted one-third of the faculty along with the diversity and equity department. The board has even relocated students to hotels to accommodate incoming athletes’ use of campus living spaces.
- Truest statement of the week
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Iraq -- the US government still doesn't...
- MEDIA: APPLE TV+ the MySpace of streamers
- Books (Rebecca, Ava and C.I.)
- Interpreting Headlines to save you reading time
- Republican Crazy
- 10 shows we can't wait for the return of
- Tweet of the week
- 2023 Passings
- Books
- Gaza
- Kat reviews The Rolling Stone's Hackney Diamonds
- Ann calls out Chynna Phillips for promoting and ma...
- Donald Trump Spills Secrets | 60 Minutes Australia
- This edition's playlist
-
-
-
-
Weekend Box Office6 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm with Ann6 hours ago
-
Cher6 hours ago
-
-
Hateful people6 hours ago
-
-
-
-
