carol burnett is turning 90. there will be a t.v. special saluting her shortly. i love carol and watch 'the carol burnett show' to this day.
she's a true star.
what's a true star?
they can avoid the press for months - even years - and when you see them, they capture your attention all over again.
then there are our fake stars who have to keep getting media mentions or else they'll be completely forgotten.
an example?
does everything sharon stone do have to be for
attention? i'm sorry but this 'tribute' to her brother - died 2 months
ago? it just seems like more attention seeking behavior. it's not as
though she's been on radio silence for the last 2 months. no, she's
been griping about michael douglas (making more money than her) and
other things. she's been all over the place and that finally died down
and she trying to make herself happen again. for some 1 who does such
little work, she is overexposed and then some.
April 7, 2023. A major truth about an Iraq incident emerges and NPR can
now report that Duncan Hunter is responsible for the deaths of two US
soldiers, Clarence Thomas is corrupt and exposed but look at our
'straight talkers' (grifters who've moved from the left to the right)
who just can't find that story, not even for a Tweet -- all this and
Tara Reade puts the food down long enough to fan girl over Marjorie
Taylor Greene.
Well I guess if you
scream and call them out loud enough, if you shame them just enough,
even idiots like Tom Bowman can belatedly due their damn job. Online,
I'm referring to "Tom Bowman acts our War Porn while NPR pushes for the money shot" from March 26. Offline, I'm referring to endless conversations with friends at NPR.
Tom
Bowman is supposed to be a reporter but he filed a 'report' March 16th
that was nothing but porn. His fellow reporter was too busy
impersonating a US soldier -- that should be as big a crime as civilians
who try to scam people for money. Graham "G" Smith acting like he's a
soldier with his use of "Man, . . ." and "bitch" thinking he's
sounding like a solider. WTF was that? how insulting to the
enlisted.
I can remember the first time I
went to an AIDS hospice. A friend put it together -- this was back when
many were encouraged to fear people with AIDS and told to be wary of
even casual contact. So I applaud the others who went with me but one, a
fortyish TV actor, immediately sat down on the floor in a main area,
removed his shoes and socks and thought this was a 60s rap session. And
I looked at the people there and noticed them staring at his bare feet
with dismay. This was their home and he thought he was cozying up to
them but he actually was insulting some of them with his actions --
which were overly familiar.
That's "G" Smith. Or should he have been billed on air as "G" Dawg?
If you missed it, here's the opening of the critique we gave:
Here's how it
started: A tip to Tom about the US military (when? This year? we're
never told). The tip was about events on April 12, 2004 in Falluja.
The US military lied. They concealed details of a death. They didn't
just conceal it in real time. When Bowman and NPR made an open records
request, they were told that there were no records.
This should have been big. It should have been huge.
A report like this should have ended with the family of the dead
Marine -- or his friends -- speaking about how disgusting it was that
the US military concealed his death for 'optics.' It should have had a
comment from Senator Jack Reed who is the chair of the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
It didn't. Instead we got a lot
of nonsense. Including the fact that no one ever needs to hear NPR
reporters tossing around the term "man" as though they're buddies with
the veterans. Graham Smith and Tom Bowman aren't part of the Marines.
They are journalists -- someone should have reminded them of that.
They use the 49 minutes to serve up war porn.
And to make themselves the stars.
You
can listen to the report and find out about how what books and
documents the two 'reporters' went through. As though that's the
story? Because that is what they made the story.
Not
the death, not the cover up. In fact most people listening to this
garbage may not grasp at the end, after 49 minutes, that Bowman and
Smith never revealed what the story needed revealed.
Here's Tom Bowman yammering away early in the porn:
I might run into a colonel I knew in Afghanistan or a general
visiting from his overseas command who can tell me what's really going
on. But there are some things, well, people just don't want to talk
about in the building. So I might call them at home at night, or...
(SOUNDBITE OF DRINK POURING)
BOWMAN:
...We might meet up at a bar, which is what happened one night at a
whiskey bar in D.C. Actually, this very bar, a guy who spent a lot of
time in Iraq told me a story very few people knew. He told me that early
in the Iraq War, there'd been this tragedy. U.S. Marines had dropped a
mortar or a rocket on their own people. That's what they call friendly
fire. Now, in this case, he said, one Marine was killed and another
seriously wounded. Friendly fire deaths - they happen. They happen in
every war throughout history. That's not what made his story shocking.
Here's the thing - he said that the Marine brass had actually covered it
up, burying the truth about this terrible incident because, he said,
the son of a powerful politician was involved in the screw-up.
"SOUNDBITE OF DRINK POURING"? That was needed to drive home that the two are trying for entertainment not not news.
A death was covered up. And it was covered up because "the son of a powerful politician was involved in the screw-up."
We need to know why the cover up and we need to know son of a politician.
They can add sound effects and they can brag on themselves but Bowman and Harris can't deliver the basic facts.
This is shameful.
49
minutes on this and they never told you a damn thing. It opened with
the tip. 49 minutes later, they had not asked anyone with DoD for a
public response, they had no response of outrage from no members of
Congress -- and we're never told who the son of the politician was.
But
we got sound effects! We got "G" Dawg talking in a manner he assumed
is how soldiers speak. We got "bitch" on NPR, didn't we? We got so
much -- so very much of nothing.
And
as I've noted here, my conversations with NPR friends were not just me
complaining. A large number of people at NPR were bothered by that
nonsense as well.
So Tommy
Bowman and "G" Dawg were put back on the story but this time with a
chaperone -- Chris Haxel. With a designated adult on the team, 22 days
after their 'report,' it can finally be told: Duncan Hunter.
22
days later. Despite the fact that Tom Bowman was told it was Duncan
Hunter on day one, NPR can finally release the name. I knew the name
back in March. A friend at NPR and I were on the phone and he told me a
listener or two had written in asking if it were Beau Biden. I said,
"No, it's not Beau, he wasn't even in Iraq that year. If someone wants
to figure it out, it's not going to be that hard, there weren't a lot of
children of Congress members in Iraq. There's Duncan Hunter --" and he
cut me off with, "I didn't say that." And his nervousness made it
clear that it was Duncan. They were working on getting a report on the
air and I said I wouldn't put it up here until they did. I wasn't
trying to 'scoop' them, my point was that it needed to be public
knowledge.
On the night of April 12, 2004, a deadly explosion rocked a
schoolhouse in Fallujah, Iraq, where U.S. troops had set up a temporary
base. Two Marines died and a dozen were wounded, some severely.
But as seared as the fatal explosion is in the men's memory, to the Pentagon it's as if it never happened.
An NPR investigation found that the explosion at the schoolhouse in
Fallujah was a tragic accident — the worst Marine-on-Marine "friendly
fire" of recent decades. Officers determined almost immediately that the
explosion was caused by an errant 81 mm mortar fired by the victims'
own comrades, yet the families of the dead men weren't told for years,
despite Marine Corps regulations. Some of the wounded have never been
told.
Three officers involved in the deadly mortar fire were
recommended for punishment, but that was rejected by the Marines' ground
commander in Iraq — Maj. Gen. James Mattis. Consequently, no one was
ever disciplined.
And NPR found another secret: An officer who was part of the confusion,
but was not cited for discipline, was the son of an important and
powerful member of Congress. Then-1st Lt. Duncan D. Hunter was working
in the command center that mistakenly approved the mortar launch. His
father — U.S. Rep. Duncan L. Hunter — was then-chairman of the House
Armed Services Committee, responsible for oversight of the war.
For those who don't know of nepo-baby Duncan Hunter, from WIKIPEDIA:
In 2017, the Department of Justice began a criminal investigation into Hunter and his campaign manager and wife Margaret Jankowski, for alleged campaign finance violations.[1][2] In August 2018, both were indicted on charges including conspiracy, wire fraud, and violating campaign finance laws.[3] In
June 2019, Jankowski pleaded guilty to corruption and named him as a
co-conspirator in using campaign funds for personal expenses.[4]
Also
in June 2019, federal prosecutors showed that from 2009 to 2016, Hunter
had spent campaign funds on extramarital affairs with five women,
including lobbyists and congressional staff.[5][6] In December 2019, Hunter changed his plea to guilty on one count of misusing campaign funds.[7] On January 7, 2020, he submitted letters of resignation to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Governor Gavin Newsom, that took effect on January 13, 2020.[8] On March 17, 2020, Hunter was sentenced to 11 months in prison, scheduled to begin in January 2021.[9][10] He was pardoned by President Donald Trump in December 2020.[11][12][13] The next day Trump pardoned Hunter's wife.[14]
Maybe
if old "Mad Dog" had done his job, we wouldn't have had to endure
Congress member Little DD Hunter. But Mad Dog never did what he was
required to which is why it was embarrassing to watch some rush to
praise him just because he was an enemy of Donald Trump.
NPR's
in the news and not for the right reasons. Twitter has labeled them
government funded or something like that. They do need to be labeled
that way, they do get government money. And the whining over it -- not
every friend at NPR agrees with me on this (obviously) -- has been a
distraction all week long. We didn't comment, there was no reason to do
so, we had serious issues to cover. But since we're noting NPR right
now -- first time this week, we'll note that.
And
thank you to everyone at NPR who worked so hard to get the truth out --
the truth that Tommy Bowman and "G" Dawg never thought was all that
important.
49 minutes about a cover up and they couldn't tell you Duncan Hunter.
Now
let's go to the Glenneths. Starting with Glenneth Greenwald himself.
Not one tweet about Corrupt and Crooked Clary Thomas. But the
transphobes like Glenny insist that there are real issues and it's the
transgendered people who are distracting us from them. Okay, let's go
to John Stauber.
So
five videos on the topic -- one's a CBS NEWS report -- went up here
last night and this morning. Last night, it was the topic of the
roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin. And many community
sites covered it.
Tonight, I have a question: What do you have to do to get
impeached if you're on the Supreme Court?
Your
wife being part of organizing a riot doesn't appear to be an issue.
You're breaking the law doesn't appear to be an issue. Ken Meyer (MEDIATIE) notes:
ProPublica appears to have sparked a looming media uproar with their bombshell report on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ acceptance of luxurious perks from a Republican megadonor, which Thomas never disclosed as required by law.
The report delves into multiple instances over the years where the conservative justice and his wife, Ginni,
were treated to lavish vacations, yacht cruises, and flights on a
private jet, all on the dime of billionaire real estate developer Harlan Crow.
ProPublica analyzed flight records, internal documents, and interviews
with dozens of Crow’s employees to track his access to Thomas and the
number of times he schmoozed with Crow and his friends while accepting
princely trips to exclusive locations.
Crow
gave ProPublica a statement on his friendliness with the Thomases while
claiming he and his cohorts “never sought to influence Justice Thomas
on any legal or political issue.” However, ProPublica reports that
Justice Thomas never revealed anything about this in his financial
disclosures, which raises the possibility he violated ethical norms
along with a law requiring public officials to disclose these kinds of
gifts.
He
needs to be immediately removed from the bench. He cannot effectively
rule on others and other issues when he himself cannot follow the law.
He needs to be removed. Their should be zero tolerance. This is not a
kid. This is not someone who doesn't know the law.
Clarry T is not only supposed to know the law, he's supposed to rule on it.
If
he can't follow the law himself, no one should have any confidence in
him as a judge. He needs to be removed from the Court immediately.
Failure on the part of Congress to take action would constitute a
dereliction of duty.
Thomas,
a conservative who joined the nation's highest court in 1991 and is
currently the longest-serving member, has accepted the trips from real
estate magnate and Republican donor Harlan Crow nearly every year for
more than two decades, ProPublica reported, citing flight records,
internal documents, and interviews.
According
to the report, Thomas has vacationed with Crow on his 162-foot yacht
around the world, flown around on Crow's Bombardier Global 5000 jet, and
stayed at his private resort in the Adirondacks almost every summer.
A
June 2019 Indonesia vacation that Thomas and his wife went on, thanks
to Crow, could have cost more than an estimated $500,000 if Thomas had
chartered the yacht and plane himself, according to the report.
This
is corruption plain and simple. He needs to be off the Court
immediately. There is no excuse for doing it and there's no excuse for
failing to report it. This is corruption and this is betrayal of the
public trust. There is no way that he can continue to serve on the
bench. If Democrats allow him to they're spitting on the rule of law.
Everyone is accountable and no one is above the law.
He needs to go. This is grossly offensive. He needs to go. He needs to go immediately.
Now
for some news. Elaine's writing about PROPUBLICA's expose on Crooked
Clarence. Thomas has not been reporting many ''gifts'' such as private
jet travel. He is dishonest, he is shady and he needs to resign. John Wagner (WASHINGTON POST) reports:
Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) vowed in a
statement that his panel would take action in response to the ProPublica
report, calling the behavior of Thomas “simply inconsistent with the
ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let
alone a Justice on the Supreme Court.”
Durbin
and other Democrats renewed calls for the Supreme Court to adopt a
strict ethics code that would include a process for investigating
alleged misconduct, and some Democrats called on Thomas to resign.
“This
cries out for the kind of independent investigation that the Supreme
Court — and only the Supreme Court, across the entire government —
refuses to perform,” tweeted Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who has
sponsored legislation that would direct the court to adopt an ethics
code.
Sen.
Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who is chairman of the Senate Appropriations
subcommittee on financial services and general government, promised to
use the appropriations process to ensure that the Supreme Court adopts a
code of conduct similar to other members of the federal judiciary.
“The
Supreme Court should have a code of ethics to govern the conduct of its
members, and its refusal to adopt such standards has contributed to
eroding public confidence in the highest court in the land," Van Hollen
said in a statement.
“Is
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas corrupt? I don’t know,” Rep. Ted
Lieu (D-Calif.), a member of the House leadership team, said in a tweet.
“But his secretive actions absolutely have the appearance of
corruption. … For the good of the country, he should resign.”
Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has previously called for Thomas
to step down, renewed her call Thursday, saying “[t]his degree of
corruption is shocking — almost cartoonish.”
He resigns or he
gets impeached -- those are the only two choices. He's made a mockery
of the law and he's no longer fit to preside over it. Resign or be
impeached. And shame on anyone who doesn't have the backbone to push
impeachment if he refuses to resign. We either have a Supreme Court
that follows the law or we don't. And his corruption reeks.
This
is not minor. The con artists have slammed transgender people and have
told us that they are a distraction. There are important issues to
focus on, they insist. As they focus on Donald Trump and how wrong his
case is. What case? He's been charged, he hasn't been tried but
they're acting as though he's behind bars on death row. They can't make
time to defend the transgender community and, in fact, they ridicule
it. And they're just calling balls and strikes, understand. This isn't
about partisanship.
Really?
Clarence is an embarrassment for the Republican Party so they just all happen to ignore it?
No, they're exposing themselves.
What Clarence did is outrageous.
And they have no comment. Not even a damn Tweet.
He
needs to resign and if he won't resign he needs to be impeached. The
Supreme Court is for sale -- that's the message Clarence has sent with
his actions. He cannot rebuild the public trust.
He needs to go.
But they can't say that. I guess they haven't gotten their marching orders yet from Tallahassee?
Let's
stay on Jonathan Turley for a moment because he came up in a Zoom
yesterday and I made a point that I didn't realize wasn't well known.
It goes to how outrageous his transphobia has been. I was talking about
how disgraceful that this person holding the Shapiro Chair of Public
Interest Law at George Washington University had been. A young man
asked me what "public interest law" is? That's a good question.
Public interest law is defined as anything affecting the well-being, the
rights, health, or finances of the public at large, most commonly
advocating for those living in poverty or marginalized populations.
While it can be tireless work, and the financial rewards are not great,
on campuses across the country, the desire to “give back” is growing.
Jonathan
holds the chair and spends all of his time obsessing over millionaire
Donald Trump. In the last 12 months, he's only offered one defense (and
that was last week and only because his image of a transphobe is
building across the country) -- and a weak one -- of the attacks taking
place.
Every week, that community is attacked.
This is QUEER NEWS TONIGHT from yesterday.
Jonathan
Turley is not fit to hold that chair. He's a Trump apologist who does
nothing to defend the powerless. He's taken more recently to attacking
schools and public education. He's sold his soul to FOX "NEWS."
He
and the others have exposed themselves, have shown their true nature.
Their silence on Clarence Thomas should be the last clue anyone needs.
i am
not a litigious person; however, i say 'sue! sue!' and i'm not calling
for susan. i'm referring to the man that the f.b.i. illegally (not just
wrongly) held and interrogated for over an hour. 'the insider' reports:
At
around 10 p.m. on Tuesday, agents from the FBI's Boston office were
helping the Defense Department conduct a training exercise at a hotel in
the city, the FBI told Insider in a statement. The agents were
"mistakenly sent to the wrong room" where they detained an individual
who was not the "intended role player."
According to CBS Boston, which first reported on
the incident, the agents initially banged on the door. When a confused
man opened it, they handcuffed him, put him in the shower, and
interrogated him for more than 45 minutes. After the agents discovered
they had made a mistake, they apologized to the man, who turned out to
be a Delta Airlines pilot who was just trying to get some sleep.
i
don't care that they're trainees except that the blame does not fall on
them. where was the supervisor? trainees can make mistake - it's in
the name 'trainees.' why did it take an hour to stop this nonsense?
where was the supervisor?
for
a whole hour, f.b.i. trainees are not in the location that they were
told to go and no 1 notices? what if there was a criminal gang present
and they see the trainees and grabbed them and killed them?
you
are supposed to be doing an exercise and you do not make it to the
location you are supposed to be at and it takes the f.b.i. over an hour
to realize this?
where is the oversight?
and
think about the poor man. he's working all day. goes to his hotel
room and tries to catch some sleep before he has to wake up and fly
out. instead, strangers are bursting in his room. they are holding him
in his bathroom. they are asking him questions - as part of the
training - that he has no idea about because he's not part of the
training.
i bet the trainees thought, 'man, this guy is good. he's really staying in character.'
again,
this is not on the trainees. where was the supervision? and how can
the f.b.i. justify that they had trainees who had disappeared for an
hour, not shown at their designated location and no 1 knew about it?
heads should roll.
and
the pilot should sue. i can't imagine the trauma there as he probably
kept saying, 'i don't know what you're talking about. i'm just a pilot
for delta airlines.'
I
don't work on your timetable and I don't work for you. That's (a) and
(b) when I do get to it, I will either be slamming you again or linking
to someone who has -- again, anyone, grab it, send me a link to your
piece. I've got other things to do. I'd love it others would critique
the pro-war garbage coming from PBS.
If it's
news and I'm told of it before I start dictating the snapshot or after
I've started, I'll happily include it. That would be, "Hey, we just did
a report on the protest in Baghdad taking place right now!" That would
be an example of news that I'd want to include right away.
Your
attempt -- that I said I'm sure is awful -- to try to improve your own
program's image? That's not news. And since the phone call, while
trying to figure out who some YOUTUBER is (I'll get to it later in this
snapshot), I've also read over the transcript of the interview they want
linked to and what a load of more garbage. Lulu -- it was ethnic
cleansing, it wasn't a civil war. The ones put in charge by the US
government went after the other side. For you to mouth "civil war" so
many years later may be an improvement for you and may be a real
personal high but it was ethnic cleansing. You might want to pick up
the book your colleague at NPR wrote -- still the best book on Iraq from
the early years of the war, Deborah Amos' EXILE OF THE SUNNIS: POWER,
EXILE AND UPHEAVEL IN THE MIDDLE EAST. We've applauded the book here
for years -- it's made at least two of the community's books of the year
lists. Here's an interview Deborah did with Terry Gross about it for FRESH AIR.
That interview was broadcast on March 10, 2010. I mention that because
that was the day Iraq voted in what was the most appalling election --
due to US intervention after an eight month political stalemate -- and
though Deborah didn't write about that to my knowledge (about The Erbil
Agreement in November of that year), she had already published a paper
on the lead up to that election that was the strongest piece of
coverage.
In fact, let's note it
again. We've got other stuff to cover -- one big thing -- but Deborah
deserves credit and her voice is not being brought to you by the
mainstream media right now. She wrote her analysis for Harvard's Joan
Shorenstien Center on the Press and this is from [PDF format warning] "Confusion, Contradiction and irony: the Iraqi media in 2010:"
The
dramatic
conclusion
of
the
parliamentary
vote
also
played
out
on
Iraqi
TV
screens
when
Iraq’s
Prime
Minister,
Nouri
al‐
Maliki,
appeared
on
the
state‐run
broadcasting
service
to
announce
he
was
challenging
the
results.
Maliki’s
political
coalition
had
won
89
seats
in
parliament,
well
short
of
the
winning
formula
of
163
seats.
Maliki
refused
to
accept
that
an
alliance
led
by
challenger
Iyad
Allawi
had
won
more
parliamentary
seats
than
his
bloc
had. These
two
Iraqi
politicians
shared
similar
backgrounds:
a
lifetime
of
working
to
overthrow
Saddam
Hussein,
membership
in
underground
political
organizations,
and
being
a
part
of
Iraq’s
majority
Shiite
community.
Each
had
returned
to
Iraq
when
the
Americ
an
military
toppled
Saddam.
But
in
the
2010
national
election,
they
had
taken
different
political
roads. In
the
2010
campaign,
Maliki’s
party
was
primarily
a
sectarian
political
list
of
Shiite
candidates
with
a
few
Sunni
political
figureheads.
In
contrast,
Allawi’s
political
coalition
was
a
cross‐sectarian
list.
While
Allawi
is
a
Shiite,
he
headed
a
party
consisting
of
Sunni
political
leaders
from
western
and
northern
Iraq
and
some
Shiite
politicians
who
believed
it
was
time
to
move
beyond
sectarian
politics
if
Iraq
is
to
achieve
national
unity. In
Iraq’s
short
history
of
free
elections,
Shiite
candidates
have
a
demographic
advantage.
Shiites
are
approximately
60%
of
the
population,
and
Iraqis
voted
almost
exclusively
along
sectarian
lines
in
the
2005
national
elections
and
the
2009
provincial
vote.
Maliki
also
had
a
media
advantage.
The
state‐run
national
news
network
did
not
accept
paid
campaign
advertisements,
but
freely
broadcast
extensive
reports
of
Maliki’s
election
appearances
and
campaign
speeches
in
evening
news
bulletins.
On
the
eve
of
the
vote,
state
TV
broadcast
a
documentary
highlighting
the
Prime
Minister’s
visit
to
security
checkpoints around
the
capital.
Maliki
is
widely
credited
with
an
improvement
in
the
day‐to‐day
security
in
the
capital
and
in
the
south,
but
his
pre‐election
inspection
of
the
security
checkpoints
was
seen
as
a
long
campaign
ad. According
to
domestic
media
monitoring
reports
of
state
‐
run
television,
Al
‐
Iraqiya,
Maliki’s
political
coalition
received
by
far
the
“highest
positive
coverage”
when
compared
with
all
other
political
parties
in
the
campaign. When
it
came
to
the
vote,
Allawi
demonstrated
that
sectarian
voting
patterns
could
be
broken.
A
small
percentage
of
Shiites
voted
for
a
party
that
included
Sunnis
on
the
ticket
which
helped
deliver
the
two‐seat
lead. Prime
Minister
Maliki
charged
widespread
fraud
and
demanded
a
recount
to
prevent
“a
return
to
violence.”
He
pointedly
noted
that
he
remained
the
commander
in
chief
of
the
armed
forces. Was
Maliki
threatening
violence?
Was
he
using
the
platform
of
state
‐
run
media
to
suggest
that
his
Shiite
‐
dominated
government
would
not
relinquish
power
to
a
Sunni
coalition
despite
the
election
results?
His
meaning
was
ambiguous,
but
his
choice
of
media
was
widely
understood
to
be
part
of
the
message.
Iraq’s
state run
news
channel,
Iraqiya,
is
seen
as
a
megaphone
for
Shiite
power
in
Iraq,
which
is
why
Maliki’s
assertion
of
his
right
to
retain
power
raised
international
concerns.
We've covered it before.
Nouri refused to step down. Initially, especially after Gen Ray Odierno
was proven right (and Chris Hayes was an undeniable idiot fool), the
White House was going to back tot he winner "absolutely." Then Samantha
Power and Susan Rice got on either side of Barack Obama's head and
convinced them that a second term of Nouri was better -- because, as the
CIA had said when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House -- Nouri's
paranoia made him easy to manipulate -- and so it was decided to
overrule the voters -- the Iraqi people -- and ignore any lessons in
democracy by instead giving Nouri a second term via The Erbil
Agreement. And we don't have time this morning to again go into that.
We
also don't have time to suffer through Chip Reid's ridiculous -- and
unintentionally confessional -- statements about how he identifies with
the group he was embedded with. That was the point, you idiot. They
would embed you to control your coverage and you're still stupid all
these years later. We don't have time for Lulu lamenting that she was
recently told -- by the Iraqi man who did all of her work while she
stayed in hiding -- that the Iraqi people hated her. Oh, the horror,
poor Lulu. To think you reinvented yourself with a stripper name and
that doesn't even make them love you. What's it going to take Lulu,
what it's going to take to get respect? I don't know, maybe actually
doing your damn job.
It's another hideous segment from PBS and its know-nothing staff that just wants to sell the war all over again.
It's time for THUS SPOKE GLENNETHUSTRA. Yes, it's time for Glenneth Greenwald and his transphobia.
I'm being told that the link I provided isn't working. Did he pull the
piece? I believe I just copied and pasted it. I've got to take a
shower after this dictation is done -- I'm on a treadmill right now --
and then a Zoom with a college on the east coast so I'll put a note in
later as to the link or if it's gone. [Added, here's the link.]
If there are any misquotes, I'm doing this from memory, I read the
piece online last night before going to bed. Glenneth writes to an
e-mailer who is troubled by his transphobia:
As
you rightly point out, I rarely talk about trans issues, in part
because I generally try to avoid talking about anything where I have
nothing unique to say due to lack of expertise or passion (which is how I
feel about the trans debate), in part because I do think the Culture
War (often by design but always in effect) distracts and divides us from
larger and more consequential questions about how and where power is
wielded, but in larger part because it's mostly an easy issue for me: I
think adults should have the absolute right to do and be however they
want, pursue whatever makes them happiest and most fulfilled, and they
ought be respected both legally and socially regardless of those
choices, including but by no means limited to pronoun use, which doesn't
bother me at all. That's a principle in which I believe strongly: that
society should be constructed to facilitate and maximize the
self-actualization of the individual. That was not only the foundation
of the successful effort to obtain equal rights for gay men and lesbians
but also the core precept on which the Culture War consensus over the
last 20 years or so was based, a consensus now sadly unraveling
primarily over this issue.
The
Culture War? He's a coward. He was a coward in college -- I have the
receipts, him in his too big jeans, walking around campus, farting all
the time -- I'm serious he had some gas problem -- I know all of it and
he's still a craven coward taking what's offered him. He refused to
fight as a gay man and instead cozied up to right-wingers and hoped to
be their mascot. He was pathetic then. The same refusal to fight was
evident in his departure from THE INTERCEPT. He's an attorney. The
term "breach of contract" should be a familiar one to him. He refused
to sue THE INTERCEPT while making his grand stand. And that's because
Glenn never fights. Coward.
Trans
people, he insists, are distractions and divisions pulling "us from
larger and more consequential questions about how and where power is
wielded." Spoken like a true Karen, Glenneth. Trans people are in the
minority, they are oppressed by the government and for you to pretend
otherwise goes to both your cowardice and your stupidity.
If
you can't grasp his stupidity, Karen Hunter and her guests rejected
that argument yesterday noting that it's target the transgendered right
now, develop a blue print to use on others.
Glenneth is speaking of 'self-actualization'?
He really is an idiot. No, self-actualization was not behind Stonewall
or any other major LGBTQ+ protest and/or rebellion. It was about
equality. If you hadn't been so scared of being seen as gay throughout
most of your life, you might know some LGBTQ+ history. But you were a
stupid moron and you were too cowardly to read the books you should have
in order to educate yourself. What if ____ saw you with the book!!!
You know who I mean, Glenneth, the right-winger you crushed on in
college but he was straight. You did everything but doodle his name on
your classroom notes.
He
goes to Maslow because Glenneth doesn't believe in equality. So he
goes with the best of each own blah blah blah. Amazing how offensive
the words equality are too him until you remember that he is a
right-winger.
He
then appears to be saying -- read it carefully and grasp that logic is
not his skill nor is presentation -- that gay and lesbian rights -- he
ignores others -- are faltering now "unraveling primarily over this
issue" -- trans people. First off, learn some history you ahistorical
idiot. Second, trans rights are causing a backlash?
Oh
what a shocker. I noted that reality last year. And didn't couch it.
Yes, they are. And I also noted that the backlash was coming anyway.
If anything Ls and Gs are lucky that trans persons have been taking the
bulk
of the scorn because they would otherwise be the primary target.
Instead, trans persons are the ones taking the hit but this is about
everyone that is seen as an enemy of the right -- pro-choice,
pro-equality, pro-democracy.
We
progressed as a society throughout the 90s and the 00s and marriage
equality coming in the '10s was a huge step for Americans. Progress is
never a brisk walk down the road. Instead, people throw up barriers and
blockades -- hate constructs that they pursue never grasping how ugly
they come off to the people around them.
An
attack was coming regardless and it focused on transgender persons
primarily (make no mistake, if an anti-trans agenda was achieved
tomorrow, these same hate merchants would be going after lesbians and
gay men).
Glenneth is wrong
about the so-called "consensus" -- it's been ripped apart by liars which
is why you need to call it out. The playbook -- as we pointed out long
before others started noting it -- was a repeat of Anita Bryant in the
70s. Groomers was used to attack gay men back then and it's used to
attack trans people It's why history is important. You need to know
what happened before. The hate merchants of the 70s used lies just as
is happening now. And they're running off support with their ugly
remarks. That happened in the 70s as well. The more hatred emerged,
the more obvious that we weren't dealing with people who were loving and
caring and believed in the best for the country. We were dealing with
hateful, dishonest people who would just as soon turn on your straight
ass as they did on gay men.
FOX
NEWS, as we've been the only ones to note (not bragging, just pointing
out reality -- I'd love it others noted it, we could just link to it and
I wouldn't have to spoon feed repeatedly) has reached its own tipping
point. They aren't sure how to proceed. Basic cable subscribers are
still with them. If this were 1994, that might be a good business
model.
It's 2023 and that
doesn't cut it. FOX NEWS no longer has FOX entertainment to help it out
during tough patches. THE SIMPSONS network is now part of ABC-DISNEY,
et al. To generate revenues, it is important that FOX NEWS has a
streaming service. FOX NATION was born. And it looked like it was
doing okay. That was a mirage brought on by Roseanne Barr. Interest in
her return to stand up led to a lot of people signing up. Some dropped
it without ever paying -- using the trial system. Many more dropped it
six weeks or so after. We noted that reality when it happened and we
noted that in the "reason" for dropping, people were referring to the
broadcasting of hate. There was a Catholic male, for example, who
identified as Catholic, stated he was religious but noted that FOX NEWS'
idea of religious did not fit with him. He stated he did not know any
trans people but even he was offended by the coverage. I've seen
hundreds (thousands?) of the responses. How bad is it? Days ago, FOX
NATION started reaching out with an offer of $1.99 a month if any of
those people would sign back up.
They need subscribers.
DISNEY+
lied about subscribers. The huge drop off they have right now is not a
huge drop off. They've actually stabilized. But they lied for months
about their numbers -- they did lie -- and that's one of the things that
Bob Iger is not going to put up with. They had to get honest. But
they were able to lie because trade papers -- VARIETY, THE HOLLYWOOD
REPORTER, etc -- print any lie. They're not real journalists
(especially at THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER) and NETFLIX would lie that X
number streamed whatever film or series and it would be printed as
fact. No you type up "NETFLIX claims they had . . ." Industry
reporters -- unless they hate you -- do not ask you to back up anything
and run with any claim. So FOX NATION may claim that they're doing well
-- that would keep their stock afloat. But they are not doing well.
That's reality.
Why I was
seeking out the data on that was because of history. If this is
happening to people who would subscribe to FOX NATION in the first
place, this means they're losing from the center and the right. This is
the beginning of a turning point. How long that will take, I have no
idea. But the hate merchants are repelling people that previously
weren't repelled.
Back to Glenneth:
My
only interest in trans issues is: 1) whether children are being
manipulated, coerced and subject to unsafe and untested medical and
psychiatric treatments: a concern we constantly debate when it comes to
various age of consent and other child-rights questions, 2) relatively
trivial but not irrelevant issues such as sports participation and
access to women's only spaces (prisons, shelters, etc), and 3) whether
this movement is starting to rely on regressive notions of what it means
to be a boy and a girl. I have spent a lot of time talking in
particular to lesbians about how butch lesbians in particular are
virtually disappearing because so many of them now have their breasts
removed, mustaches grown, and declare themselves men.
Are
they your children? Why are you sticking your nose in someone else's
family -- while claiming you're all about self-actualization? Adults
are smart enough to make decisions. I don't need to hear your lies or
your scare tactics. Iowa was the only state that would perform surgery
on someone under 18 (unless they're an emancipated minor, in which case,
they are an adult in the eyes of the law). Iowa has overturned that
law. In the US, parents must give consent. We've heard a lot of
whining via FOX NEWS that was all a bunch of garbage. Scare tactics and
lies. My favorite was probably the 50 something man who came forward
to save children from what he went through. He transitioned while he
was a child?
No, after 20
years in the US military, he decided he wanted to become a woman. It
was awful and he regrets it. Because, it appears, he didn't want to be a
woman, he wanted to be a young girl. Sorry, changing your gender after
forty will not make you a teenage girl. But, more to the point, he
didn't have surgery. He was whining and whining about nothing.
We've
heard a lot of those stories. FOX NEWS loves to pimp the freak in the
UK. You know who I mean, right? He's a she, he's a gay male, he's
whatever will get attention at the moment. Now he has had surgery --
not gender reassignment surgery, no he had surgery to look like his
favorite member of BTS. Freak. Gender is the least of his problems.
Some people are just crazy. Accept it. Time and again, their
'journalism' is revealed to be nothing but what was once called "yellow
journalism." From WIKIPEIDA:
Yellow journalism and yellow press are American terms for journalism and
associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate,
well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for
increased sales.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.[2]
[. . .]
The term was coined in the mid-1890s to characterize the sensational journalism in the circulation war between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal.
The battle peaked from 1895 to about 1898, and historical usage often
refers specifically to this period. Both papers were accused by critics
of sensationalizing the news in order to drive up circulation, although
the newspapers did serious reporting as well. Richard F. Outcault, the author of a popular cartoon strip, the Yellow Kid,
was tempted away from the World by Hearst and the cartoon accounted
substantially towards a big increase in sales of the Journal.[7] An
English magazine in 1898 noted, "All American journalism is not
'yellow', though all strictly 'up-to-date' yellow journalism is
American!"[8]
The term was coined by Erwin Wardman, the editor of the New York Press.
Wardman was the first to publish the term but there is evidence that
expressions such as "yellow journalism" and "school of yellow kid
journalism" were already used by newsmen of that time. Wardman never
defined the term exactly. Possibly it was a mutation from earlier
slander where Wardman twisted "new journalism" into "nude journalism".[4]: 32–33 Wardman had also used the expression "yellow kid journalism"[4]: 32–33 referring to the then-popular comic strip which was published by both Pulitzer and Hearst during a circulation war.[9] In 1898 the paper simply elaborated: "We called them Yellow because they are Yellow."[4]: 32–33
That's
what FOX NEWS -- and others including THE NEW YORK TIMES -- having been
offering with regards to trans issues. A stupid woman who had her
breasts removed and now regrets it. Boo-hoo. No sympathy. You spent
your entire FOX NEWS segment explaining you were under age. You never
once called out your parents -- or mentioned that they okayed the
surgery (they did okay it). You just wanted to whine about the doctor.
I've
said before, if my children (were underage, they aren't) came to me and
said they wanted to have surgery to transition, my first response would
be that we need therapy. Not because they're sick. Not because
they're stupid. But because this is a big decision. I'm not doubting
them. I am doubting me. Meaning, I don't know all that would entail
life after such surgery. I would want them to explore that with a
trained therapist. Not to 'cure' them but so that they knew what was
entailed. That would not be a series of never-ending Freudian therapy
sessions. There would be a start date and an end date (firm) unless my
child wanted to continue therapy. But if that's what they wanted and
the therapist had spoken to them about the issues in a manner that my
child was comfortable with (discussing issues with your parents can be
embarrassing -- specific issues), that's what would happen.
If
they came to me a day after turning 18 and said they wanted to
transition, I'd explain, this is your life, it's a big decision for 18
but you are an adult so it's your decision.
Tattoos
are often the least of things we regret doing when we were younger.
That's not to say transitioning is 'minor' like a tattoo. It is to say
that we all grow up with regrets. When we get older, we realize more
things.
That's why, as a
parent of a child, I would want therapy first. Not months (unless my
child wanted that) but a few weeks to be sure that all the issues were
addressed with a professional before surgery. (Again, I doubt my own expertise and I
am also aware that when things go from general to specific, children can
be uncomfortable talking with their parents.) It's a huge decision for anyone
but, as the parent, I would be the one responsible and I screw up
parenting enough as it is without having my child come back to me in 10
or 20 years over a surgery.
That's
me. (And I would hope that I would be aware of what was going on and
not surprised by it one day with an announcement. I hope I would be
aware that this was a developing issue. But I could miss that or
anything else.)
I'm not here to parent you or to parent your child. My plate is full, thank you very much.
You
had a kid and it wasn't taken away by authorities? You are
responsible. You handle it how you think it needs to be handled.
(Sadly, that would also mean not allowing your child to transition if
that was your decision. That's why your the parent. Not me. You
parent your kids.) Because it does fall under parental rights. And
it's hilarious to watch FOX NEWS rip apart parental rights while
pretending to be for them.
These
scare stories, this yellow journalism, needs to stop. Shame on the
uneducated Glenneth (I long ago told you he wasn't a very smart attorney
and that he promoted the Iraq War). If they told the truth, they
couldn't whip up a frenzy of hate. They know that which is why they
lie.
Again, no sympathy
for any of FOX NEWS' interviewees who regret their decision. Thus far,
we've had adults who did things as adults and now feel bad. Boo hoo. I
regret last week's hair cut. (Not really, I've got a great stylist.)
Life is about regrets and thrills and hopes and fears and living.
You're going to make mistakes. If you can't take accountability for
your own mistakes, you're not much of a person. And I don't have a lot
of sympathy for you. In addition, they've had adults who did things
when they were not adults. So take it up with your parents, I'm not
here to parent you or your children.
Or in the words of Goldie Hawn's character in DECEPTION, " Oh, for Ch**st's sake! Isn't anybody in charge around here?"
[We
censor the use of any deity's name as a swear. That's out of respect
for others' religion. That's not me pretending not to have a foul
mouth. If you're not a child and you know me, you know I have a wide
range of curse words I pull from frequently.]
I
also should note how cute it is that Glenneth tries to hide behind lesbians.
Glenneth, I find it difficult to believe that "butch lesbians" speak to
you. It seems that, if they did, they'd be slapping your face
repeatedly. So that leaves us with non-traditional lesbians and 'fem'
lesbians. So they're having trouble finding "butch lesbians." Sigh.
Guess they're in the same boat straight women have been in for years --
you know, how that group infamously said for decades that it was hard to
find a man to date who wasn't married or gay?
Life is hard, for everyone. And anecdotal is all Glenneth has to offer.
I really need to pause here a moment.
I
really want to underscore how, in the 90s and 00s, America had to
endure columnist Thomas Friedman who would pimp his own opinions into
mythical cab drivers who populated his writing and now, in the '20s,
Glenneth has introduced mythical butch lesbians to be his sock
puppets.
And
I want to also note TERBLS. Glenneth is our modern day Margaret Mead
and has discovered a new social participant in the dialogue -- Trans
Exclusionary Radical Butch Lesbians. Oh, Glenneth, you are so
accomplished. Doing it all from Brazil, are you, all this research?
You are amazing, Glenneth, simply amazing.
He then goes on to whine about "parents not assigning a gender at birth"
What is that your business?
You
claim to respect parental rights and now you're whining about how
they're parenting. It doesn't effect you. Get your busybody nose out
of it. The ego on this person is astounding. (As we note in "Read The Tea Leaves" at
THIRD: "In the year 2028 . . . David
Miranda explains why he divorced Glenn Greenwald, 'There just wasn't
enough room in a California king for him, his ego and me'.")
Here he really reaches and we may have to break this paragraph up into sections:
I
regrettably liked Matt Walsh's film because the central question --
"What is a Woman?" -- is impossible to answer for those who deny that
it's about biology and anatomy precisely because any attempt to answer
it in any other way will dredge up gender stereotypes that we -- in my
view, rightly -- have finally discarded (a woman is someone who likes
wearing dresses, playing with dolls, cries a lot, hates sports, and is
more sensitive).
No, it won't. It will if you're uneducated hick named Glenneth Greenwald.
Try
reading Carol Tavris' THE MISMEASUREMENT OF WOMEN: WHY WOMEN ARE NOT
THE BETTER SEX, THE INFERIOR SEX OR THE OPPOSITE SEX. That book came
out in 1992. As usual Glenneth wants to weigh in without doing any
work. This is a topic feminists have dealt with forever and a day. And
that was the point -- last week? -- I was making here about the ones who
are erasing women are not transgender women but people like cis women
in my industry who are rushing to self-describe as "actors." As I said,
actress is a noble profession. If we're not comfortable with that
term, why aren't we using a different one instead of adopting "actor"
which is a term for men. Men are not the norm -- a point Carol makes
repeatedly in her book. "Singer" is a non-gender related term. If we
want a non-gender related term for acting, we need to come up with one.
If we're using "actor," why? Why aren't we asking that men call
themselves "actress" -- why are we bending over to accommodate men? I'm
not joking on this. "Actress" is being walked away from not by
transgender women or transgender men but by cis gender actresses. Who's
really erasing women -- answer that.
Matt
Walsh is a transphobe and that's why Glenneth embraces him. Glenneth
-- friend of lesbians and so worried about gender constructs (which he
can only manage to term "gender stereotypes") doesn't write about women,
do you ever notice that? Do you ever notice how this 'champion' of
women doesn't reTweet women. Maybe one reTweet every 30 or so Tweets is
a woman. But Glenneth is our brave supporter or ally -- in his mind.
He's full of garbage and always has been a sexist pig -- yes, again, I'm going back to his college days.
Feminists
have been addressing gender constructs for decades. Want to go back to
Mary Woolstonecraft Shelley -- because we certainly can. Glenneth's
ignorance of the work, research and literature on this topic is
appalling. What's worse is he's writing this in a 'response' -- not
shooting off the top of his head. He knows nothing and he thinks he can
b.s. his way out with a lot of words. But he doesn't know what he's
talking about and, honestly, owes us all an apology.
What is a woman?
If
you have to ask, I don't think I should have to speak to you. My time
is valuable and limited. I don't have time for your nonsense.
How stupid are you? What is a woman?
Even in the 19th century there wasn't one answer to that question.
How did you get a college degree -- let alone a law degree -- and remain so stupid?
Is
it based on having a period? Well if so, that rules out all adult
women who've gone through the change, who have had surgery that stops
menstruation (such as endometrial ablation), women who are not
menstruating due to physical activity and/or lack of caloric intake
(bulimics, anorexics, and some women in certain endurance competitions,
etc), women practicing certain
birth control (such as Depo-Provera) . . .
Again, I'm so sorry that you're so damn stupid.
And
why the hell are you -- a gay man -- so interested in a woman's
gender? Do you think you have the right to ask someone if they're a
woman or not? If they tell you they are, does that mean you have the
right to look at their genitals' to prove they're not lying?
Honestly, what is that your business?
If
Pat comes up to you and asks you the time, and you tell her the time
and Pat responds, "Thank you. Sorry, even as a girl, I never wore a
watch" -- do you think that you somehow need proof to identify Pat's
gender. Pat just told you she's a woman. End of story.
I don't understand it. Are you in a lab setting? Will you be dissecting Pat?
Are
you fearful that you're going to bump into Pat in the ladies room
because, if you are, Glenneth, you shouldn't be in the ladies room.
Again, things that are none of your business.
You are a transphobe and you are using every lie you can think of to justify that.
Why don't you try telling people how Pat being a woman harms your life? And if you can't, why don't just shut the f**k up?
Because that is the reality. Pat being a woman has nothing to do with you at all.
You
have no reason to attacks transgender people. You need to stop it and
you need to stop lying that it's funny or hip. It's disgusting and
hateful.
But attack them is all you do. Again, back to the same paragraph:
That's
why Dylan Mulvaney has become controversial: she's a cartoon of what a
woman in the 1950s was supposed to be, and to see someone who lived her
whole life as a man pronounce herself a woman based upon such
exaggerated caricatures of "what a woman is" does strike me as not much
different than minstrel shows where whites express their caricatured
version of "what it means to be black."
Glenneth wrote that. It would be a man, I think. Well it would, wouldn't it?
Those familiar with actual women are probably smiling.
Glenneth
never bothered reading the work of women. Nora Ephron, before she
became a successful director, was ESQUIRE's media critic. She wrote
about a woman who had surgery to transition. The woman had bought into
stereotypical constructs of women and had become June Cleaver without
any sex drive.
So,
Glenneth, you think you're being clever but you're not. For actual wit
on the topic, refer to Nora's 70s essay "Conundrum." Some would argue it hasn't
aged well. Nora (who I knew) is sending up the woman for
her extreme notions. Transitioning isn't really the issue of the piece
other than that the woman had the surgery.
Dylan
Mulvaney? Sorry. I do have a life. I had to look her up. What's
exaggerated? What am I missing? Or, after Nora's take on the former
soldier who became the dainty, tea sipping woman who couldn't handle the
bonnet on her car (she was British) or mingling with those rough, hairy
men, am I just not seeing it?
Because
I don't see it. I see a young woman. She's 26. THE NEW REPUBLIC
pulled an article on Pete Buttigieg that made a good point regarding
maturity (that's not an insult to him today, he's matured since the
article was published). It was noting that there are 'growth spurts'
when a closeted person comes out. And I mention that because Dylan has
transitioned and she did so after the age of 18. I'd say she's still
young. THE NEW YORK TIMES and others excused Bully Boy Bush's drunk
driving arrest in 1976 as "youth" and he was 30. So I think a young
woman finding her way deserves a lot more latitude than a War
Criminal.
She
appears to be doing Amy Sedaris, not a 50s caricature. Maybe I've
missed something in the four videos I had to stream this morning to
learn of her.
I
don't know why you're acting this way, Glenneth. Well I do. I've
written about PARIS BURNING before, right? About Glenneth in college
and his near vomiting reaction to the film -- even without seeing it? He's also has a real aversion to being seen as femme.
It's his own personal problem.
But
there's nothing wrong with Dylan. And she's not a cartoon of a 1950s
woman. I'm so sick of people who talk about decades and don't know what
they're talking about (see Ava and my "Media: They lie" for more on that). Dylan is
just fine the way she is and she doesn't need a transphobe judging
her.
Again, what is Dylan's life Glenneth's business?
He's
worse than Gladys Kravitz on BEWITCHED. I don't own a gun but, if I
did, and Glenneth and his big nose came looking in my window, I just
might shoot. Maybe that's the only way a buttinsky like Glenneth
learns?
An
apology to Chelsea Manning. When she was trashing him, I did
understand some of it. But the transphobia? I hadn't heard him express
that and I'd never read his Tweets at that point. Having read his
Tweets, I now get her point. She was right on the transphobia, she
nailed it 100%. My apologies to Chelsea for not realizing what he
was.
Back to Glenneth:
And
I absolutely question why someone can simply declare a new gender
identity that must be instantly respected based solely on
self-declaration but that can't be done for racial identity (à la Rachel
Dolezal).
Your
are just an idiot. You don't understand genetics, you don't understand
constructs, you don't know the history -- around the world -- involving
third-sex, for instance. I can't help it that you're so damn stupid
that you think this is a new development in our society. Surgery is
apparently new, less than a hundred years. But we've dealt with and
welcomed -- around the world -- larger understandings than we have
today.
And we're going to leave it at that or I'm not going to have time for a shower before we go into the morning zooms.
