Smash now airs on Saturdays on NBC.
Let me give the character of Ivy some props. In a preview for Bombshell, Ivy got extreme attention when the actor playing JFK got his ring caught in her dress and slip and she ended up naked on stage.
Tom and Eileen then want her nude for the show. I really thought that was too much and that Eileen looked the worst (Tom pretended to have concern). Ivy did do the scene nude. But not where they wanted her to.
That asserted Ivy's power while getting the same reaction.
That's all you need to know about Ivy.
Sam quit the show -- he had no role and was more of a floater. He told Tom it was over, the show and them.
Julia does everything for Tom. She tells him to calm down. After the intermission lasts too long, she comes up with the idea of starting acting two in the audience and not on the stage (it was like Cats).
So is he grateful?
Remember the New York Times arts editor Eileen's flirting with?
He gives Bombshell the cover of the paper's Sunday magazine and says its a wonderful show but it's the past. Bombshell is the past and its former director Derek is directing the future with Hit List starring Bombshell's former Marilyn Karen . . .
Now The Hit List cast is reading this from their phones while Tom's reading it from his phone at a nightclub where he, Eileen, Julia and Scott were celebrating.
Eileen's furious and storms out.
Tom keeps reading. And one person, the article argues, who must realize that The Hit List is the future is Julia who has spent the last several days unofficially helping with the book for The Hit List.
Tom is furious.
He's screaming at her in the night club.
How could she?
She points out that she only went there after asking him if he needed her.
Regardless, she didn't need to apologize for a thing.
Tom got a review he took too personally. He needs to grow the hell up.
Instead, he tells Julia not to come home (remember, now that her marriage is over, they're roommates again) and to stay with Scott instead.
Anything else? Derek takes Karen's signature song and gives it to Ana. Jimmy and Karen tell Derek he's just doing it because he's mad that they're together. He blows them off.
Ana tells Karen she's sorry and Karen tells her not to worry about because as soon as Derek calms down, he'll give it back to her and stop trying to punish her.
Karen had no idea how that would sound coming out. I'm not sure she realized how bad it sounded after she said it.
But it was insulting and Ana was insulted.
Eileen confronted the New York Times arts editor and told him she didn't want to see him anymore. He argued he had praised Bombshell and she yelled about how her career was on the line.
It was one of the tighter episodes of the season.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
A Roger Helbig writes the public account in a tizzy over my April 4th entry "Depleted Uranium." Roger pants, "I will wager that you do not know that you and everyone who reads your posting has DU in their body, everyone on Earth does - that is because DU is naturally occuring Uranium-238 and it has always been commonly found in rocks, soils, the air and water all over the globe." And it just gets crazier (and more insulting) from there.
Roger, if it makes you happy, there are many things I don't know. However, DU? Yeah, Roger. I hate geology. I had to memorize the entire texts in college to pass it. Nothing bores me more than geology -- of all the courses I took. But I did four semesters of it. And, yeah, I'm aware uranium is not a synthetic. Uranium does occur naturally in nature. Depleted Uranium isn't uranium, Roger. That's like claiming the squash from my garden is natural so therefore baked squash is natural and occurs on its own. No, Roger, that's not how it works. Uranium is an element on the Periodic Table, Depleted Uranium is not.
Roger found the entry by "Google Alert." He's apparently forever looking for someone writing about it so he can insist that the cancer in Iraq is a fluke or maybe that it just doesn't exist? Who knows what goes on in that head of his?
Again, Roger, I don't know everything. That's why, in the middle of dictating a snapshot, I will grab another cell phone and call someone and say, "Listen to this? Does it make sense? Have I screwed up?" I did that when we first covered Hero Ibrahim Ahmed, spouse of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. I checked that with a Kurdish-American college professor. That did not stop some crazy woman -- who's a professor at a college in England -- from e-mailing non-stop to tell me how it should have been worded and how "evil" Hero Ibrahim Ahmed allegedly is.
Point being, some freaks are never going to be happy. Roger, you can deny the huge increase in the rate of cancer in Falluja all you want, it's not going to make it go away. You can stick your head in the sand -- though I doubt you'd choose the contaminated sands in Falluja to stick your head in -- but that won't take away the birth defects that they're seeing.
As embarrassing as your position is, it does say something. It speaks to just how wrong what was done to Falluja -- and other places in Iraq -- was. It's prompted a flock of deniers because they can't face the fact that, yes, War Crimes took place. They can't face it, they can't handle it. They have to deny. We've seen it before with the bombing of Hiroshima. It's taken decades for many American to acknowledge what happened. The children of Falluja matter, Roger, not some little pipsqueak who does a Google alert on a topic he hates so he can huff and puff in e-mails.
Instead of making a silly fool of yourself, Roger, why don't you shed some tears for the poor innocents of Falluja. Click on this link and go to BRussells Tribunal to see the birth defects you're too immature to face (you will then click on a link for this Young Turks video).
Then find a way to insist that those innocent children 'had it coming,' that they would grow up to be Ba'athists or whatever term you use a slur to comfort yourself when you can't deal with the reality of what your government did -- it's my government too, Roger, I am a citizen of the United States. But I have no illusions of its inherent goodness -- nor did the founding fathers which is why they argued for transparency -- something that no longer exists.
Steve Oh: What's not known -- or not discussed enough -- is the massive contamination and environmental disaster that happened in Iraq. And as a result, it's-it's caused massive deformities in children born in Iraq right now. So-so Desi, can you speak a little bit about that?
Desi Doyen: Depleted Uranium essentially is what it is, it's Depleted Uranium. It's used in weaponry -- primarily because it can penetrate armor. And it was used a lot by the US troops. The UK troops used some of it as well but the US troops used quite a bit of it and they won't tell the UN anywhere they used these areas so that they can be decontaminated. But right now -- the incidents of birth defects and deformities in communities that were targeted by US troops is-is really astounding. I'm not sure what the exact number was. I think we have some graphics on that.
Steve Oh: We do. So the birth defects in Falluja itself, it's fourteen times higher than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the atomic bombs were dropped
Desi Doyen: Jeez.
Steve Oh: And we have graphics of the pictures of the kids
Ana Kasparian: Alright. These are extremely, extremely graphic.
Desi Doyen: So be ready to
Steve Oh: Yeah, if your squeamish, please look away. This is bad.
[Photo of three children are shown.]
Ana Kasparian: It's really horrific.
Steve Oh: Now this is not counting the many, many babies who are -- See, this one. This was one was born with two heads. And the doctors there say they have never seen this kind of deformity before. I mean, this child has half of its intestines and organs outside the body and multiple legs.
Desi Doyen: It's really depressing to see that that's what's going on. Also, just to make a point of this, that the United Nations, last December in the General Assembly, attempted to pass a resolution saying that we should use the precautionary principle when it comes to the use of Depleted Uranium but the US, the UK, France and Israel voted against that resolution to take Depleted Uranium out of the mix -- against 155 other countries that said that we should stop using it. Unfortunately, the United States is in favor of continuing it, even though it has such an environmental destruction. It is very difficult to clean up out of the environment and it has these very clear connections to these horrible defects.
Steve Oh: And it's not just the Iraqis who are suffering, it's our own soldiers too because there are a lot of soldiers who are also suffering from Depleted Uranium contamination.
Desi Doyen: Yes.
Steve Oh: And what's happening to them is that they're getting these massive headaches where they are dehabilitated, they can't move. They're also urinating blood.
Desi Doyen: Right, right. They're getting diagnosed with cancer.
Steve Oh: And the cancer rate in Falluja is through the roof. Back in the 90s, it used to be -- after the Iraq War in '91 -- there's a cancer rate between 40 and then it moved up to 800 people per 100,000 Iraqis. Now that rate is up to 1,600 Iraqis per 100,000.
And it turns out Roger is a bit of a celebrity among the quacks advocating for DU. Felicity Arbuthnot (at The Ecologist) wrote about him a few years back, "Roger Helbig, a man with an unhealthy obsession: he believes that depleted uranium (DU) waste from the nuclear fuel cycle, which is used in munitions and bullets -- is safe."
Let me end with a tip for Roger. At this site, we've been covering Depleted Uranium for years. We stood by Dave Lindorff when In These Times walked back the line. So my point is, if Google alerts only just now put you wise to this site, Google alerts must just read headlines.
Oh, it turns out Roger is human filth. Repeating: Roger Helbig, with the US Pentagon, is human filth. Susan Hass has shared online, "Roger Helbig was able to find my work phone number within 15 minutes of my signing a petition to the UN against DU weapons. He apparently has some connections with military intelligence if he is able to do that, that quickly. He asked for me by name, then called me a liar, and with a voice filled with venom and veiled threats, told me he had no troubling finding out anything he wanted to about me. I hung up on him, then I reported this call to the local FBI office."
At the same site, Christina MacPherson shares:
This is very worrying. I had thought that Roger Helbig was just some kind of angry nutter. I have received a number of insulting and abusive emails from him, and more often, comments sent to my website nuclear-news.net. I managed to block all his communications.
And I was advising others subject to his bullyng to do the same. Just ignore him, not sinking to his level.
But it is a worry that Helbig is able to bring his aggression to such a personal level.
Hard to believe that the Pentagon is silly enough to actually employ this person, who gives the impression of being at least, a disturbed personality.
Again, I don't know know everything. When I started dictating this snapshot, I thought Roger was just a rude crank. While I'm dictating, I'm informed of the above and much more. So that tells us about the type of person who champions DU -- such a person is abusive to women, threatens women and thinks that normal and acceptable behavior. That says it all, doesn't it?
And on the topic of disgraceful: Robert Zoellick. Last month in "Swarthmore values," we noted a students effort to protest War Hawk Zoellick speaking at the commencement. And last month, Patrick Bond asked "What Will Robert Zoellick Break Next?" (CounterPunch):
It should not distract us from Zoellick’s deeper capacity to reproduce and restructure imperial power. As Central American activist Toni Solo put it in CounterPunch in 2003, “Zoellick is neither blind nor crazy. He simply has no interest in the massive human cost, whether in the United States or abroad, of his lucrative global evangelical mission on behalf of corporate monopoly capitalism.”
The other theory is more skeptical of Zoellick’s efficacy, concluding that he’s not particularly good at what he does. Indeed, Zoellick is mainly of interest because he represents a global trend of Empire in crisis since the Millennium, featuring at least three self-immolating traits which he brings to next month’s climate showdown at the Bank.
First is the ideological fusion of neoconservatism and neoliberalism that Zoellick shares with his predecessor Wolfowitz. Both strains are bankrupt, by any reasonable accounting. Representing the former, Zoellick was at the outset a proud member of the Project for a New American Century, and as early as January 1998 he went on record that Iraq should be illegally overthrown.
Jamie Stiehm (US News and World Reports) breaks the good news today: Zoellick will not be speaking at Swarthmore, he's come down with a severe case of "think skin." Stiehm explains:
The Washington powerhouse, until recently head of the World Bank, had agreed to accept an honorary degree at the Swarthmore College graduation, always a sylvan affair set in the woods in the Greek amphitheatre, surrounded by a fragrant forest in spring. Then he withdrew in anger after some students started a campaign on Facebook asserting he was an architect of the Iraq war. In fairness, that may be overstating it, but Zoellick supported the invasion. He was a good team player.
I am not saying he is a war criminal, as his harshest critics are. But he is implicated in the tragic violence that will never be washed from the nation's hands. That's the price he pays for being one of the president's men.
Zoellick fled from Swarthmore as fast as he could. Sadly his victims in Iraq don't have the same mobility options.
This morning, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) counted 24 attacks, 25 dead and "more than 170" injured. By this afternoon, Tawfeeq was updating the death toll to 42 and the number injured to 257 while noting violent attacks in "Baghdad, Anbar, Babel, Kirkuk, Salaheddin and Nasriya." Al Jazeera adds, "Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Baghdad, Waleed Ibrahim, said both Shia and Sunni neighbourhoods were targeted in the spate of attacks to hit the city." AP observes, "They were unusually broad in scope, striking not just Baghdad but also the western Sunni city of Fallujah, the ethnically contested oil-rich city of Kirkuk and towns in the predominantly Shiite south. Other attacks struck north of the capital, including the former al-Qaida stronghold of Baqouba and Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit." Kareem Raheem (Reuters) notes, "Ten years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, al Qaeda is regaining ground, especially in the western desert close to Syria's border. Islamic State of Iraq says it has joined forces with al-Nusra Front rebels fighting in Syria." National Iraqi News Agency reports Hudhaifah Siddeeq, cousin of the Anbar protesters spokesperson Shiekh Saeed Allafi, was killed today by a sticky bombing in Ramadi and 2 members of the protection detail for Shaeikh Saeed Allafi were killed in another Ramadi sticky bombing.
The US Embassy in Baghdad issued the following statement:
U.S. EMBASSY BAGHDAD
Office of the Spokesman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 15, 2013
The United States Condemns the Terrorist Attacks Across Iraq
The United States strongly condemns the terrorist attacks perpetrated today throughout Iraq. The deliberate targeting of innocent people is reprehensible. The United States remains committed to supporting Iraq’s efforts to combat and overcome terrorism. Our condolences go out to the families of the victims of this attack and we hope for the swift recovery of the injured.
The attacks follow last Saturday's early voting and come before this Saturday's regular voting -- for 12 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Al Jazeera notes, "The credibility of the April 20 vote has been drawn into question as 14 election hopefuls have been murdered and just 12 of the country's 18 provinces will be taking part."
Today, All Iraq News notes, Electoral Commission member Kadhim al-Zubaei declared that each polling station also has a complaint box. Dropping back to Tuesday's snapshot:
Still on the political, from the April 2nd snapshot, "Alsumaria reports that Salah al-Obeidi, spokesperson for the Sadr bloc, declared today that pressure is being put upon police and military recruits to get them to vote for Nouri's State of Law slate." Al Rafidayn reports today that Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, has also called out the efforts to pressure police and army to vote for a specific list of candidate (Al Rafidayn notes that al-Hakim avoided naming the list in question).
Wael Grace and Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) report allegations have already emerged of voter fraud and others problems including that some forces are discovering their names are not on the voter rolls. Movement leader and cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's parliamentary bloc states that they have video proof of security service officers forcing those serving under them to participate and to vote for one party. Kitabat adds that observers saw officers pressuring recruits to vote for Nouri al-Maliki's candidates in Karbala.
Kitabat offers these hard numbers: 8143 candidates running for 378 seats in the 12 provinces holding elections. Security and military personnel voted in 14 provinces.
Today All Iraq News reports that MP Jawad al-Jouburi told the press that security forces were pressured to vote for Nouri's State of Law and that Nouri spoke for one hour pressuring them to vote for his slate. al-Jouburi is with Moqtada al-Sadr's Parliamentary bloc. All Iraq News notes that provincial candidate Talib Abdul Karim's Mosul home was bombed. Yesterday, NINA reported that provincial candidate Najim al-Harbi (with Iraqiya) was killed by a Diyala Province bombing. All Iraq News noted that the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler condemned the assassination. National Iraqi News Agency notes Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi declared that the assassination of al-Harbi was an attempt to silence the voices that fight corruption, authoritarianism and injustice. The Iraqi Islamic Party joined in condemning the attack and stated, "The Party called on the government to assume their real duties in protecting the Iraqis' lives and address its poor performance." National Dialogue Front MP Nada al-Jubouri told the press that they're calling for an investigation into the assassination. Saturrday provincial candidate Hatam al-Dulaimi was shot dead in Tirkit. Fifteen candidates have been killed this cycle. Tim Arango (New York Times) reports they were all Sunni and the murders are "raising concerns in Washington over Iraq's political stability and the viability of a democratic system the United States has heavily invested over years of war and diplomacy."
All Iraq News reports Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi condemned the violence and declared that "this security breakdown is expected because of [Nouri al-]Maliki's tensed policies and his engaging in targeting his opponents and preparing the malicious files to topple them." NINA notes Moqtada al-Sadr condemned the attacks and stated, "Today's explosions occur while the ruling party [Nouri's State of Law] is busy campaigning for the election in Basra Province." All Iraq News notes MP Hakim al-Zamili who sits on the Security and Defense Parliamentary Committee declared, "Maliki has stated that he will change and punish the security commanders whom in their areas security breaches had occurred, but, up to now, no one of those leaders was changed or punished, this proves lack of seriousnees in changing and punishing the neglectful leaders and the security plans. All the alleged investment projects are nothing but for electoral propaganda. Maliki is supposed to stay in Baghdad instead of wandering around the provinces for electoral propaganda."
We all realize that when Nouri's campaigning, Iraq's not just missing a prime minister, right?
Back in July, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."
He's never nominated minister of defense, interior and national security.
It was a power-grab. Okay, he grabbed the power -- because the White House let him. You grab the power, you take the blame.
Nouri is Minister of Defense, Nouri is Minister of Interior and he is Minister of National Security. And he's failing at everyone of those jobs.
Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) adds Nouri condemned the attacks as well and observes, "The coming elections will be a major test of Maliki’s power and whether he can guarantee balloting without violence following last year's exit of U.S. forces from Iraq. It will also be viewed as a litmus test of how committed Iraqi political factions are to holding a free and fair vote without the U.S. military watching over the process." Tim Arango reports a Falluja fortune teller who goes by the name Um Razak is being sought out by "some candidates" in the hope that she can help them win by "cast[ing] a spell" and he quotes her stating, "I tell them that they will win, but that they need to work hard. They promise me that if they win they will pay for me to go the Hajj in Mecca, or buy me a house." Meanwhile Press TV speaks with analyst Ali al-Nashmi who states, with a straight face, that the elections will bring peace and security to Iraq. I think of the two, Um Razak is far wiser.
Meanwhile Martin Kobler went to Najaf today. NINA reports he visited the city "to meet with the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani." After the meeting, Kobler spoke to the press. All Iraq News quotes him stating that the Grand Ayatollah is very concerned over the various crises in Iraq
Last week, the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies held a conference on the Invasion of Iraq. Dr. Zami Bishara addressed the conference. His remarks included:
We have every right to view the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq during 2003, which came on the heels of a decade-old punitive blockade, as a pivotal event that changed the course of history. It was an even which impacted our understanding of global politics as a whole. American and European intellectuals, meanwhile, have their own right to see the Iraq war through from own perspective. This they can do through a critique of the multiplicity of narratives explaining the war. Or through the critique of a media and political discourse which is now powerful enough to use surreptitious excuses to manipulate public opinion on military intervention in a country thousands of miles away. It is this same media establishment which now, years later and heaving under the weight of the dead soldiers who were sent to fight on spurious grounds, finds itself putting paid to lies which it had itself spread. Crucially, the media, having first peddled the lies and then falsified them, has not held itself to account. Nor has the political system made politicians responsible for the war crimes they committed. Crimes which might be repeated. Indeed, beginning with the Nuremburg trials, only the vanquished have been held accountable for war crimes. Even the formation of the International Criminal Court did not change this reality.
As for the Arab scholars gathered here, we have a right to put forward two questions with some urgency. Firstly, would any of us have been concerned about the lies peddled had the Iraqi people not resisted? If the plans which policy-makers had put in place and deluded themselves into believing succeeded? A second point is to define which act was more truly a crime. Was misleading public opinion in Europe and the US the real crime? Or was it, rather, the destruction of a country and interference in its social and national fabric? The imposition of a regime which entrenched that destruction? A constitution which puts that destruction into a legal framework, thereby making the retrieval of national bonds more difficult?
The BRussells Tribunal reports on the opening remarks here. The BRussells Tribunal also reports on the conference:
Arabism was a constant theme throughout the first day of the conference. Although Iraq was the main focus, both Syria and Palestine came in for repeated mention. This is not only due to Israeli influence on the decision-making processes of the Neoconservatives and the Bush II Administration, but also speaks of a sense of Arab anguish with regards to both Palestine and Iraq, and foreign occupation. As Dr. Bishara pointed out, the Arab peoples—unlike the leaderships of their countries—were united in their distaste for foreign rule, and their commitment to Palestine. So it seems, Arabism is alive and well in the political and social discourse. Is this the case in the palaces, boardrooms, and the Arab streets? The severe injustices suffered by the Palestinians, Iraqis and Syrians are what motivate scholars to advance ideas of justice and accountability. Accountability was also picked up by one of our foreign guests, former UK Development Secretary Clare Short, who said “Although the wrong that has been done can’t be put right, the truth must come to light."
Another reoccurring theme is the issue of sectarianism. Dirk Adriaensens, member of the BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee, highlighted the current protests in Iraq against sectarianism and the partition of the country, offering the question, why are these protests generally ignored by the global media? Again citing sectarianism, Jonathan Steele from The Guardian says, “Syria has become the new Iraq” as the sectarian violence that is tearing the country apart suggests that the lessons from Iraq were not learned. Lastly, warning of the dangers of sectarianism and its use as a political tool to divide and rule, Clare Short again spoke her mind: “I have never before heard of this Shia-Sunni division that you now hear about endlessly. We must challenge this growing description of growing troubles in the region, that it’s all explained by sectarianism.” In accordance with her plea to challenge the sectarian rhetoric rampant in today’s Middle Eastern discourse, we must ask the question: who is propelling sectarian divisions and why do we choose to define ourselves along sectarian lines?
Last week, Niqash reported on the recent attack on four newspapers in Baghdad:
Recently gangs that allegedly follow Shiite Muslim cleric, Mahmoud al-Sarkhi, attacked four Baghdad newspapers because they didn’t like what the papers had written. How did they get through central city checkpoints? Iraqi journalists want to know.
Last week a group of around 50 men stormed four newspapers in Baghdad, attacking those they found in the media offices with knives and sticks and even throwing one journalist from a roof. The four newspapers’ offices – Al Parliman, Al Dostour, Al Mustaqbal and Al Nas – were attacked in broad daylight and, as some have noted, are also near military and police checkpoints.
“Clerics and tribal leaders who claimed that they were followers of the [Shiite Muslim religious leader] Mahmoud al-Sarkhi visited the newspaper offices and told us they were upset about news published on the front page that day,” a statement released by the editor-in-chief of Al Parliman after the attacks, said. “We told them that our newspaper was a professional one and that our position is neutral and objective. We also told them we were ready to publish their side of the story.”
Al Parliman staffers also told the group that the report had come from a news agency.
The stories that had upset the men were about the how religious leader al-Sarkhi was planning to go to Karbala, one of the most holy cities for Shiite Muslims because of two very important shrines there, and take over Friday prayers at one particular shrine so he could receive funds collected there.
Over the past months, tensions between the followers of al-Sarkhi – who is considered controversial because of his belief that he is more senior, spiritually, then the highest religious authority for Shiite Muslims in Iraq, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani – and other Shiite Muslims have been growing. In late April 2012, there were a variety of disturbances that saw protests and some al-Sarkhi-dominated mosques were burned.
Let's turn the US. Jill Stein supposedly wanted votes in 2012. You couldn't tell it with her awful campaign. Today at ZNet, there's an article with her byline:
Jill Stein, the Green Party's 2012 presidential candidate today condemned the recently released Obama 2014 budget proposal, issuing the following statement:
"Despite his campaign promises to protect Social Security and make the economy fair, Obama’s budget throws the American people under the bus. And it gives the economic elite a free ride on that same bus that’s running us over.
Specifically, this budget swaps the painful $1.2 trillion in sequester cuts for a different, but equally painful, new package of cuts worth the same amount. As part of these new cuts, the President is leading the charge to roll back Medicare and Social Security – the “Grand Bargain” with ruthless corporate Republicans that Obama has promoted for years. There is nothing grand about dismantling the crown jewels of the New Deal and the Great Society.
The new cuts are superimposed on $1.4 trillion in cuts since 2011 that are already hurting our jobs, schools, health care, housing and social support systems. The burden this budget imposes on the wealthy is trivial by comparison – such as ending tax-benefits in private retirement accounts for those fortunate few with over 3 million already salted away.
The President’s budget proposes $400 billion in Medicare and other health care cuts, partly through requiring seniors to increase Medicare payments or reduce their coverage. Obama also calls for “means testing” Medicare, making it a benefit only for middle class and low income seniors rather than for everyone over age 65.
Did you know that the Green Party that gave Barack a pass, the pathetic national party that couldn't say a damn word about Iraq last month, is now wanting members. They didn't run real campaigns in 2008 -- in fact many 'Green Party' members went on Democracy Now to declare they'd be voting for Barack. And they didn't dare challenge him in 2012. Jill Stein should have run a real campaign.
They couldn't take on Barack. They always have a problem taking on men. They save their harsh and mean for women. Which is why the Green Party is suddenly discovering that they want to build a party because, as the website proclaims, "I don't want to vote for Hillary in 2016."
The little whore -- and that's the only term for it -- who wrote the piece is Sasha Brookner. The piece of trash voted for Barack but now she's leaving the Democratic Party cause she's not going to vote for Hillary in 2016. And the whore wants to pretend she's a feminist.
She's not a feminist. She's one more whore for the patriarchy.
Please note, as we said in 2007 here, you don't have to support Hillary. I don't even know that she's going to run. But no woman has to vote for Hillary because she's a woman.
But here's what you have to do if you're a feminist: You have to stop trashing women to advance men. You have to stop using other women to advance yourself. You have to stop presenting women as the scary other. These are basic ground rules for feminism. I didn't invent them.
Hillary hasn't even declared that she's running but this Whore is going to make Hillary a punching bag to advance herself. That's not feminism.
Should Hillary run, I don't know that I'll vote for her. (I probably won't vote. I'm very glad I didn't for president in 2012 and don't plan to vote for anyone for president until someone comes along who earns my vote. Russ Feingold could easily do that -- on any party ticket.) I do know, if this site is still going, I will be one of her harsher critics. We tackled her Senate testimony. She went into private life right after. If she hadn't? If she hadn't we would be hitting on major problems with her testimony. If she runs for president, and this site is still up then, I will have to address those issues.
Hillary's not beyond criticism. Her gender does not give her a pass. But there is criticism and there is demonization. And when it's a woman being demonized, it's part of maintaining the patriarchy.
That's clear by the fact that Whore Sasha did not write this column in 2008. She did not write it in 2012. She was happy to whore for Barack, she was happy to vote for Barack. She was happy not asking for people to vote for someone other than Barack. But Hillary's driving her out of the Democratic Party and into the Green Party?
That's not feminism. That's what gender traitors, Queen Bees and cheap Whores have done for centuries, which is -- get in good with the patriarchy by attacking a woman of power.
Unlike the Sasha Whores, we held Hillary's feet to the fire here. And she was just Secretary of State. The Sasha Whores gave Barack their vote but refused to hold his feet to the fire. They are letting him destroy Social Security, they refused to call out the illegal attack on Libya.
Even now, grasp this, even now they'd rather do a sexist attack on Hillary then call out the man responsible for The Drone War -- the man who is killing innocents.
The Green Party could have presented an alternative in 2012. By then we knew Bradley Manning was a political prisoner. By then we knew the demonizing of Lynne Stewart would continue, that she would remain the political prisoner used in an attempt to scare defense attorneys from challenging the government. (Lynne's cancer has returned. Please consider signing this petition calling for a compassionate release for Lynne.)
All of this was known. And they refused to mount a robust campaign. None of this mattered to them as much as a half-Black, half-White man getting a second term -- that Free Speech TV once explained in 2010, was the most important thing. Nothing else mattered -- not dead civilians, not political prisoners, not jobs, not anything.
And now Whore Sasha wants people to think she has ethics? Please. She's just a whore who's selling it for another man.
They're lousy pieces of trash. Whores like Sasha fade away quickly. They get a year or two of popularity and then they find the boys are interested in some new female face for the patriarchy.
If you're not getting how useless and how ugly the Green Party US is, grasp that they're means of recruitment right now is 'scary Hillary.' Yeah, they're as nutty as the right-wing was in the 90s. Maybe they can start hawking The Clinton Murders and other garbage?
Ralph Nader ran real campaigns.
Jill Stein didn't run a real campaign. If we're around in 2016, I will not be treating another faux Green presidential campaign as the real deal.
As Ava and I wrote the day after the 2012 election in "Let The Fun Begin:"
Supposedly the Green Party is opposed to war. So when Tim Arango reported the White House was negotiating with Nouri to send more troops back into Iraq, Jill Stein should have led on that. But she's a politician which is just a whore without the desire to please a customer. So Jill ignored it. She ignored a lot. Six weeks ago, in fact, after Barack cratered in the first debate, she and her campaign began going after Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Huh? You're a Green. You're on the left. The high profile left vote getter just imploded on national TV. It's the perfect time for you to pick up some of his voters. But you refuse to try. You rush to go after Romney and Ryan instead.
Why is that? Because you are not a real party. Because you will forever be the little sister of the Democratic Party. Because every four years, you start off with promise and end up revealing just how craven and disgusting you are. If we are offering commentary four years from now, please note, being a Green will not save you. Being third party will not save you. We will call you out in real time.
The national Green Party is a fraud and a fake. And it is now in the business of trafficking in demonizing 'the other' to scare up new members. That's what Whore Sasha has done with her awful column. The 2016 election is four years off. Hillary's not announced she's even running. But Whore Sasha wants to demonize her and make her the scary other.
If the national Green Party were capable of shame, it would be red-faced right now. (My comments do not refer to state chapters -- many of them are sincere about building a party and run real elections and deserve support.) If they had any integrity, they'd publicly apologize for that sexist attack, that sexist attempt to tar and feather a woman to feather their own nest.
the new york times
the los angeles times
national iraqi news agency
all iraq news