Paul Ruddnick.
MTG always has a hard time choosing a head shot for her campaign: pic.twitter.com/6EEMEO8TiO
— Paul Rudnick (@PaulRudnickNY) June 3, 2024
On that awful Marjorie, Daniel Villarreal (LGBTQ NATION) reports:
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) needs to “literally” have an “exorcism” to remove “demons” so that he will support her plan to shut down the federal government unless New York overturns its recent criminal conviction of former President Donald Trump.
Last week, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reports of his extra-marital affair with adult video actress Stormy Daniels in order to win the 2016 presidential election.
She wants the Supreme Court to step in to overturn Donald Dump's convictions. She's insane. But people focusing on exorcising the demons -- Mike Johnson doing that. They're confused by her comments.
She's referring to Michael Tirrell James. Marjorie is part of a whisper campaign insisting that Michael is and has been Mike Johnson's lover for over twenty years.
Facts: Michael and Mike hooked up when Michael was 14. Mike wanted a political career and married a woman. She agreed, after the marriage, to adopt Michael.
Marjorie, JD Vance and Josh Hawley have been whispering that Mike began having sex with Michael when he was a child (14) and this continued after he got married and continues to this day.
That's what she's talking about when she's mentioning "demons." The hope is that this will force Mike Johnson to vote the way she and the others want.
Are or were Mike and Michael lovers?
I have no idea. But we did go to New York last week (to see Jessica Lange in MOTHER PLAY -- please see her if you can, she's excellent in the role). On the way back to California, we met with some elected Democrats in Congress and the hot gossip was about how Marjorie and her crew were hoping to embarrass and blackmail Mike Johnson into voting their way and doing their bidding.
"Media: Jessica Lange triumphs onstage and on TV while Donald Trump flops" (Ava and C.I., THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW):
Last week, we got the opportunity watch an artist play crazy and to watch a fool and his cult do the same.
Of the two experiences, the clear winner was the artist. In midtown Manhattan, at The Hayes Theater we watched Jessica Lange star as a human monster named Phyllis in Paula Vogel's MOTHER PLAY. She is amazing and you have a little over two weeks to experience her performance onstage. If you have HBO, you can experience her in THE GREAT LILLIAN HALL in which she plays a theater actress who is experiencing the onset of dementia. In both roles, she excels.
Not only that, she demonstrates why film went through such a fallow period. Jessica's training was unique and that should be one lesson here. She studied acting, yes. She also studied mime. And it's the latter, often ignored and/or ridiculed that may have given her the bedrock to build her many amazing performances on.
Her body tension is a thing to marvel over in many performances and it might even outdo Bette Davis' amazing use of body tension in JEZEBEL.
In a better period of time, Jessica would have been ranked with Bette and the other greats.
"Ava and C.I., Jessica has received two Academy Awards, three Emmys, five Golden Globes and a Tony."
She's won her applause. Other actresses have won applause as well.
But in the 80s and 90s, especially, and, to some degree since, they and other actresses were held in check by an overpraised hollow bunny.
Yes, talk Meryl Streep -- the most overpraised actor of her time because, yes, even a crazy fool can utter truthful statement from time to time.
For years, we used to argue that Meryl's talents didn't translate as well to the screen. Then we saw her in MOTHER COURAGE AND HER CHILDREN and realized that, no, her onstage performances didn't any deeper than the superficial nonsense she does onscreen.
Meryl's career was protected and sculpted by a man, Sam Cohn, who understood an industry axiom: Hollywood wants what it can't have. Which is why he kept her out of California unless she was making a film or doing promotion (attending awards show is promotion).
Like Madonna, well groomed is usually the best that Meryl can hope for. She's never been attractive -- a detail Joe Queenan rightly pointed out decades ago. Cohn knew that he had to put 'special' into the Streep brand so instructed her to keep the film community at arms length. Otherwise? They might have taken a good long look at her and grasped she was not star material.
She and Cohn kept up the deception for decades but then Meryl got in a snit fit that she was not being paid as much as Ahnuld and others. Ahnuld was making $20 million and more a film in the 90s and the 'great' Meryl Streep was lucky to hit three million a role.
Maybe it was her preening ego or maybe she just doesn't understand math but the speech did not go over well. During the 90s, a box office bomb for Ahnuld was THE LAST ACTION HERO (a little over forty million in domestic ticket sales) and that this was what a 'hit' Meryl Streep film struggled to make. POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE, for example, just made it into the forty million domestic box office and without a bare chested Kurt Russell and an amazing performance by Cher, SILKWOOD wouldn't have made $35 million in ticket sales. HEARTBURN -- a 'hit' for Meryl -- sold $25 million in ticket sales. PLENTY? Six million dollars.
Over end
over, she failed to deliver ticket buyers. Over and over, a Meryl
Streep film opened across the country to half-empty theaters over and
over. And when she did have claim to a hit? No, not DEATH BECOMES
HER. That film pulled in $75 million because they were smart enough to
beef up Goldie Hawn's role (Goldie owns the film) and because a lot of
Bruce Willis fans turned out for the film. But in something like OUT OF
AFRICA, where she could have made it about the money the film made, she
instead made it about her vanity. She did not enjoy working with
Robert Redford and she whispered all over town. It's even in Cher's
first 'autobiography' where Cher shares Meryl told her never to work
with "R." She trashes everyone if she's in a hit -- she trashed Goldie
after DEATH BECOMES HER, she trashed Dustin Hoffman after 1979's KRAMER V
KRAMER, she trashed Robert after OUT OF AFRICA
There was often strong work in films she was in during the 80s and 90s but it wasn't strong work from her. Goldie's Helen Sharp remains a memorable character, Diane Keaton as the terminally ill Bessie in MARVIN'S ROOM, Shirley MacLaine's Doris Mann in POSTCARDS -- Jack Nicholson and Stockard Channing walk off with HEARTBURN. She just has no star power and her talents aren't developed.
It's a great piece, so make a point to read it in full. Winding down, last time, I offered "Lauren Boebert keeps lying" and today THE HUMANIST REPORT did a strong job covering Boe-Boe's lies.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
AMY GOODMAN: Mediators from the United States, Qatar and Egypt are pressing Israel and Hamas to accept a proposed three-stage ceasefire and hostage deal that would include the eventual withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. On Friday, President Biden outlined the proposed deal at the White House.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Israel has offered a comprehensive new proposal. It’s a roadmap to an enduring ceasefire and the release of all hostages. This proposal has been transmitted by Qatar to Hamas.
Today I want to lay out its terms for American citizens and for the world. This new proposal has three phases. Three. The first phase would last for six weeks. Here’s what it would include: a full and complete ceasefire; a withdrawal of Israeli forces from all populated areas of Gaza; release of a number of hostages, including women, the elderly, the wounded, in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. There are American hostages who would be released at this stage, and we want them home. Additional some remains of hostages who have been killed would be returned to their families, bringing some degree of closure.
AMY GOODMAN: Biden described the ceasefire plan as an Israeli proposal, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not yet publicly backed it. One of his aides said Israel has agreed to the framework of the deal, but no official announcement has been made.
Two far-right members of the Israeli government — the Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir — have threatened to leave Netanyahu’s government if he supports the truce proposal.
On Saturday, tens of thousands of Israelis, led by relatives of hostages, took part in protests calling on Netanyahu not to sabotage the ceasefire deal. On Sunday, families of hostages protested outside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem and urged him to accept President Biden’s peace deal. This is Shay Dickmann, whose cousin is an Israeli hostage in Gaza.
SHAY DICKMANN: I’m here to support my government in taking this deal, the deal that Netanyahu suggested, our prime minister, that will get all our people back home. We are all here in support for the return of all hostages.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have invited Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress. Senator Bernie Sanders slammed the idea of inviting Netanyahu at a time when the International Criminal Court is seeking his arrest for war crimes.
For more, we go to London, where we’re joined by Daniel Levy, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, former Israeli peace negotiator under Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Yitzhak Rabin.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Daniel. If you can start off by laying out what this plan is, the significance of President Biden presenting this plan, and where Netanyahu and Hamas stand on it?
DANIEL LEVY: Thank you for having me back, Amy.
This is significant, because it’s not something you can do, you know, every week, for the president of the United States to say, “Here’s the plan.” I don’t think he’s done it at the most propitious moment. I don’t know why he’s waited this long. But there you have it. He has set out this plan.
What he set out was various phases. It’s not something particularly new. I think the crucial ingredients were that President Biden seemed to suggest that this is a package which is a permanent, sustainable ceasefire in the context of the current hostilities. That was a crucial missing ingredient.
The other thing was he suggested that this is an Israeli proposal. Curiously, he then went on — considering he said this was an Israeli proposal — he then went on to outline why this was so advantageous to Israel and why, therefore, Israelis should accept their own proposal. Now, Amy, I am a strong believer that there is sometimes a place for constructive ambiguity in order to advance something, and sometimes one needs a bit of poetic license. In other words, where he gave the Israeli victory narrative, I don’t think that was an accurate reflection of reality, the balance of forces, the balance of power, but if that’s what will get us to an end to these horrors, so be it. That’s Friday night.
We then have an initial Hamas response, which talks about this being positive and constructive. We have Egypt’s foreign minister today visiting Spain, telling us that Hamas has viewed this positively. I think, for Hamas, what they have suggested is the key is making clear that, indeed, this is the on-ramp to a permanent ceasefire.
We had a couple of strange tweets from the Israeli prime minister over the weekend, in which he suggested, “Well, we’ve got our own conditions.” And then you had not only the ministers you’ve referred to, Amy — Ben-Gvir and Smotrich — but much of Netanyahu’s own Likud party unequivocally rejecting the deal.
And just now, appearing before the Israeli Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Prime Minister Netanyahu — because I think this is important — has said the following: “The deal will not stop the war, will not stop the fighting. It will bring a temporary ceasefire for 42 days to get the hostages out.” This directly contradicts, should he stand by his word, what President Biden said. And so the question now is: Do you allow constructive ambiguity? Netanyahu having forcefully rejected this, do you allow that to become duplicity and dishonesty, or do you act differently? The ball is back in President Biden’s court.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about Hamas’s response, as well. And again, to be clear, what we understand at this point, the first stage proposes a six-week ceasefire, during which the Israeli army would withdraw from the populated area of Gaza. Hostages, including the elderly and women, would be exchanged for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. Civilians would also return to all of Gaza, 600 trucks carrying humanitarian aid flooding the enclave daily. And then going on to the second phase, where Hamas and Israel would negotiate terms for a permanent end of hostilities. And also, even if Smotrich and Ben-Gvir — Ben-Gvir, who was not only charged with, but convicted of terrorism and supporting a terrorist group and inciting anti-Palestinian hatred — even if they were to leave the government, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the survivor, Netanyahu, would fall, which has often been said — right? — if the other parties came to his support.
DANIEL LEVY: Right. So, that’s a lot to unpack. Let’s start where you started, with the details of the plan. By the way, the plan has apparently been kept from the Israeli Cabinet, not the war cabinet but the broader cabinet in which the individuals you mentioned sit, interesting in and of itself. That plan, there are the details that you mentioned. What exactly will be the parameters of the IDF withdrawing from population centers? Can we actually get the humanitarian assistance in this time? We’ve had all these fantastical ideas: a seaport, airdrops. Why did we need to engage in these failed efforts? We knew they would fail. Because Israel has closed off the land crossings, which is how you get, normally, the humanitarian assistance, the necessary basics into Gaza. That’s one of the reasons that the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has asked the court to issue an arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant on the Israeli side, because of the use of starvation as a weapon of war. So, you’ve got the — what are the details around getting the humanitarian assistance in? What are the details of Palestinian prisoners to be released, alongside those Israelis being held in Gaza? That already is a lot that could unravel.
But what is, I think, even more crucial is: What are the maximal guarantees that can be given that this is not just a 42-day hiatus followed by yet further death, killing, destruction that we still now see every day, mass civilian killing events. And that is where I think the heightened tension exists between what appears to be — needs to be put to the test — the position of President Biden and the now clearly articulated position of the Israeli government. So, I think that is where the focus is for the Hamas party, because their position, relatively clear and consistent, has been full Israeli withdrawal and full end to the fighting.
Now, what exactly is the Hamas response? Well, here we have an internal Hamas leadership, quite difficult for that communication to take place, as you and your listeners can imagine, given the nature of the warfare, the tunnels where people are located. You have a leadership in exile. And so, teasing out the final answer might take time. But what Hamas seems to have said is, “We want a clear understanding of what is the commitment, that phase one leads to phase two, and it can’t end at the end of phase one.”
On the Netanyahu side, he now has an equation to deal with. As you say, he could conceivably have a majority in parliament, because Gantz’s party and Lapid’s party have both said they will provide a safety net for Netanyahu if he takes the deal, and that gives him the numbers. However, and let’s be clear, Gantz and Lapid have supported this war throughout. They’ve had no qualms about any of the violations of international law that it’s committed — just so we correctly characterize those folks. But they have said they will offer a safety net for this deal, and that’s important. However, that makes Netanyahu dependent on people who want to bring him down, who want him out of power, as well they should as the leaders, putatively, of the opposition. Therefore, if he wants governmental stability, he needs to stick with the original coalition that he formed, that was in power until October 7th, that continues to be in power, which includes his own party, many of whom have opposed this deal, and which includes these characters from the extreme right, alongside his own extremists, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. And Netanyahu, therefore — this is the crucial thing, Amy — he, therefore, looks at the proposal and says, “Is it more risky politically for me to say no to Biden or to say no to Ben-Gvir and Smotrich?”
And that is why I suggest to you that the question is for President Biden: Does he up the ante and make the cost of saying no greater, or does he allow Netanyahu to stare him down? And then Biden has the choice: “I can throw more goodies at the Israelis.” You know, the congressional invitation, that’s a goodie for Netanyahu. It’s not just the Republican leadership, as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries signed on that letter of invitation. “Do I try and package something more around this Saudi deal, that is clearly not budging Israeli internal politics? What more goodies can I throw?” That’s not going to work. It’s failed. It’s not our first rodeo, where Netanyahu undermines and goes ahead and does what he wants and stares down the American president. His other choice is to say, “You know what? Just as I kind of did in my speech, I’ll blame Hamas. Then I can say to my American voting public, 'I tried. It was Hamas's fault.’” Maybe it will work. I suggest people who are following this closely will find it hard to see that as credible. Or he can up the ante and actually, rather than have Netanyahu win this standoff, escalate the cost to Netanyahu, to the Israeli security establishment, to the Israeli public and the Israeli voting system of continuing with this war, continuing with the violations and war crimes that are being committed.
AMY GOODMAN: What about implementation? I mean, we saw what happened. The ICC responds to the emergency request of South Africa and says, “Yes, Israel must pull out of Rafah,” and the next day Israel bombs this tent city, kills 45 people, injures well over a hundred, charred bodies everywhere. How does this get implemented?
DANIEL LEVY: Yes, indeed. The court’s decisions are not self-implementing. It was the International Court of Justice that called for the provisional measures on two occasions now. The International Criminal Court has requested the issuing of arrest warrants, on both the Hamas and the Israeli side. In the absence of the ability for these decisions to be self-implemented, it rests on third-party actors to try and make it costly not to implement those.
Now, the U.S. is very well versed in how to make it costly for a party not to implement. That sometimes works, and it sometimes doesn’t work. But it means that you align with the decision of the international court. And I think the American voting public, some of whom — perhaps many of whom — care about this issue, deserve to know: Does a president, seeking reelection, who is apparently standing on a platform that “I respect law,” does he also respect international law? Because his reactions to the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court have been criminally dismissive. And therefore, if Israel’s most important ally, if the party providing the weaponry, without which none of this would have been possible, including the latest horrors of Palestinians going to so-called safe zones, which are nothing of the sort, if that party is ready to dismiss and not abide by international law, that’s important to know. It may well be in violation of U.S. law in doing this, as well.
And does the American president, therefore, want to bring this to a close? Because if he does, then, rather than, in a mealy-mouthed way, in a CNN interview saying, “Well, I’m reviewing one transfer of weapons,” he would actually make this costly, whether that’s the weaponry, whether that’s other parties taking steps that America doesn’t oppose. Look, there’s the Olympics next month — in a couple of months. Israelis care about things. As long as it’s just rhetoric, as long as Israelis don’t see a tangible cost, then I think it will be very difficult to budge the equation where Netanyahu says, “I can win this. I can carry on. I will get away with it, and the U.S. will continue to run cover for me.”
AMY GOODMAN: You are a former Israeli peace negotiator. What do you see happening, as we wrap up this discussion, at this point? The fact that, speaking from a podium, President Biden laid this out, this plan, and suggested that Israel was supporting it, and Hamas said they were open to it, how serious is this?
DANIEL LEVY: The president has to prove its seriousness. I don’t dismiss that it was important that he set this plan out, because he’s kind of now put, in a transparent way, this is the option. If you want to get your hostages out, there are good reasons for Israel to take this deal. Israel may not be exhausted, but it’s overextended, and there are elements of exhaustion. There are less and less hostages alive, if you want to see them home living. That’s why people, many of the hostages’ families are out on the streets screaming. If you don’t want these international actions to continue, then there is a path forward here.
However, if the Israeli decision, as it currently seems to be, that this war should continue, their military objectives are not going to be realized. They have not been realized. Hamas will not be vanquished in the way that Netanyahu suggests. The Palestinians cannot be defeated militarily. Some of the fantasy day-after plans are precisely that. They are magical, not realist thinking. But if you want that equation to change, then, as the leading Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea has said in a column today, he has said there will have to be internal and external pressure to change that equation.
So, I fear that, initially, what we are already seeing is that Netanyahu will try and get away with pooh-poohing the American president’s plan and trying to have the blame placed on Hamas. Will the U.S. go along with this? That’s not a question for Netanyahu. That’s a question for the administration. The chance — the chance that we actually see an end to these horrors is if it’s is too costly for Netanyahu to continue. We are not there yet. I’m not suggesting Hamas will be an easy negotiating partner, but their position has been quite clear and consistent, and their initial reaction to the Biden plan has followed suit.
AMY GOODMAN: Daniel Levy, we want to thank you for being with us, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, former Israeli peace negotiator under Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Yitzhak Rabin.
Up next, as protests continue around the world, we’ll go to the Brooklyn Museum, where over a thousand pro-Palestine protesters gathered on Friday. A number were arrested. Back in 20 seconds.
WASHINGTON, June 1 — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today released the following statement on the decision of Senate and House leaders of both political parties to extend an invitation to Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to address a joint meeting of Congress:
It is a very sad day for our country that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been invited – by leaders from both parties – to address a joint meeting of the United States Congress.
Israel, of course, had the right to defend itself against the horrific Hamas terrorist attack of October 7th, but it did not, and does not, have the right to go to war against the entire Palestinian people. Israel does not have the right to kill more than 34,000 civilians and wound over 80,000 – 5% of the population of Gaza. It does not have the right to orphan 19,000 children. It does not have the right to displace 75% of the people of Gaza from their homes. It does not have the right to damage or destroy over 60% of the housing in Gaza. It does not have the right to destroy the civilian infrastructure of Gaza, to obliterate water and sewage systems, and deny electricity to the people of Gaza. It does not have the right to annihilate Gaza’s health care system, knocking 26 hospitals out of service and killing more than 400 health care workers. It does not have the right to bomb all 12 of Gaza’s universities and 56 of its schools, or deny 625,000 children in Gaza the opportunity for an education.
It most certainly does not have the right to block humanitarian aid – food and medical supplies – from coming in to the desperate people of Gaza, creating the conditions for starvation and famine. It does not have the right to condemn hundreds of thousands of children to death by starvation. This is a clear violation of American and international law.
The International Criminal Court recently announced that it is seeking warrants for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas. The ICC is right. Both of these people are engaged in clear and outrageous violations of international law.
Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal. He should not be invited to address a joint meeting of Congress. I certainly will not attend.
Palestinian children are the biggest victims of the eight-month war in Gaza, with more than 15,000 killed since October, the enclave's Education Ministry has said.
Most of the dead were of nursery and primary school age, the ministry said on Tuesday as it marked the International Day of Innocent Child Victims of Aggression.
About 620,000 pupils have been prevented from going to school since October, with 88,000 university students unable to attend classes.
Israel's destruction of the Palestinian enclave has left Gazans with no functioning universities. Recent images of a soldier standing in front of burning books inside a university library have fuelled widespread anger.
Israeli soldiers have also assaulted the owner of the house, Mahmoud Jibreen al-Nawajaa, according to the Wafa news agency.
Nine people lived in the 200sq metres (2152sq feet) house located in Wadi al-Jawiya, east of Yatta, the report said.
Gaza remains under assault. Day 240 of the assault in the wave that began in October. Binoy Kampmark (DISSIDENT VOICE) points out, "Bloodletting as form; murder as fashion. The ongoing campaign in Gaza by Israel’s Defence Forces continues without stalling and restriction. But the burgeoning number of corpses is starting to become a challenge for the propaganda outlets: How to justify it? Fortunately for Israel, the United States, its unqualified defender, is happy to provide cover for murder covered in the sheath of self-defence." CNN has explained, "The Gaza Strip is 'the most dangerous place' in the world to be a child, according to the executive director of the United Nations Children's Fund." ABC NEWS quotes UNICEF's December 9th statement, ""The Gaza Strip is the most dangerous place in the world to be a child. Scores of children are reportedly being killed and injured on a daily basis. Entire neighborhoods, where children used to play and go to school have been turned into stacks of rubble, with no life in them." NBC NEWS notes, "Strong majorities of all voters in the U.S. disapprove of President Joe Biden’s handling of foreign policy and the Israel-Hamas war, according to the latest national NBC News poll. The erosion is most pronounced among Democrats, a majority of whom believe Israel has gone too far in its military action in Gaza." The slaughter continues. It has displaced over 1 million people per the US Congressional Research Service. Jessica Corbett (COMMON DREAMS) points out, "Academics and legal experts around the world, including Holocaust scholars, have condemned the six-week Israeli assault of Gaza as genocide." The death toll of Palestinians in Gaza is grows higher and higher. United Nations Women noted, "More than 1.9 million people -- 85 per cent of the total population of Gaza -- have been displaced, including what UN Women estimates to be nearly 1 million women and girls. The entire population of Gaza -- roughly 2.2 million people -- are in crisis levels of acute food insecurity or worse." THE NATIONAL notes, "Gaza death toll reaches 36,550, with 82,959 wounded." Months ago, AP noted, "About 4,000 people are reported missing." February 7th, Jeremy Scahill explained on DEMOCRACY NOW! that "there’s an estimated 7,000 or 8,000 Palestinians missing, many of them in graves that are the rubble of their former home." February 5th, the United Nations' Phillipe Lazzarini Tweeted:
Activists in Baghdad have called for a demonstration in the centre of the Iraqi capital later in the day to denounce Israel’s attacks against Palestinians in Gaza.
The protest is part of weekly rallies staged in several locations across Baghdad since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza in October.
-
Dreaming With Luna Luna2 hours ago
-
-
-
Weekend box office6 hours ago
-
-
Matteo Lane6 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Lauren Boebert keeps lying6 hours ago
-
-
Rudy G is creepy6 hours ago
-
