Franken is a better example than Biden’s defenders realize. Presidential contender Kirsten Gillibrand is likely told daily that her bid is doomed because she was the first to take a firm stand against her senatorial colleague after multiple allegations of sexual misbehavior emerged, but let’s review what actually happened. Minnesota replaced him with a Democratic woman, Tina Smith, who has voted consistently with the left. And rather than having Franken awkwardly questioning Brett Kavanaugh in the Senate Judiciary hearing, we got Kamala Harris taking his seatand bruising the nominee deeply with her questioning. What, precisely, did Democrats lose by giving Al Franken the “Al Franken treatment”?
Out of Gillibrand, Harris, and a multitude of other choices, the former vice president’s apologists want Biden as the alternative to an incumbent who himself has been accused by more than one dozen women of various forms of sexual harassment and violence. At a moment when we need a nuanced, comprehensive approach to dealing with all forms of sexual impropriety in our society at large, we see a political left instead making excuses for the misbehavior of one of their own. And why? Because they see the Scranton-born Biden as Trump Insurance.
But how can that be the case when Biden has a troubling past of positions on abortion, race, and other issueskey to mobilizing the Democratic electorate? There are already nearly 20 people running for president. If voters want centrist policies that will keep the party stagnant, they already have choices in the field who aren’t prone to being inappropriate with women.
While Trumpism may live on through his judges and diseased politics, Trump’s actual presidency is an unmitigated failure that the American people, outside of his calcified base, appears to recognize. I would venture to say that every single person currently running for the Democratic presidential nomination would make a better president. Same goes for others who have not yet announced their candidacies. (Despite my criticisms, I would include Biden in their number. Even Flores said that she’d vote for Biden over Trump.)
This is the time to vet those people, though. Trump may be the worst human to ever serve in the Oval Office. That doesn’t mean that Democrats should nominate just anyone. Or that they should let a politician slide on one of their supposedly fundamental principles just because he is affable and a lot of them get a kick out of his peccadillos.
We can't afford him. He's gaffe prone, he's grabby, his voting record's an embarrassment. We can't afford him.
"TV: Some want to time travel back to the sexist past" (Ava and C.I., THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW):
In the real world, we need this conversation. Joe Biden is invading people's space and making them uncomfortable and he thinks he can get away with it because he thinks a lot of Bully Men and Lacky Women will go along with him -- anything to defeat Trump, they cry!
Their paranoia is an indication of a highly fantasy life -- drug induced? We have no idea. But we do know that Joe is not a sure thing. It is 2019. One year away from the election. This time in 2007? Hillary Clinton was the front runner. How did that work out?
Joe has name recognition. That's the only reason he's polling highly. He is a very poor campaigner, he has a very poor record (he is not the protector of women -- he's the death toll of abortion rights, he betrayed Anita Hill and women on the issue of harassment in the work place, etc) and he's done nothing since leaving the vice presidency to justify a run four years later. Mainly, though, he's Walter Mondale showing up four years after the Democrats lost an election to insist that he can win.
Based on what?
The 'resistance' is in a panic and screaming that the media is treating this like 'e-mails!' (referring to Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal). This is a story, this is news and the 'resistance' only knows how to belittle it.
So are we going to have two years of the Democratic Party's cry baby section trying to carry an unfit candidate to victory or is the Democratic Party going to get serious about winning?
Lat Wednesday, Joe made news for a video he released. It was after efforts on his part to kill the news cycle by getting various women (Stephanie Carter was the first) to step forward and insist that they were not offended that Joe pawed them in public.
And in fairness to Stephanie and other women who came forward, some women do love public humiliation, they get off on it. So do some men. It's why they go to S&M dungeons or to sex clubs with their masters pulling their leashes.
And, if that's your kink, honey, go for it.
Just don't tell the lie that we all want to be humiliated in public, because we don't all want that.
And we don't all get off on being treated like inferiors.
We have every right to expect that when we meet with a politician, they will not run their hands over our bodies. The political game has always been shake hands with adults and kiss babies. Not sniff the hair of women as you wrap yourself around them from behind.
Their paranoia is an indication of a highly fantasy life -- drug induced? We have no idea. But we do know that Joe is not a sure thing. It is 2019. One year away from the election. This time in 2007? Hillary Clinton was the front runner. How did that work out?
Joe has name recognition. That's the only reason he's polling highly. He is a very poor campaigner, he has a very poor record (he is not the protector of women -- he's the death toll of abortion rights, he betrayed Anita Hill and women on the issue of harassment in the work place, etc) and he's done nothing since leaving the vice presidency to justify a run four years later. Mainly, though, he's Walter Mondale showing up four years after the Democrats lost an election to insist that he can win.
Based on what?
The 'resistance' is in a panic and screaming that the media is treating this like 'e-mails!' (referring to Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal). This is a story, this is news and the 'resistance' only knows how to belittle it.
So are we going to have two years of the Democratic Party's cry baby section trying to carry an unfit candidate to victory or is the Democratic Party going to get serious about winning?
Lat Wednesday, Joe made news for a video he released. It was after efforts on his part to kill the news cycle by getting various women (Stephanie Carter was the first) to step forward and insist that they were not offended that Joe pawed them in public.
And in fairness to Stephanie and other women who came forward, some women do love public humiliation, they get off on it. So do some men. It's why they go to S&M dungeons or to sex clubs with their masters pulling their leashes.
And, if that's your kink, honey, go for it.
Just don't tell the lie that we all want to be humiliated in public, because we don't all want that.
And we don't all get off on being treated like inferiors.
We have every right to expect that when we meet with a politician, they will not run their hands over our bodies. The political game has always been shake hands with adults and kiss babies. Not sniff the hair of women as you wrap yourself around them from behind.
Repeating, we can't afford Joe Biden.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Our thoughts are with the families of the three service members killed today in Afghanistan.
Three more lives lost in the endless wars.
That's the reality and reality scares a lot of people. The laughable Glenn Kessler at THE WASHINGTON POST is scared by these remarks by Beto O'Rourke:
“And then if we really mean it, if we really mean
it, we will ensure that this country does not start yet another war
before every peaceful, diplomatic, nonviolent alternative is explored
and pursued. And those wars that we ask our fellow Americans, these
service members to fight on our behalf, 17 years and counting in
Afghanistan, 27 years and counting in Iraq, let’s bring these wars to a
close and bring these service members back home to their families, to
their communities and to their country.”
— Former congressman Beto O’Rourke (D) in El Paso on March 30, 2019
“Do
we really want to fight wars forever? Twenty-seven years in Iraq, 18
years, almost, in Afghanistan and counting with no definition or
strategy or end in sight. Trillions of dollars we are spending to fight
and to rebuild countries that we’ve invaded.”
— O’Rourke in Ames, Iowa, on April 3
“Given
what others are already sacrificing in this country, men and women who
are deployed right now in wars that have gone for 17, 27 years in
Afghanistan and Iraq.”
— O’Rourke in Storm Lake, Iowa, on April 5
Glenn sets out to destroy Beto because that's what Glenn does.
Liars keep wars going and there's no bigger liar in the world than Glenn Kessler. He disputes the timeline that Beto offers -- though he does note it's the same one the Air Force's vice chief of staff Gen Stephen W. Wilson has offered in Congressional testimony.
Little Glenn knows so much better than everyone, doesn't he?
Which is why his timeline includes -- oh, wait, it doesn't include the sanctions during the Clinton presidency that killed over a half million.
Mad Maddie Albright, taking a moment from feeding on the bones of the dead to declare that "the price is worth it."
It's a funny sort of timeline that fails to note the long, long war the US government has carried out on Iraq.
Of course, Glenn being the whore he is, he pretends that troops left in 2011.
They didn't.
Dropping back to the December 12, 2011 snapshot:
US House Rep Ron Paul:
Well -- well I want to -- extend the tax cut, because if you don't, you
raise the taxes. But I want to pay for it. And it's not that
difficult. In my proposal, in my budget, I want to cut hundreds of
billions of dollars from overseas. The trust fund is gone. But how are
we gonna restore it? We have to quit the spending. We have to quit
this being the policemen of the world. We don't need another war in
Syria and another war in Iran. Just get rid of the embassy in Baghdad.
We're pretending we're coming home from Baghdad. We built an embassy
there that cost a billion dollars and we're putting 17,000 contractors
in there and pretending our troops are coming home.
Yes,
a lot of people want to pretend things are different than they actually
are. It was an important point -- made by someone who truly was against
the Iraq War. And one of the few functioning members of the press
noted that on yesterday's Meet The Press (NBC).
Ted
Koppel: The point is Ron Paul was almost right last night. You
remember, and it was one of the overlooked points in the debate, he
spoke of the 17,000, he spoke about civilian contractors who are still
in Iraq. We do have 17,000 people still in Iraq. They're not all
civilian contractors, but a great many of them are. You've got a
consulate in Basra, a consulate in Erbil. The one in Basra is just less
than 20 miles from the Iranian border; 1,320 Americans down there.
They are rocketed two or three times a week. They are about as
vulnerable as any Americans have been since 1979 at the embassy in
Tehran. And if they were to be frontally attacked, and I'm suggesting
that that's not unlikely at all, you're going to see the U.S. military
come back in. Because, while the ambassador said, "No, no, no, we're
going to rely on the Iraqis to do the job," there is no way that the
U.S. military will wait for the Iraqis to save those Americans, and
they're going to need saving.
Also on Meet The Press,
they highlighted a small segment of an interview Ted did with US
Ambassador James Jeffery as part of a report to air tonight on Rock
Center (NBC):
MR. KOPPEL: I realize you
can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that there is a
healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still be active
in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI here.
You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of who
all falls under your control?
AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.
Yes,
the CIA will still be there (and in a new subdivision in Turkey) and so
will Special Ops. And this has been addressed. But there aren't a lot
of grown ups in the press. When Ted left Nightline, it wasn't just that program that suffered, it was the quality of news.
Rock Center airs tonight at 10:00 pm. EST and Pacific, 9:00 pm Central. Rock Center's Tom Bettag notes of Ted Koppel's report tonight:
But
is America really leaving? Many people have the impression that the
U.S. presence -- and U.S. government spending -- is finally ending in
Iraq. Koppel makes it clear that this is far from the truth.
He
tells the story of some 16,000 people who will be left behind. Koppel
and his team obtained extraordinary access to the U.S. embassy, the
largest embassy in the world, with a footprint the size of Vatican
City. He also traveled to the U.S. consulate in Basra, which faces
regular rocket attacks from Iranian-funded militia.
For them, it isn't over; it's just about to begin.
So grown ups should tune in to Rock Center tonight on NBC.
It's a little late in the game for the self-declared fact checker Glenn Kessler to pretend that Ted Koppel and his reporting never existed. But liars lie.
Awhile back, Beto was a press darling. Less so today. What changed? He's speaking about real issues. This is the second wave of press attacks on him regarding Iraq. If Beto would be part of the war machine, the press would give him the sloppy, open mouthed kiss they do Joe Biden. While the press enthusiasm wanes, Beto is reaching voters. There's more enthusiasm for him than any other candidate besides Bernie Sanders to the groups we're speaking to. Will be heading to campuses in the south over the next few weeks and it will be interesting to see if he has support there as well. But he is very popular with college students and one of the reasons is because he talks seriously about issues like the never-ending wars.
Our infrastructure is crumbling. We need leadership that puts #PeopleBeforeProfits, to end regime change wars, the new Cold War and arms race, and keep the money in people’s pockets and/or rebuild our country’s bridges, airports, roads, sewer lines, etc.
US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard is correct that we can't pour all the money into these endless wars and still be able to take care of the infrastructure here at home. Tulsi is also running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.
cc: @TulsiGabbard
Tulsi has a following on campuses. It would be larger -- and will probably increase with the debates -- were some not so eager to smear her.
Hilarious. @JillFilipovic wrote a whole column about how young female candidates aren't taken seriously, whereas young male candidates like 37-year-old Mayor Pete get celebrated. She brings up Tulsi, but only to dismiss her. Tulsi is the same age as Pete
Jill's not really a feminist. She's a whore and a lot worse. I need to disclose, as I have noted many times before, that she asked Rebecca for links and promised them back but never delivered. That's a whore, that's a bitch, that's a liar. If I were Cher, I'd trot out the c-word. I have no respect for her. While people were protesting the Iraq War what was Jill doing? Oh, yeah, her elitist ass was on a beach posting bikini photos of herself. Oh, Jill, you're a woman, that doesn't make you a feminist. You've never addressed war and peace in any serious context. You're the ESQUIRE do-me feminism of the 90s, push-up bra supplied on demand.
She's not going to take Tulsi seriously because Tulsi stands for real issues and Jill stands for nothing. Post some more T&A photos, Jill! That's about what you can handle as you pose as a feminist.
If your scope of the suffering women endure does not include war, you're really not a feminist. In fact, I doubt you have a fully functioning brain. In any war zone, women and girls suffer even more.
She's a homely piece of trash who should have her jaw fixed before posing for attempted beauty shots. She's completing her in depth series on tipping. Yes, first world problems, that's all the fake ass can manage. War and peace? Her brain doesn't function on that level.
People say I'm a bitch -- I agree, by the way -- but I'm a bitch who has used her time online to focus on serious issues. I'm appalled frequently by the fact that so many other feminists online think doing a gossipy and glossy pop culture scope means they've done heavy lifting. They haven't.
(I'm also aware that a lot of serious feminist bloggers left the online world in 2008 due to the attacks on all of us who called out the sexism aimed at Hillary. I understand that was upsetting to many. It didn't bother me because I don't seek out support and love. On any set, I'm always more comfortable if the director hates my guts than if he or she likes me. I can do my work there -- or online -- just fine if I don't have to worry about the expectations of others. But a lot of women left because of the abuse and the threats of 2008. I miss many of them -- especially Delilah Boyd.)
A lot of women -- Jill and Samantha Bee, to name only two -- are working overtime to assist in the smearing of Tulsi. She just finished her latest National Guard rotation a few days ago -- I guess that's how Samantha, Jill and the others 'honor' those who serve?
Tulsi is real and that is what her supporters respond to. The smears have made some people hesitant to support her but that's fine, we're early in the process and efforts like those have a way of forming stronger bonds between the candidates and their supporters.
(It's called campaign politics -- poli sci, Jill, study it some time.)
Still waiting for the US press to cover the flooding in Iraq.
#Iraq: Responding to the needs of the Directorate of Health in Missan following recent floods that hit the area, World Health Organization w/ generous support of donors, sent a consignment of emergency kits & medical supplies to support the Directorate
bit.ly/2IlOahw
bit.ly/2IlOahw
Though the end of winter and start of spring have brought seasonal floods here since ancient times, this spring has been severe in some areas of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan. go.nasa.gov/2IkYUN3 #MODIS #flooding 
NASAEarth
NASAEarth
Though the end of winter and start of spring have brought seasonal floods here since ancient times, this spring has been severe in some areas of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan. go.nasa.gov/2IkYUN3 #MODIS #flooding pic.twitter.com/YUtci0qZeA
Iraq: Iraq: Floods - Mar 2019 - ngo-impact.com/2019/04/09/ira…
Press reports:The actions taken by the government in Iraq to hinder the flood in (Wasit) &(Missan)south of the country;are not practical especially after opening a gap west of the Tigris River on the pretext of absorbing the water;which will cause sinking of the villages there.
Let's wind down with this from the Center for Constitutional Rights, about the Abu Ghraib trial being suspended:
Judge Brinkema issued an order April 3 suspending our April 23 trial date; CACI is seeking an expedited appeal of the ruling that this for-profit contractor doesn't get "derivative sovereign immunity" for grave breaches of law.
The next step is an expedited briefing in April and May, before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals – the 5th time this case goes to appellate court. We have fought to keep this case alive over the last 11 years of litigation. Our clients deserve justice and redress.
Survivors deserve to have their stories heard and to see CACI held accountable for its role in torture and other human rights violations at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Justice requires truth and accountability. We will continue to fight. Stay tuned.
Head to our case page for more information.
The Center for Constitutional Rights and Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute pen joint submission to UN Special Repporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
The Center for Constitutional Rights, in partnership with the Human Rights in the U.S. Project of the Columbia Law School (HRI), sent a submission March 29 to Professor Philip Alston, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.
The submission is in response to the Special Rapporteur's request for input regarding what is known as the "Recognition, Institutionalization, and Accountability Framework" (RIA Framework) for Economic and Social Rights, a framework that outlines three crucial ingredients for the protection of social and economic rights to be realized: recognition, institutionalization, and accountability.
In February, he asked for public input about what conditions and institutions have contributed to the success or stood in the way of the protection of economic and social rights for those living in poverty conditions.
Our submission touches on four points: (1) how the lack of legal recognition and institutionalization of economic and social rights marginalizes individuals living in poverty; (2) recent federal efforts to penalize and deny permanent immigration status to individuals who seek basic social protections (i.e., the proposed public charge rule, which we oppose); (3) some promising local initiatives as a result of grassroots organizing; and (4) suggested actions to improve recognition and protection of economic and social rights, even in the absence of constitutional and legal recognition of these fundamental rights.
The document can be read in full on our website.
Upcoming events: "The Women of Cancer Alley" Freedom Flicks screening and more
- April 18: "The Women of Cancer Alley" – a Freedom Flicks screening: a ground-breaking collection of short films produced by women who live among chemical plants, tank farms, and refineries in the area along the Mississippi River known as "Cancer Alley," in south Louisiana. Make sure to RSVP!
- April 12: Securing Basic Economic and Social Rights by Challenging the Criminalization of Poverty, Identity and Status where The Center for Constitutional Rights's very own Brittany Thomas will be speaking on a panel concerning laws and policies for the protection of human rights.
The following sites updated:
