I hate it.
Not our review, I hate the album. My daughter was doing me a favor by insisting upon Joni for the last few days. (She just wants to hear Joni's live album -- three vinyl discs -- over and over.) When I finally got to listen, I was so disappointed. It's an awful album. There are some good songs on it. There are some songs on it you'll be indifferent to. It doesn't work as an album. Sam should have stuck with the album recorded and planned. Sam chickened out and the result is not worth listening to.
On "they/them," I hate using it to discuss the album because it gives Sam a pass. "They have blown it with this album." If you say that, you're apparently speaking of plural so it's Sam, the producer, the label, etc. Sam's the one who blew it. It all falls on Sam.
I really hate the album. It should have been released as it was planned and that hsould have happened six months ago as planned. Instead, Sam dickered with the album and it's hideous. From our review:
Instead of being dated, LOVE GOES is a bad haircut. We've all been there, right? You go in and you find out Ginger (or whomever) is out sick and, though only Ginger knows your hair, you're pressed for time so you say fine, whatever and let some stranger cut your hair. It seems like time stopped but there you are at home, staring in the mirror and shaking your head in disgust. Especially over that one section that appears to have been overlooked by the not-Ginger-stylist. So you grab the scissors and tell yourself that you're just going to fix that one area. Then it looks worse so you try to fix another and then another and then . . .
That's what Sam did. Sam had a solid album -- the bonus tracks make that clear, the bonus tracks were originally supposed to be the heart of the album, integral to the album. But because of Covid and because of being a scared bunny, they/them destroyed their own album. Sam tinkered with it and tinkered with it until its a useless and soggy piece of garbage. The album's few good songs share space with tracks here that aren't bad -- they're worse than bad, they're filler. Filler, they just make you yawn. Who would've thought that was possible from Sam Smith?
I was talking to C.I. because Mike saw Chris Hayes' television program Friday night -- how ironic because it's the night of the Friday snapshot where, that morning, C.I. was noting that she likes Chris so she avoids his show. So Mike sees Chris going off on Alito about something Alito said and how it's an audition for FOX NEWS -- according to Chris which he meant as an insult. Mike's saying, "Ask her what she thinks," so I do. She says, "Oh, but it's not a problem when RBG did the same over and over again?" I mention that now because Jonathan Turley got up early this morning -- and that rhymes. He's already writing as his site and he's writing about the Alito reaction:
This week I criticized Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito for a speech that he gave to the Federalist Society. That should come as no surprise since I have spent two decades criticizing justices for such controversial public addresses. However, I was struck in the last couple days by the politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and liberal faculty members who are falling over themselves in utter disgust with such public commentary from a sitting justice. For years, I criticized the far more egregious comments from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg without a peep of protest from people like Warren. Instead, Ginsburg became the “Notorious RBG.” There is, however, no place for a Notorious SAA in the media or academia.
I admittedly hold a more traditional and cloistered view of public role of justices. I have been particularly critical of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who clearly relished appearances before ideologically supportive groups. We have seen in the last couple decades more and more public speaking by justices in both books and speeches on contemporary issues. I have called this trend the “rise of the celebrity justice.”
As I previously noted,Justice Alito addressed attacks on religious liberty and free speech, including citing past cases and disputes before the Court. He also declared “The Covid crisis has highlighted constitutional fault lines” in attacking such rights.Alito also launched into liberals who he views as threatening religious rights, noting that “[i]n certain corners, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.” Alito attacked the Obama administration’s “ protracted campaign” and “unrelenting attack” against the Little Sisters of the Poor.” He also criticized a Washington State for requiring pharmacies to provide emergency contraception. He maintained that such emergency contraception “destroys an embryo after fertilization.” All of those issues have been and will again be before the Court. Indeed, as Alito was making these ill-considered comments, the Catholic Church was coming before his Court in these very issues.
So there is reason to be critical of Alito. However, the voices are coming from people who once cheered on such comments from Ginsburg. Now however there was nothing but utter disgust. This was not “Notorious” but nauseating.
That's it for me. I really wanted to love Sam's album. I wish I did. But it shouldn't have been released. It's not an album.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Friday, November 13, 2020. Sorry, guess we're team Glenn. He's attacked again and we examine his latest attacker.
Glenn Greenwald, Paul Street. One struggles to tell the truth, the other just whores. Glenn's not the whore. Paul Street has a post at COUNTERPUNCH that is just full of one lie after another. He has suffered, he tells you, for his truth telling about Barack. Uh, no. No he hasn't. He whored for Barack at key moments and did so intentionally. We stopped noting him in 2008 as a result. So for him to show in 2020 and claim to be a truth teller? No. He ran offense for Barack and he can pretend all he wants, but that is reality. He's angry, Paul is, because Donald Trump is a fascist. No, he's not and that's really sad to say when you consider how many people have suffered through fascism. It's a term we toss around loosely in the west -- some of us. I've never applied it to any political opponent. But the brain challenged like Paul want to do so.
It was racism -- a charge Paul loves to make and has loved making it since 2008 -- for Donald to have told four women to go back home, members of the Squad in Congress. Was it? That is your interpretation of it. You may be right, you may be wrong. But it is not a fact. I heard Katie Halper misquoting Donald recently on another time when he was supposedly racist. I know Bob Somerby has noted the full quote about twenty times since Donald uttered it and explained how the media distorted it. It did no good for Bob to try. I have other things to do.
But let me say something: Naomi Klein, go the hell home.
Does that make me a racist?
I have no idea why Donald said what he said about the Squad. I doubt, honestly, that he knows why he said what he said. He's a hot head and always has been and that's one of the main reasons that I do not like him (and he does not like me which is completely fair). He would sometimes, over the years, attempt to say hello to me at social functions and I would walk away from him without responding. I do not like him.
But I'm aware of that and try not to filter every response to what he said or did through my 'Trump hate filter.'
I think Naomi Klein should go home because I'm sick of her interfering in our elections.
Yes, she's half American. But her father chose to leave the US military and go to Canada. I applaud him for being a war resister. But I don't think his daughter gets citizenship or the right to interfere in US elections as a result. War Resister Kimberly Rivera was forced back to the US -- and Paul Street didn't write one word about her. She and her kids can participate in US politics. But the notion that Naomi, who did not grow up here, who was raised in Canada and born in Canada, has the right to keep sticking her damn nose into US elections?
No. And I didn't like it when she did it in 2008 and called it out the first minute she used a book event as a campaign rally. Born in Canada, raised in Canada, married to a Canadian, voting in Canadian elections, get your nose out of our business.
I know Justin Trudeau and you don't see me butting into Canada's elections. I almost did because Justin was never what people thought he was. I almost quoted from a letter his father wrote to me. (And another time, when he was campaigning, I almost ripped apart his mother over an event that I know of but was never reported on. I didn't do that either.) We cover Iraq here. I have never ever spent a campaign telling the Iraqi people who they should vote for or who they should support. Anytime any Iraqi politician has been campaigning and sent a press release, we have noted it -- regardless of the party, regardless of the person, regardless of anything I might feel.
Members of the Squad are American citizens and those born elsewhere suffered a great deal to get here. I respect that. I don't think Donald does and it wouldn't be in his character to do so. Donald's world has always revolved around Donald. He's not a deep thinker. His responses are immediate and they are obvious.
It has been hilarious the last four years to watch all these faux 'resistance' types -- in the media and out -- try to read the tea leaves and figure out what Donald meant when he said whatever. They're spending far more time on it than Donald ever did. He doesn't think, he just lashes out like the angry child he is -- one who is hurting.
Paul Street loves to pretend he was on the side of right. No, Paul, you were on the side of snide.
Snide and bitchy can be fun. Ava and I used to do it all the time in our media pieces and it was fun -- saying watching SUPERNATURAL was like watching gay porn with actors too stupid to take off their clothes? Bitchy and fun. But we always tried to follow David Letterman's edict about being a gnat trying to sink the Love Boat -- meaning you aim high. You target those in power. Paul didn't aim high. He slammed the citizens and did so in bitchy and mean ways that only revealed how much hatred he has for the electorate and anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Glenn and I often do not agree. I am not a Glenn fan. I do value his work. I do think he tries to be fair and I do believe he lacks any hostility for the people in general. That puts him so far above Paul Street and so many others.
Before we get to Glenn, Ava and my "TV: Who's been sleeping in my bed?" finally went up. We note the ridiculous Paul Reickhoff and we considered calling him out for his recent music 'critique.' In the end, we didn't. But he was praising a musician who is a known racist in the industry and who, as late as 1986, was using the N-word in published interviews. The man is a racist today and has always been one.
I bring that up because Paul's swearing by Noam Chomsky. I know Noam -- for decades now. And I wouldn't swear by him. I like Noam but I wouldn't swear by him and Noam knows why that is and hopefully he'll address that at some point. Otherwise, I'll address it if this site's around when he passes. Tick-tock, Noam, tick-tock. Paul swears by a lot of people. His list of four doesn't impress me at all. And I've already called out Cornel West in the last month or two here.
Paul reminds me of a photographer I know. I've known Demi Moore for years. She's a wonderful person. One time, the photographer was at a function at my home and Demi was present and she refused to talk to Demi. That's how much hatred she had -- and towards this woman she never met. Fine, everyone doesn't have to like everyone. Whatever.
But then Demi's on the cover of ROLLING STONE in 1995. And photographer calls me and is just raving over Demi. I'm like, "Where did you talk to her?" Photographer didn't. Photographer read the ROLLING STONE cover story. And suddenly Demi was a goddess.
Now Demi's a wonderful person but I don't think you're going to learn that in a feature article. I really don't think so. Paul is like that photographer. He doesn't know anything he's talking about. He couldn't give you the history of Angela Davis, for example, without pulling up WIKIPEDIA. He comes off like a little kid flipping through his baseball cards, not like a functioning adult trying to offer a critique.
He's furious with some college student (or someone who was a college student in 2016) and he writes about that. At least his nonsense about Glenn Greenwald has him going after someone of stature. He pretends that he's done something the last four years and praises himself for it. He hasn't done anything. He's not written of War Resisters. He's not covered the ongoing wars. He's not sought to spotlight the plight of the Palestinians. He's been the equivalent of a Hollywood gossip columnist writing exactly what he knows his readers want. There's no strength, there's no courage and there's no lasting value to his work. He's so pathetic, he even apologizes for voting for Jill Stein in 2016.
I really can't stand people who won't own their votes. I say over and over, it's your vote, use it as you want to (which includes not voting), vote for whom speaks to you. I say that as long as you're doing that, your vote is not wasted.
But these people -- this includes photographer as well -- who come along after the vote and start scraping and bowing about how they voted? I can't stand them.
I've noted I voted for Al Gore in 2000. I've noted that I did not vote for Ralph Nader and that the notion of doing so -- never a strong possibility -- was ended with ROLLING STONE's 2000 interview with him where he attacked feminist leaders for not joining him on the very important issue of high heels. Ralph was weak on choice. Instead of being honest about that, he chose to attack women. If you voted for him, that's fine, but that interview ensured I would never, ever vote for him. And I think only now are people -- drive-bys -- starting to get how much I dislike Ralph. There are all these e-mails about how in 2008 we noted this and we noted that and -- Anytime someone running for office sends something in, we will note it. I'm not here to tell you how to vote and if I do endorse in a race it's one I can vote in. I despise people like Alyssa Milano who go all over the country butting in with other communities. You are not a resident and you can't vote in that election? Then butt the hell out. I love Lloyd Doggett and I love Sally Field but I feel the same way anytime Sally's hitting me up for money for Lloyd or campaigning for Lloyd. Sally, of course, has a grace that Alyssa lacks so it's not as annoying but, yes, it does bother me.
Our officials are supposed to represent us. It's not my business who Atlanta elects for this post or that post because I don't live in Atlanta.
The only thing I ever endorse completely is vote for who you believe in. If you do that, you didn't waste your vote. I don't care for Joe or Donald. If you voted for either of them because they spoke to you, then your vote wasn't wasted. Good for you and I'm happy for you.
This nonsense of after an election whining? Don't. I don't want to hear it. The election is over and you voted how you voted. If you were happy with it when you voted, that's great. If you're not now, let it go because it really no longer matters unless you're in the process of inventing a time machine.
Kevin Zeese passed away this fall. It is a great loss. But no one can say that Kevin wasted his life. He fought for the issues he believed in. He worked to popularize those issues -- he worked to do that and he did do that. Yes, he was working on Howie Hawkins' campaign this go round but he didn't spend time in between campaigns endlessly offering sop the way Paul Street did and does. Kevin focused on real issues. He (and his partner Margaret Flowers) covered real issues like debt and Medicare For All His life and his work mattered.
Paul Street is the equivalent of David Broder and all he has to offer is gas baggery. He'd fit right at home on the Sunday chat & chews if they'd have him (which they won't). There's no deep thinking, there's no strong core of ideas and beliefs. There's just endless chatter about 'hot topics' -- that he's probably cribbing from THE VIEW.
Okay, Glenn. In his latest, he's addressing the way the Hunter Biden story was silenced by the media and tech giants -- from his article at SUBSTACK:
The Biden campaign immediately embraced this evidence-free claim about Russia from Schiff and the intelligence community to justify its refusal to answer questions about the revelations from this reporting. “I think we need to be very, very clear that what he's doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation," said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield when asked about the possibility that Trump would cite the Hunter emails at the last presidential debate. Biden’s senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on MSNBC: “if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation."
Far worse were the numerous media outlets that spread this evidence-free claim of Kremlin involvement in lieu of reporting on the contents of the emails. Just watch how CBS Evening News with Norah O’Donnell purported to “report” on this story — an emphasis on the Russian origins of the materials, featuring a former “FBI operative” who admitted he had no evidence for the speculation CBS nonetheless aired, all with no mention of the serious questions raised by the revelations themselves:
As I noted when I announced my resignation from The Intercept, a major reason I harbored so much cynicism and scorn for their claim that my story on the Hunter Biden emails had failed to meet their high-minded, rigorous editorial and fact-checking scrutiny was because that same publication was just was one of the many anti-Trump news outlets which, in the name of manipulating the outcome of the election on behalf of the Democratic Party, had mindlessly laundered the CIA/Schiff narrative without the slightest adversarial skepticism or, worse, without a whiff of evidence.
Just one week before they refused to publish my own article, they published this remarkable disinformation, featuring an utterly reckless paragraph that was nothing more than stenographic servitude to the intelligence community and Adam Schiff. Just marvel at what was approved by the fastidious editorial and fact-checking machinery of that “adversarial” publication concerning claims by ex-CIA operatives:
Their latest falsehood once again involves Biden, Ukraine, and a laptop mysteriously discovered in a computer repair shop and passed to the New York Post, thanks to Trump crony Rudy Giuliani. The New York Post story was so rancid that at least one reporter refused to put his byline on it. The U.S. intelligence community had previously warned the White House that Giuliani has been the target of a Russian intelligence operation to disseminate disinformation about Biden, and the FBI has been investigating whether the strange story about the Biden laptop is part of a Russian disinformation campaign. This week, a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation.
Numerous other media outlets disseminated the same CIA propaganda — including The Economist (“Marc Polymeropoulos, the CIA’s former acting chief of operations for the Europe and Eurasia Mission Centre…notes that ‘the use of actual material is a hallmark of Russian disinformation campaigns’”) and (needless to say) MSNBC’s Joy Reid program (“Hunter Biden story an ‘obvious Russian plot’ McFaul believes”).
I don't watch MSNBC -- I don't have time for garbage. If I'm watching the news, it's generally in a foreign language -- French or Arabic -- sometimes Spanish. Most nights, whatever makes the news has already been endlessly discussed throughout the day. But I thought Glenn was going to touch on something that he didn't. So Ava and I might grab it at THIRD. There was a very interesting historical moment on MSNBC this election cycle that echoed the lead up to the Iraq War. And it was interesting for who it came from.
Anyway, Glenn has risked a great deal in his journalism career. It's more than I ever would have expected of him. I praised him for his journalistic work on the Ed Snowden story -- repeatedly praised him -- but recent events argue that Glenn deserves a great deal more respect than I've ever granted him.
He writes about topics others don't want to touch. I admire that. I am a huge believer in PROJECT CENSORED (and if they'd put something up on YOUTUBE, we'd highlight them again).
I like Chris. I know some don't. Jimmy Dore doesn't like Chris. Jimmy watches Chris so he's entitled to that opinion. Chris was there when it counted and I don't forget that so I avoid his program because I'd prefer not to say anything harsh about him. Ava and I have tackled him twice at THIRD. Otherwise, I'd rather not say anything mean.
Is Iraq like Covid 19? I don't think so. For one thing, we're hopeful that the pandemic may end at some point -- the hoped for finish line keeps moving though, so maybe it might end up the forever scourge the way Iraq has ended up the forever war.
But currently, I don't see it. I'm also aware that there haven't been a lot of good responses from any governments. Margaret Kimberely has rightly noted that the Chinese government appears to have had some success but our xenophobia and our government's hopes for war with China mean that we won't really go into exploring that.
Maybe that's how Covid is like Iraq? Everyone knows it's wrong and it's hurtful and killing people but no one wants to really discuss how to end it?
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) is calling on the Trump administration to dramatically reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in the coming weeks.
In a letter sent to President Trump on Wednesday, the Arizona Republican — who has been a vocal critic of the United States having a prolonged military presence in the region — said that the country’s involvement in the countries has “been enormously costly in lives and dollars.”
Biggs argued that despite the U.S.’s efforts, Afghanistan still faces many of the same issues seen when American troops first arrived.
We're here because we're here? Let's drop back to the February 8, 2012 snapshot:
That is true today -- but everything above after "we're here because we're here?" is from a 2015 snapshot. Nothing changes if nothing changes.
New content at THIRD:
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Omar Fadhel
- TV: Who's been sleeping in my bed?
- Oh, look, ICH is as 'progressive' as CBS in 2008
- And the AP created presidency
- Tweet of the week
- YES. WE'RE GOING THERE.
- Feminism, Interrupted: Book Launch & Talk
- Margaret Kimberley - Will the US Presidential Elec...
- Gloria La Riva speaks in Wisconsin 10/10/2020 - Co...
- #TheJimmyDoreShow Disabled Veteran Struggles With ...
- Trump's lame-duck presidency
- Briahna Joy Gray: Pelosi, Moderate Dems IGNORE The...
- This edition's playlist
The following sites updated: