Like Maria Said Paz: 2024-11-17

Saturday, November 23, 2024

Melissa Etheridge

I used to do weekend pieces on music noting five songs I liked by an artist. I figured I'd drop back in on that this weekend. Singer-songwriter Melissa Etheridge.

1) "The Weakness In Me."

I was on auto-play on YOUTUBE and this song came on. Had never heard it before an hour ago. Really like it and it's why I decided to note Melissa.

2) "I'm The Only One"

This is one of her big hits and one of her great songs. I'm noting the official video; however, this is a song you can stream her doing live as well and never be disappointed. She can alter it a little bit from time to time but it's such a great song that a little faster, a little slower, emphasizing one section or the other, it always works.

3) Melissa covers Taylor Swift's "Lover"

I really never heard this song until Melissa did the cover. It was on the background many times, but I never really heard the song and got the song until Melissa brought her own touch to it.

4) Melissa covers Billy Joel's "She's Always A Woman To Me."

Billy Joel wrote some great songs and this is one of them. Stan noted Billy in "Tonight I hand out the Emmys" earlier this week.

5) Melissa covers Stevie Nicks' "Landslide."

"Landslide" is a classic. It was first recorded by Fleetwood Mac. Stevie wrote it and she's covered it solo as well. In addition, Smashing Pumpkins and the Chicks have recorded it.

Melissa is a solid songwriter ("Yes, I Am," "Angels Would Fall," "Come To My Window," "Scarecrow," "Fearless Love," etc) but she might want to consider doing a covers album. When she does a cover, she brings a fresh take to it and, sadly, that's not the case for a lot of artists doing covers. But she makes it unique and she could probably really do a solid album of covers that could make a cohesive statement -- something few are able to do.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Friday, November 11, 2024. White priv seems to be the only thing they refuse to check as Katrina vanden Heuvel and her merry band of fellow racists lead THE NATION further astry.

If it doesn't apply to you, let it roll down your back. I'VE HAD IT. Often a good podcast. A video from it went up yesterday while I was dictating the snapshot because I had pm on the time stamp and not am for the one that was supposed to go up before the snapshot. As I was dictating the snapshot, I learned it was past the half hour and nothing had gone up. So I asked what was new and learned I'VE HAD IT was new.

That video was a disappointment and I'm glad to explain why. Two White Women discussing politics? Love it. Can be great. Discussing entertainment? No problem. We can all use a break.

Hiring someone to hang your Christmas lights?

I would not have okayed that had I know that was the topic -- the title did not make clear what the topic was. I would've said, "Find another Cher interview and post it so everyone knows about her new book that came out this week" or I would've said, "Find a new Cynthia Erivo music video" since WICKED comes out today. Instead, I okayed the video I hadn't seen and there were complaints on the video being posted here. My apologies. I understand and it shouldn't have been posted, my apologies.

What made it so irritating to so many -- I still haven't streamed it myself -- was that the two women are tired of being over talked to -- ok. But not ok when they're talking about workers they are hiring.

Ladies, you're White and you came off entitled and if a butt crack was shown by one of the workers on or around your house, "Oh the horror!" Grow the hell up. It wasn't that funny when Dan Aykroyd did it on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE -- the humor was always in Gilda Radner and Bill Murray's reaction -- and it wasn't the end of the world when Karen on WILL & GRACE had to 'deal' with it -- she also sprayed the worker with perfume. Karen's a hilarious character but she's not a role model, nor is she meant to be. You came off highly entitled. And like a Karen, in fact.

Again, I did not stream it before it posted -- or since -- it shouldn't have gone up here. I don't mind something not on politics but it struck many as offensive -- as they explain it in e-mails and also in the roundtable last night for the gina & krista round-robin -- it shouldn't have gone up here. It was very elitist. If you think the country needs to hear you complain about the labor -- complain and mock -- you're hiring for your personal projects, I'm sorry ladies, you are wrong, they don't.

I've got a great staff and a wonderful housekeeper. I've noted that many times before. If I didn't have such great support? I wouldn't say a word about it. I'd just never bring up the topic. There are real problems in this world and "We Are So Back" wasn't about real problems.

It may have been an effort to be light and humorous. Making fun of people who work for you? That's really never a good look.

So that's one White woman issue. The other is much more serious.

Dog Face Katherine Krueger. I guess she's being published with her garbage article in THE NATION because she met Katrina vanden Heuvel at the ladies' auxiliary for the KKK?

The last thing THE NATION needed, quite honestly, was another slam piece on Kamala Harris. The only thing THE NATION needed even less? Another White woman writing.

There's a reason Black women are blocked out of THE NATION. I guess we're not supposed to notice that Patricia J. Williams -- the most popular female columnist they ever had -- was Black. And that they have no regular Black woman columnist now. More to the point, Patricia arrived at THE NATION before Katrina -- I believe Katrina was still sleeping with her professor. But one night, she had her torch burning and her sheet covering her face and Katherine had her torch and her sheet, and the two embraced and promised to always spit on Black women.

And that's how racist Katherine Krueger gets published in THE NATION.

She didn't get there by brains or qualifications. Her pre-election days were spent -- you know this, right? -- trashing Kamala Harris.

And her election 'analysis' was to praise US House Rep Rashida Tlaib, "She bucked her Party’s leadership, because she refused to ignore the needs of her constituents -- which in this case meant opposing a genocide." That, racist Kath, wants you to know is how she got more votes in Dearborn than Kamala!

No, dear, she got more votes in Dearborn due to racism.

The Gaza voters in Dearborn are racists and they are homophobes.

It's a shame that so-called left outlets don't want to tell that truth to their readers.

And it's a shame that the reality there -- as it is exposed -- only further lowers support for the Gaza Freaks.

They're liars. America doesn't like liars. They're racists. They're homophobes.

Reality, Rashida couldn't get elected to the US Senate. She can't win a state race, let alone a presidential one.

But Katherine hates Black women -- we know her type, don't we?, the ugly dog faced racist -- and she pretends like Rashida accomplished.

Maybe Rashida did. It was her and her sister that started off the movement to keep people from voting for Joe Biden. Then they turned it against Kamala.

F Donald Trump? Didn't Rashida say that a few years back.

Hey, big girl, let's hear you do that now?

Or do you realize that you're on your own?

You thought some Democrats refused to defend you before?

Honey, that was before you worked to tank an election.

Black women are especially clear on how we owe you nothing. Not one damn thing. Your refusal to stand with Black women? We register it. So you're on your own now. No one gives two s**ts about you.

You stabbed the entire party in the back. You will most likely face a real primary in two years.

You were brave! You were strong!

You were pathetic and you stabbed the Democratic Party in the back and you stabbed Black women in the back.

You stabbed your country in the back as well. Look at your hands. In a matter of months, they'll be soaked with blood because you worked to put Donald Trump into the White House -- a man who hates Arabs.

You have the blood on your hands. You tried to punch above your weight and were just exposed as a narcissistic idiot who wanted to play politics with people's lives and you played and you lost.

I don't have any respect for Rashida. I defended her here so many times. Not only did we not walk away from her when she was under attack, we doubled up our support for her.

It was solidarity and let's stand together for the good of our country -- stand together for the good of our country? Clearly, Rashida's never shared that same thought.

When you make that clear, you're on your own.

So now she's the same as baldy.

Chris Rock's a friend, true.

But anyone who would've been slapped like that? If I saw baldy Anya defending the attacker, praising it, I would have been as outraged as I was. A sitting member of the US Congress taking to Twitter to praise violence at an awards show? That idiot is beyond crazy and isn't fit to serve in the US Congress.

And that's why we don't care about her and don't cover her. Again, Chris Rock is a friend of many, many years.

So Rashida's dead to me and Anya's dead to me.

But leave it to racist Katherine to treat Rashida as a hero.

NATION readers have never been told about the vacation many Black women are taking currently. They have no clue.

Apparently, Katrina wants to keep it that way because she published a racist column from Katherine as opposed to one by Olay, Danielle Moodie, Tabitha B or any number of Black women who could explain what's going on.

Boiled down? Dearborn and Hamtramck -- racist and homophobic communities -- stabbed Kamala Harris in the back. Black women have marched and spoken and phone banked and done everything needed for everyone. But we're not doing your pink hat marches to DC now or your Gaza protests or whatever else. You can't do a damn thing on the left without Black women. And now we're going to work on Black issues. And you can consider us on vacation. Some may never come back -- and more power to them. You have spat on us and you have abused us and we're done. We'll work on our causes. Otherwise, some of us are done -- for a month, a year, four years, forever -- and others of us will work on some issues -- especially ones that intersect with our community.

And that's an interesting story for the left -- even if THE NATION magazine prefers to publish more drivel from the White racist woman than actually explore the aftermath of this election.

I don't know any Black woman that wants the Palestinians to die (I don't know any Black woman who doesn't believe that the Gaza Freaks have sentenced the Palestinians to death with their actions). But we'd been there at the protests for Palestinians. And our thanks for that was a hissy fit from uninformed idiots.

We've shown up every election cycle and worked to help everyone. But racists -- especially White women -- didn't want Kamala to be president so they created one obstacle after another and held her to a standard that they have never held a man to. They think we didn't notice that.

Which is only even more insulting because we're not stupid but we get now that they wish we were.

So Donald orders Rashida dragged off the floor of Congress and disappears her? I don't think you're going to see a lot of support from Black women. You're not going to see us whooping with joy. But we gave and we gave. And when you had a chance to celebrate Black women, you instead spat on us.

And we're not stupid like the college students you've fooled.

Meaning, we were never dumb enough to think Gaza would be settled in an election. We fought apartheid, we fought for Civil Rights, we fight police abuse. We understand long battles. We also got that Kamala would be better on Palestine.

We're forever supposed to support you. Oh, Rashida said something with her foul mouth again and now it's our job to rush forward and defend her or Ilham's in trouble for this so we have to speak out or . . .

It gets old and we don't play. Some White women may want to be doormats, we've got a little more pride in ourselves and our community.

Again, this is a pretty important story. Racists like Katrina and Katherine apparently don't want it told.

By the way, Katherine is on BLUESKY. She got on months ago and stopped months ago. She's a racist so she's forgotten the account and returned to X. BLUESKY is the better off for it since death threats was all she had to offer.

If you're wanting to read her avant racista writings check out out October's "Kamala Harris' Deeply Demoralizing Campaign" -- but only if you enjoy the rants of White women racists.

"At the most loathsome end of this spectrum, some liberals are descending into pure unfiltered racism, seemingly clamoring for Arab and Latino voters to be deported and for Gaza to be leveled as a hateful form of retribution for the election result."

No, dear, we just don't feel its our job to fight for people who (a) didn't care about us and (b) were too stupid to fight for themselves. That's why the Black communities in Dearborn and Hamtramck are boycotting Arab or Muslim businesses. You didn't want to vote for the Democrat? Well we don't want give your our money.

It's so easy for the White racist women Like Kath. In fact, it's been far too easy which is why they can vote for Trump or, like Kath, they can attack -- for months -- a qualified Black woman candidate. They never think they have anything to lose because the nation has always bent to their Whiteness.

So they can't see what's coming. At RAW STORY, Carl Gibson reports:

Thanks to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, President-elect Donald Trump may now have an extra tool at his disposal to effectively destroy any organization that mobilizes against him.

H.R. 9495 could feasibly be used against some of the groups that vocally opposed Trump during his first administration, like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign, the NAACP, Planned Parenthood and the Southern Poverty Law Center among others. It could also potentially be used against nonprofit news outlets like ProPublica, Mother Jones, the Texas Tribune and the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Kath, that's thanks to you and your kind who worked to destroy enthusiasm and support for Kamala Harris with one attack after another.

Katrina published Kath because, apparently, THE NATION magazine is short when it comes to covering White opinion and since the corporate media won't cover White opinion, THE NATION has to pick up the slack?

Is that the lie Katrina, Kath and THE NAION want to put out there?

Here's ABC NEWS.

Three Black women being interviewed about the election and explaining what they saw. Despite all the money we have given THE NATION over the years, ABC NEWS is the one offering more view points and more diversity.

That tells you all you need to know about how racist THE NATION magazine has become under Katrina vanden Heuvel.

The racism at THE NATION magazine is a very real problem and it goes to Katrina vanden Heuvel who would render us Mammies or Maids if she had her way.

She's a racist and her actions bear that out. She is THE COLOR PURPLE's Miss Millie come to life.

THE NATION magazine did not -- and does not want to -- explore the very real issues at play this election cycle.

Instead, it was left to Dr Elwood Watson to do so at THE BLACK COMMENTATOR:

Kamala Harris would have been the first woman of any race and the first South Asian person to have been elected president of the most powerful nation in the world. Rather, she lost the election, as well as the popular vote, to Trump, whose coalition transcended racial and gender lines in unprecedented ways as he made notable inroads with people of color and netted a larger share of women’s votes. The nation was provided an opportunity to allow a biracial Black woman to move us forward beyond several years of Trump’s racist, sexist, and toxic style of grievance politics with a broad agenda steeped in hope, concern and access. However, America, particularly the majority of White Americans, said: “No thank you.”

From the minute she was selected as Vice President, Harris immediately found herself in the political fire. Several Republican members of Congress referred to Harris as a “DEI hire,” which is a reference to diversity, equity, and inclusion, but in this instance, an assumption that Harris became the nominee only “because of her ethnic background,” as Republican Representative Glenn Grothman dishonestly declared. Far right wing conservative activist Tom Fitton reveled in fierce neo-birtherism, by inferring that Harris’s Jamaican and South Asian parents resulted in her being unable to run for president.

The former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne “alternative facts” Conway attacked Harris as lazy, commenting , “She does not speak well; she does not work hard; she doesn’t inspire anyone.”

Republican Representative Harriet Hagemen of Wyoming declared, “Intellectually, [she is] just really kind of the bottom of the barrel.” The fact is that the Vice President is more accomplished and likely more intelligent than any of her critics. A September survey from The Associated Press/NORC Research Center showed 38 percent of voters think being a woman hurt Harris’s chances of winning, and only 13 percent of voters said the same about the GOP nominee.

The claim that sexism and racism are present in the race was amplified last month as Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) said he thinks they “still exist” in U.S. politics, citing the presidential race as an example. I think it is an issue with a lot of different voters across this country, and it’s something that our country — you know, we’ve come a long way as in terms of women’s suffrage,” The Florida Democrat said in an interview. “We’ve come a long way in terms of making sure of equity in this country, but there’s still a lot of this bigotry in this country in terms of sexism, in terms of racism. And we still have to work at getting over that.” “Those things are still here,” he continued. “They still exist in a lot of communities, and we still have a lot of work to do here.”

Being candid, there are two, perhaps, the major reasons why Kamala Harris did not prevail, no matter how effective a campaign she ran: racism and sexism. For the second time this century, Americans rejected a woman to lead the nation. If they weren’t ready to trust a woman for the job, they were even more apprehensive to trust a woman of color. The truth is that no honest person can dismiss the fact that being a woman of color has been a political handicap for Harris. Many Americans have never been comfortable with Black women in leadership positions.

It is not accidental that we have had only two Black women elected to the US Senate: Kamala Harris and Carol Mosley Braun of Illinois. Laphonza Butler was appointed by California Senator Gavin Newsom. Just last week, two states, my home state of Delaware, elected Lisa Blunt Rochester and Maryland selected Angela Alsobrooks, two Black women, as senators bringing the total number of Black women who have served in the US senate to five.

As THE NATION grows ever more racist with each day and as it offers the text equivalent of the garbage and no-thought required remarks of THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP, I have to wonder who is stupid enough to continue to donate money to the rag?

Ben Meiselas (MEIDASTOUCH NETWORK) writes:

As we head into the weekend, you may catch an NFL game. I want to reflect on that for a moment. Before I started MeidasTouch, I was a litigator, and in 2017, I served as the lead lawyer for NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick peacefully took a knee to show respect for unarmed Black and brown people who were killed by police.

At first, the NFL supported Kaepernick taking a knee. But then, in September 2017, Donald Trump gave a speech in Huntsville, Alabama, saying, “Get that son of a bitch off the field,” and claimed Kaepernick’s protest was anti-American. MAGA forces attacked Kaepernick, arguing that his protest insulted the National Anthem and the military.

Kaepernick never played in the NFL again.

The same people who attacked Kaepernick and LeBron James—telling Black athletes to “shut up and dribble”—are now encouraging NFL players to do Donald Trump’s idiotic YMCA dance. A propaganda campaign is underway to turn the NFL and all professional sports into a political arm of Trump. This is straight out of the fascist playbook.

Let’s not forget that Donald Trump encouraged people on January 6 to use the American flag as a weapon to assault police officers. Trump sells American flags with his name printed on them. He even replaced the National Anthem with the “January 6 Choir Song” during the election. All the while, the media gave Trump a total pass, even encouraging his propaganda at professional sports events.

Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to submit or cave to the threats he faced in 2017—and in the years since—reminds me that heroes can rise from unlikely places. It also reminds me that resistance to authoritarian forces is not guaranteed. Kaepernick potentially lost hundreds of millions of dollars for standing up for what he believed in. Will others today be willing to make the same type of sacrifice, or has the idol worship of billionaires who exploit people become the fluorescent light drawing us in like mosquitoes to a zapper?

We knew who Satan was and we knew what he was capable of. So those of you who chose to vote for him at the ballot box or to vote for him with your daily attacks on Kamala Harris (THE NATION, DEMOCRACY NOW!, THE PROGRESSIVE, IN THESE TIMES, et al), you're on your own. You can pretend all you want that you're not responsible but you are and you're racists. Being on the left does not mean you cannot be a racist -- as your own actions have made clear.

The country is going to suffer. And it is not racism on the part of the Black community that has so many saying we're on a vacation now (and not doing your free labor for you anymore) or that we're not doing business with you. This is a political response to the actions that you took, the racism that put into action. You're like someone who supported Bully Boy Bush and we're not interested in supporting your or helping you.

The country needed saving and instead of working on that issue, you elected to elect Trump -- by actually voting for him and especially by your never-ending attacks on Kamala and your inability to ever stop yourself and say, "Wait, I've never made these kind of demands on a White male presidential candidate. Why am I doing this to her?"

In other news, Matt Gaetz is done. Despite the support of groomers like Marjorie Taylor Greene and JD Vance, the man America now knows for his 'interactions' with underage females is no longer a nominee for Attorney General.

Far from the nonsense of THE NATION magazine, in the real world, Senator Cory Booker issued the following:

Today, U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced legislation aimed at promoting ethical conduct and accountability for ethics violations within the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Representative Daniel Goldman (D-NY-10) introduced companion legislation in the House earlier this year.

Numerous allegations of ethical improprieties and undisclosed conflicts of interests and gifts, along with refusals to recuse by Supreme Court justices have eroded the public’s trust in the Court and increased demand for more transparency and accountability in the nation’s highest court.

The Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act is a critical first step towards improving ethical standards among the justices and holding justices accountable when they commit ethics violations. Specifically, the bill would establish two new offices within the Supreme Court:

An Office of Ethics Counsel that would provide regular ethics training and advise justices on ethics issues, including disclosing gifts and deciding when to recuse from cases.
An Office of Investigative Counsel that would investigate potential instances of ethical impropriety by justices and report the findings to Congress.

“There is no reason that the Justices who sit on the highest court in the country should be held to ethical standards that are lower than those of any employee in our federal government,” said Senator Booker. “There’s a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court. Public trust in the institution is at its lowest point in decades as a result of alleged ethical lapses and conflicts of interest. By creating a mechanism to investigate and hold justices accountable for ethics violations and establishing an Ethics Counsel to provide consistent advice on issues like recusal, gifts, and disclosures, this bill is a critical step towards restoring the credibility of the Court in the eyes of the public.”

“Our nation’s highest court continues to face an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy, in part because there is no enforceable code of ethics nor accountability as required of all other federal judges,” Congressman Dan Goldman said. “I am thrilled that Senator Booker is leading the charge in the Senate to pass my ‘Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act.’ This legislation is a sorely needed step to hold Supreme Court Justices accountable and restore Americans’ faith in the Court.”

“Americans should be able to have faith in the integrity of the highest court in the land, but the justices rely on each other for ethical guidance, and have no one checking their work,” said Senator Hirono. “This legislation will help to address these issues by establishing offices to provide professional advice to justices on ethical matters and to investigate complaints made against them or their spouses. The American people should be able to trust that justices arrive at decisions fairly and objectively, and the Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act will help to hold the highest court in the land to the highest level of ethical accountability.”

“The Supreme Court’s lack of enforceable ethical standards degrade and detract from its credibility and trust. This measure takes an important step forward in making the Supreme Court more accountable to the American people by establishing internal offices to advise justices on ethical issues and investigate potential wrongdoing. Basic transparency and accountability—along with an enforceable code of ethics—is urgently needed to restore sinking public confidence in the Court,” said Senator Blumenthal.

“It’s no surprise that repeated allegations of Justices accepting lavish paid vacations and other conflicts of interest have decimated public trust in our nation’s most powerful court. Since the Court has decided to disregard its ethical obligations, Congress must step in to hold Justices accountable,” said Senator Welch. “This legislation is a necessary step toward increasing transparency and accountability in the Supreme Court and restoring public trust in this vital democratic institution.”

This legislation is endorsed by the following organizations: Fix the Court, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Accountable.US, End Citizens United (ECU), Project on Government Oversight (POGO), P Street, Court Accountability, and Demand Justice.

The Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Laphonza Butler (D-CA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Peter Welch (D-VT).

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

Let's close with this from GLAAD:

A resolution proposed by Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina misgenders transgender women and targets Rep.-elect Sarah McBride of Delaware, who is set to become the first out transgender member of Congress.

The resolution seeks to ban transgender women from using female restrooms inside the Capitol, barring both House members and employees from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex [sic].” “Biological sex” is not an accurate nor a scientific term, but is used by opponents of transgender people to dehumanize them and deny their equal access to society.

Rep.-elect McBride responded in a statement and on Twitter/X: “This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing. We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars. Delawareans sent me here to make the American dream more affordable and accessible and that’s what I’m focused on,” she added.

There is no data of any kind to support the claim that inclusive bathrooms undermine anyone’s safety. Thousands of school districts around the country allow transgender students to use facilities based on their gender identity. These policies make schools more safe by ensuring privacy and safety for all students. Charlotte Clymer, trans writer and DC-based advocate, noted, “It remains very unclear how this rule would be enforced, and when Rep. Mace was asked that exact question last night, she refused to offer anything in the way of a direct answer.”

“What I find most interesting about all this is that trans women have been using women’s restrooms in the Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings and the White House and the Pentagon for many years now, including during all four years of the Trump Administration,” Clymer continued. “Under Donald Trump’s leadership, trans women were permitted to use women’s restrooms in federal buildings in D.C. and there was never any issue.”

GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis responded: “Every member of Congress is elected to represent their constituents and states, and it should go without saying that they deserve the same rights and respect as every other member of Congress, including from their colleagues. The people of Delaware have spoken and have chosen an outstanding public servant to work on concerns they care the most about, including the cost of health care, child care, and housing. Everyone in Congress might try focusing on solutions to improve people’s lives and leading with kindness, and see what progress you might make for every American.”

Rep. Mace’s claims that she supports protecting women and girls conflict with her public stance with her own colleagues accused of rape and assault. Rep. Mace has endorsed the nomination of her former House colleague Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, despite accusations that Gaetz had sex with underage girls, showed photos of women he had sex with to colleagues on the House floor, and accusations that Gaetz participated in sex trafficking. Mace also refused to speak out against president-elect Donald Trump even after he was found liable for raping E. Jean Carroll, has been credibly accused of sexual assault by more than a dozen women, and has admitted to forcing himself on women.

The following sites updated:

KBLA - Tavis Smiley's talk radio

Lifestyle influencer Courtney Williams talks all things Mompreneur

1 hour ago

Music

Wyatt Flores: Tiny Desk Concert

3 hours ago

World news: Iraq | guardian.co.uk

Dreams of jewellery, phones and makeup: how young Iraqi girls are lured into marriage

8 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends

Jessica Lange, best night of TV in the week, HAPPY'S PLACE and more

10 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!

Matt Gaetz slithers away

10 hours ago

Trina's Kitchen

Peppers Stuffed with Quinoa and Spinach

10 hours ago

Ruth's Report

More bad news for fake asses Joe and Mika

10 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

thanks for doing nothing - over and over - merick galand.

10 hours ago

Like Maria Said Paz

Dead nominee walking

10 hours ago

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

P.U. Diddy

10 hours ago

Ann's Mega Dub

Disgusting Elon Musk

10 hours ago

SICKOFITRADLZ

I'm not wasting my time on a bad BET movie

10 hours ago

sadf

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Dead nominee walking

Today, Matt Gaetz's nomination to be US Attorney General flopped. Now eyes turn to the hugely embarrassing Pete Hegseth. Hanna Rosin (THE ATLANTIC) explains:

Aside from being a veteran, Hegseth has little qualification to lead the Department of Defense. He’s a Fox News host who has written a screed against DEI in the military. He has faced an allegation of sexual assault, which he denies, but the Trump team is not balking. “We look forward to his confirmation,” Steven Cheung, a Trump spokesperson, said in reply to news reports about the allegation. At another time in our history, many lines in Hegseth’s latest book alone might have disqualified him on the grounds of being too juvenile. In the introduction of The War on Warriors, he criticizes the “so-called elites directing the military today”: “Sometime soon, a real conflict will break out, and red-blooded American men will have to save their elite candy-asses.”

Focusing on scandals and inflammatory rhetoric, however, may serve as a diversion from a bigger, more alarming strategy. The real danger of Hegseth’s appointment lies in the role he might play in Trump’s reimagined military. In this episode of Radio Atlantic, we talk with the staff writer Tom Nichols about Trump’s grander plan to centralize control. “He’s going for the trifecta of putting nakedly loyalist, unqualified people into these jobs as a way of saying to everyone in those departments, I’m in control. I run these. You’re going to do what I say. And forget the Constitution. Forget the law. Forget everything except loyalty to Donald Trump,” Nichols says.

Here's a video.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Thursday, November 21, 2024. Satan's cabinet picks remain a sorry lot.

Turf wars. That's what DC has always been about. Nothing ever changes and only the idiots -- like Great Satan Trump -- refuse to adjust to the system. The Constitution gives the Senate approval on all cabinet level nominees. Not listening to their advice portion of advice & consent is not going to get him off on the right foot. Attempting to bypass them will only make things more difficult for him in the future.

He's a lame duck. And I did not see the photos from his last week of campaigning or photos from this weekend until late last night. Is he going to leave the Oval Office in a coffin? He looks dead. If that's why he smears that orange make up on his face . . . At any rate, he won't have another term. He is a lame duck president whose health is giving out. He hasn't even been sworn in and already the lie that he has a mandate has been corrected. Applause for Lawrence O'Donnell who led on that and made the point night after night on his MSNBC program.

Loathe THE NATION and what it's become under racist Katrina vanden Heuvel but Joan Walsh and John Nichols did play fair -- maybe that's why they didn't get the play that all the attack Kamala articles did on THE NATION's website? -- but Nichols points out:

Let’s put this in perspective: Trump is winning a lower percent of the popular vote this year than Biden did in 2020 (51.3), Obama in 2012 (51.1), Obama in 2008 (52.9), George W. Bush in 2004 (50.7), George H.W. Bush in 1988 (53.2), Ronald Reagan in 1984 (58.8), Reagan in 1980 (50.7), or Jimmy Carter in 1976 (50.1). And, of course, Trump numbers are way below the presidents who won what could reasonably be described as “unprecedented and powerful” mandates, such as Richard Nixon’s 60.7 percent in 1972, Lyndon Johnson’s 61.1 percent in 1964, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 60.8 percent. As Trump’s percentage continues to slide, he’ll fall below the thresholds achieved by most presidents in the past century.

Harris, on the other hand, is looking like a much stronger finisher than she did on election night. In fact, the Democrat now has a higher percentage of the popular vote than Presidents Trump in 2016 (46.1), Bush in 2000 (47.9), Clinton in 1992 (43), or Nixon in 1968 (43.4). She has also performed significantly better than recent major-party nominees such as Trump in 2020 (46.8), Trump in 2016 (48.2), Mitt Romney in 2012 (47.2), John McCain in 2008 (45.7), George W. Bush in 2000 (47.9), Bob Dole in 1996 (40.7), George H.W. Bush in 1992 (37.4), Michael Dukakis in 1988 (45.6), Walter Mondale (40.6), Carter in 1980 (41), or Gerald Ford in 1976 (48).

Yes, some of those historic results were influenced by the presence of strong third-party contenders. But most were not. And the bottom line is that the gap between Trump and Harris is narrower than the difference between major-party contenders in the vast majority of American presidential races.

Why make note of all the presidents who ran better than Trump? Why discuss the narrowness of his advantage over Harris? Why consider, in addition, that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate will be among the narrowest in modern American history? Because it puts the 2024 election results in perspective—and, in doing so, gives members of both parties an understanding of how to respond when Trump claims that an unappealing nominee or policy should be accepted out of deference to his “powerful” mandate.

Alex Galbraith (SALON) notes:

Despite repeated claims from GOP corners that the United States gave Donald Trump a "mandate" on Election Day, the president-elect has still not secured a majority of the popular vote.

According to the Cook Political Report, Trump has netted 76.8 million votes to Kamala Harris' 74.2 million votes. Trump's share of the ballots is good for 49.89% of the current tallied vote total. If the current margin of roughly 2.4 million votes holds, it will be the closest margin of victory since the contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000.

Trump's current lead in the popular vote count is smaller than the one Hillary Clinton put up on him in 2016. Clinton gained 2.8 million more votes than Trump in her electoral loss.

Chris Hayes (MSNBC) observes:

Yes, Donald Trump won the election. He will be the next president. There’s no question about that. But it’s also one of the narrowest popular vote wins in U.S. history. He got less than half the votes cast, winning a plurality but not a majority of the popular vote.

Trump won by about 2.5 million votes out of more than 150 million cast. That means his lead over Vice President Kamala Harris in the popular vote is down to about 1.6%. In fact, when comparing Trump’s margin of victory to every presidential election going back to 2000, the president-elect boasts the smallest margin of anyone who’s actually won their election and the popular vote.

[. . .]

So take a step back and keep all of this in mind when you hear Trump and his supporters suggest that the election was this enormous wave in which a transformation swept across the country, in which Americans were just begging for a MAGA makeover.

That is the line Republicans are selling — and lots in the mainstream media are granting it in various ways — but it’s just plainly not true. And we’ve gone through this all before. Just compare all the postmortems in the past two weeks about “what the American people really wanted” when Trump won by 1.6 points nationally to the postmortems we got in 2016, after Clinton beat him by 2.1% nationally, but lost in the Electoral College. It’s all the same stuff.

Donald has no mandate. And US senators have their own turf and, honestly, are not dependent upon the good graces of a president. Dems in the Oval Office usually grasp that. Donald still can't. And he chooses one huge mistake after another as a nominee. Steven T. Dennis, Jamie Tarabay, Daniel Flatley and María Paula Mijares Torres (BLOOMBERG NEWS) report:

President-elect Donald Trump is poised to skip over FBI vetting of his nominees, upending more than 60 years of precedent and putting him on a collision course with members of his own party as he tries to power his controversial cabinet picks through the Senate.

Republican senators have balked at Trump potentially forgoing the routine FBI background checks to install former Representative Matt Gaetz as attorney general as well as other controversial nominees like Pete Hegseth to lead the Pentagon and Tulsi Gabbard, another former House member, to run national intelligence.

Trump’s transition team hasn’t signed an agreement with the Justice Department and FBI that would allow the bureau to vet nominees, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not be identified discussing internal deliberations. The agreement is typically an initial step to begin the process of vetting.

The nominees are a joke -- again, -- and they spell doom for the country if approved and doom for the already struggling Satan if they're not approved.

Take the deeply unqualified Pete Hegseth who thinks he can transition from talk show host to Secretary of Defense. Rhian Lubin and Katie Hawkinson (INDEPENDENT) explain:

Donald Trump’s transition team is said to be “upset” with Pete Hegseth because he “hasn’t been honest” about the sexual misconduct allegation from his past – prompting insiders to consider other options to lead the Pentagon.

Hegseth was tapped last week to become Trump’s defense secretary but now those in the president-elect’s inner circle are “quietly preparing a list of alternative” candidates, Vanity Fair reported.

“It’s becoming a real possibility,” a source told the outlet’s special correspondent Gabriel Sherman.

The source said that the Trump team was taken by surprise after a serious sexual assault allegation against Hegseth came to light, which led Trump’s incoming chief of staff Susie Wiles to question the former Fox News host on a call last week. Hegseth was never charged with a crime and denies the allegations.

“People are upset about the distraction. The general feeling is Pete hasn’t been honest,” a second source told Vanity Fair.

A “prominent Republican” close to the Trump transition team told the outlet that some are also unhappy with the president-elect’s choice due to Hegseth’s lack of qualifications to lead the nation’s defense.

“There are Republicans with a background in the Defense Department who are privately saying, ‘I’m not working for this guy,’” the source said.

He has no executive experience and serving in the military doesn't mean knowing all the many issues. We went over this in Tuesday's snapshot and noted that any Republican serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee would be a better choice and know the issues involved.

Then there's plastic surgery junkie and alleged sex trafficker Matt Gaetz whom Satan has nominated for Attorney General. They're trying to keep hidden both the Justice Dept's report on their investigation into Gaetz on charges of assaulting underage females and the House Ethics Committee's findings as well. Travis Gettys (RAW STORY) reports:

The Florida Republican resigned last week as soon as Trump announced his nomination, which complicates the release of that panel's findings, but former ethics chairman Charlie Dent published an op-ed for MSNBC arguing that Gaetz's exit from Congress should not prevent the public from learning what lawmakers found.

"Ordinarily, nominees for Cabinet positions are thoroughly vetted to identify any potential obstacles to confirmation," wrote Dent, a Republican former congressman from Pennsylvania. "Trump has eschewed any pretense of a normal vetting process and instead has sought an attorney general nominee prepared to torch the very department he would lead. Not to quibble about Gaetz’s qualifications, but he has scant experience as a lawyer and was the subject of a lengthy sex crimes investigation by the Justice Department that resulted in no charges filed against him."

[. . . ]

"Gaetz thought his resignation could block the report’s release and avoid having disturbing details from the report going public," Dent added. "Well, not so fast."

There's no House rule prohibiting the committee from releasing a report on a departed member, and Dent cites several examples of that happening in the past, when the panel issued a report on teen sex allegations against Rep. Don Lukens (R-OH) in 1990, misuse of campaign funds allegations against Rep. Bill Boner (D-TN) in 1987, and sexual misconduct allegations against Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) in 2006.

"The precedent of post-resignation disclosure is particularly stronger surrounding sexual misconduct by members," Dent wrote.

As it should be. He didn't slink off the way most disgraced people would. He wants to be Attorney General. The American people have the right to know everything in that report. As Marcia noted last night:

So let's review a few things. We pay for the work members of Congress do. They are working for us. Remember that. Matt Gaetz resigned from Congress last week to stop the release of an ethics report on him -- it would have been released last Friday. By resigning, he was no longer a member of Congress and killed the report's release. Riley Beggin (USA Today) explains:

The House Ethics Committee had an ongoing investigation into similar allegations. That panel planned to vote on whether to release a report on its findings just two days after Gaetz abruptly resigned from Congress. Lawyers for two women who spoke with the committee have said they testified that they witnessed Gaetz under the influence of drugs and sexually assaulting a minor in 2017. Gaetz has denied the allegations.

Trump also tapped Fox News host Pete Hegseth to be defense secretary. A woman alleged Hegseth raped her in 2017. He has denied the allegation, and police never pressed charges against him. Hegseth admitted to paying the woman a settlement amount, saying he feared he would lose his job at Fox over the accusation.

In a previous political era, the claims against Gaetz and Hegseth would likely be the death knell for a Cabinet nomination.

He is nominated by Donald Trump to be the next Attorney General of the United States. And where's the report? He's accused of assaulting underage women. So where's the report? We paid for it. He's trying to become the next Attorney General of the United States. Where's the report?

Martha McHardy (NEWSWEEK) notes:

Republican Senator Kevin Cramer has publicly rejected the possibility of a recess appointment for controversial Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, calling the move "unwise."

Cramer made the remarks during a CNN interview on Monday, a week after Gaetz was nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to be attorney general.

[. . .]

Amid the controversial pick, Trump has faced scrutiny from some Republican lawmakers, like Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who have expressed dismay at Gaetz's nomination. Half of Senate Republicans, including some in senior leadership positions, privately saying they don't see a path for Gaetz to be confirmed by the Senate, NBC News reported.

There's the awful Linda McMahon -- see Rebecca's "the immensely unqualified linda mcmahon" -- proposed for Secretary of (Mis)Education. There's terrorist Tulsi who members of the unit she served in complained about, who belongs to a cult and who does not have the experience or skill set to be the Director of Traffic let alone the Director of National Intelligence -- the post that, believe it or not, Satanic Trump has nominated her for. And there's always the failure that is Junior. Little man pumps all the steroids into his veins he can and still comes up short -- see Elaine's "Only tin foil hat wearing Lisa Pease is impressed with Junior." Rachel Roubein and Dan Diamond (WASHINGTON POST) report:

Republican senators are poised to decide whether Robert F. Kennedy Jr. becomes the nation’s next health secretary. But in interviews this week, a half-dozen GOP lawmakers said they had questions or outright concerns about his nomination, with several citing his vaccine skepticism, as they weighed whether to vote for him.

“Look, I believe in vaccines. I think they’ve saved millions of lives,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) said in an interview. “If he has a different point of view, then he’ll have to explain them to us.”

President-elect Donald Trump last week selected Kennedy to run the Department of Health and Human Services, the nearly $2 trillion agency that oversees federal health insurance programs, medical regulations and vaccine approvals. The selection has alarmed federal health leaders and medical groups, who say Kennedy should be nowhere near the nation’s public health infrastructure given that he has repeated debunked claims about vaccines and made other false or questionable assertions.

The pick has also scrambled Capitol Hill, with Republicans trying to decide whether to vote for a former Democrat who has supported abortion, attacked the pharmaceutical industry and wants to change U.S. agriculture policies, among other positions that challenge GOP orthodoxy.

Junior, of course, brings along his thyroid challenged wife, an 'actress' of no merit or talent whose 'career' is several rungs below that of Mary Jane Croft.

Doormat Cheryl is noted at VANITY FAIR by Kase Wickman:

So, as the second Trump administration looms and her husband is poised to “go wild on health,” in Trump's words, pushing to change vaccine requirements, remove fluoride from water, and more if his nomination to appointed secretary of health and human services is approved, Hines is in the increasingly rare position of being a woman with choices.

One option: Hines could divorce Kennedy. She can point to the Nuzzi situation, which was reportedly consensual, if generally icky. (A third-party investigation into Nuzzi's work at New York found no evidence of journalistic bias in her work, but reporter and publication “agreed that the best course forward is to part ways” nonetheless.) A former babysitter has also made credible allegations of sexual assault, as reported by Vanity Fair (Kennedy responded in other outlets by saying he is “not a church boy”). The animal stuff is disturbing, and the anti-vaccine stance and false claims that stir up hysteria and dangerous medical situations that can result in entirely preventable deaths is not ideal either. Hines’ home state of California does still have no-fault divorce—but maybe not for much longer, if the Republicans have anything to say about it.

She could stay married to him and order up the Melania Trump Starter Pack: Dark, oversized sunglasses and a tight-lipped grimace pair gorgeously with legally wedded resentment and a sprinkling of “no comment” responses. Hell, Melania isn’t even planning to move into the White House this time around, sources say. Maybe she and Hines could hang out in Florida (Hines’ state of origin), get some brunch, and not talk about the havoc their husbands are wreaking on the country. You can be legally married and quiet, as both women have demonstrated. Last Thursday, Hines was spotted on Kennedy's arm at a Mar-a-Lago party, yukking it up with Team MAGA, Trump himself reportedly included. Maybe this is the sacrifice she's willing make in the name of plentiful shrimp cocktail.

A third option would be for Hines to take her own philosophy about improv to heart: Commit, 100 percent, and lie in the bed she’s made. The apparent path of willful ignorance and silence Hines has taken so far, as if not acknowledging Kennedy's campaign and controversial views would make it so that they might as well not exist, is no longer one she can walk, given the announcement of Kennedy's nomination and seeming inevitability of his continuing presence in the political arena.

Welcome to Washington, Cheryl. What'll it be?

Poor Cheryl, so pathetic. And I'm finding it hard to believe -- well, maybe not -- that I know who he snuck off with last Sunday and Cheryl doesn't. But Cheryl, you keep playing doormat -- it's the only role you've ever pulled off convincingly.

At THE WASHINGTON POST, Philip Bump explains:

President-elect Donald Trump’s flurry of announcements about his picks for government (and extra-governmental) positions seems obviously unburdened by consideration of how popular those choices might be. It is not common for a president-elect to identify a number of people with so little experience to fill high-level government positions, certainly. Nor is it common for a president-elect to be so uncertain about the confirmation of those intended nominees — by a Senate his own party controls, mind you — as to approach his inauguration with a plan in place to sidestep the Senate confirmation process.

It should not be surprising, then, that the people Trump has tapped are viewed with little enthusiasm among Americans more broadly.

These are the nominees we get when 'independent' media like THE NATION, DEMOCRACY NOW!, THE PROGRESSIVE, IN THESE TIMES, et al fail us by spending three months leading into a presidential election attacking not Donald Trump but instead attacking Kamala Harris -- and doing so on a daily basis.

As Steve Nicks asks, "What shall I say this time?" ("Straight Back").

My kindness is pretty much shot for the year.

So I wish so many of you writers would just stop bothering me.

This morning it's a guy who wants his COMMON DREAMS column highlighted. And I've told him not before. He's one of the ones who attacked Kamala constantly. Now he's going to be our answer? F**k you. You're part of the reason that Trump will be sworn in.

And now you think we should just forgive you and ignore what you did? Your actions have consequences that probably won't effect you -- you're a White, straight male of a certain age. But it will impact and destroy the lives of the many of the rest of us.

He wants me to know that he actually wrote some supportive columns about Kamala but COMMON DREAMS didn't run those.

Really?

Is that the truth? Because if it is (a) you waited to share that until after it no longer matter and (b) don't share it with me, week after week, Ava and I documented how the 'independent' media was destroying Kamala's campaign with one attack after another.

I'm not your priest and I'm not going to absolve you.

If you want to share what COMMON DREAMS did, share it in a column.

But you won't.

You'll just whisper it because whether it's Mika and Joe or some non-corporate lefty, you're all about protecting yourselves and the circle jerk you try to pass off as an 'independent' media.

Your new column? Weak sauce. And the points you barely make should have been made during the election. Cry to someone else because I don't feel sorry for you. You're guilty and you're responsible. And I'll feel bad for the way you destroyed hope for so many Americans, but I don't -- and won't -- feel sorry for you.

Senator Patty Murray's office issued the following:

Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, reintroduced their legislation to clarify that victims of discrimination can seek damages for emotional harm under federal law—after the Supreme Court curtailed their ability to do so in its devastating April 2022 ruling in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller. The senators’ Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act of 2024 ensures that people who suffer emotional harm because of discrimination they experienced are able to seek restitution under federal anti-discrimination statutes—recognizing that while discrimination may not cause a financial loss, it can and often does cause lasting emotional distress.

“Our legislation recognizes the plain truth that people who are discriminated against often suffer lasting emotional harm and should have the ability to seek justice in our courts, including restitution — even if the discrimination they experienced did not have a financial impact,” said Senator Murray. “The Supreme Court’s failure in Cummings to recognize and account for the humiliation and distress a person can experience after being discriminated against in a classroom, a doctor’s office, or other settings was a profound mistake — our legislation would right this wrong and ensure victims of discrimination can seek the appropriate damages they deserve.”

“Discrimination can leave a lasting mental impact on those who experience it. That’s why the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller is so harmful. It prevents those who have suffered emotional distress due to discrimination from seeking damages,” said Senator Durbin. “I’m joining Senator Murry in introducing the Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act to clarify that damages for emotional harm are available to victims of discrimination. No one who faces discrimination should be denied justice in court.”

In April 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts that victims of discrimination cannot sue under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act to recover damages for emotional distress caused by illegal discrimination. The decision denies many victims of discrimination an appropriate remedy for the harms they have suffered.

The Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act of 2024 makes explicit that remedies available for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act include compensatory damages, including for emotional harm. The legislation ensures that victims have recourse and that incentives exist to encourage recipients of federal funds to comply with our federal civil rights laws.

“As advocates for women and girls, including LGBTQI+ individuals and survivors of sexual violence, we’ve seen the range of harms that can follow after experiencing discrimination, including harassment and assault. The Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act of 2024 is critical for victims to receive remedies they are entitled to under our civil rights laws,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, Vice President for Education & Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center. “Justice was impaired when the Supreme Court limited remedies for emotional distress in its decision in Cummings, but we are grateful for Senator Murray’s leadership in ensuring that victims of harassment have explicit rights to remedies for emotional harm.”

“Discrimination can devastate a person’s well-being. It can lead to anxiety, depression, and even substance abuse. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings, students across the country have been denied a financial remedy for the emotional harm that discrimination has caused them,” said Adele Kimmel, Public Justice’s Students’ Civil Rights Project Director. “The Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act is an important first step in restoring the availability of this crucial remedy.”

“Access to our nation’s courts is critical to make real the promise of our nation’s civil rights laws,” said Megan Schuller, Legal Director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. “When the Supreme Court failed to recognize the intent of vitally important civil rights statutes and erected yet another barrier to vindicating those rights, it placed Americans with disabilities and others at greater risk of experiencing discrimination in schools, hospitals, workplaces, state and local government programs, and other settings with no meaningful recourse. We are grateful to Senator Murray for reintroducing the Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act, which will correct the Court’s flawed interpretation and restore to people with disabilities and others the ability to access justice.”

In addition to Senators Murray and Durbin, the legislation is cosponsored by Senators Baldwin, Blumenthal, Booker, Casey, Duckworth, Helmy, Kaine, Sanders, Van Hollen, Welch, and Whitehouse.

The legislation is endorsed by the National Women’s Law Center, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Public Justice, American Association for Justice, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Arc of the United States, National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), National Black Justice Coalition, The Trevor Project, American Atheists, National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Know Your IX, and Just Solutions.

A one-pager on the legislation is available HERE.

Read the full text of the Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act of 2024 HERE.

###

That's something to focus on. Some pathetic and cowardly writer who helped put Donald back into the White House? You're on your own.

The following sites updated: