Why is Elie Mystal allowed on TV? That is the question we should all be asking. He doesn't appear to be part of the real world people live in. Instead, he appears to suffer from delusions that make him unfit to participate in discussions on any topic. Here is Jonathan Turley:
In the movie “Dial M for Murder,” the character Mark Halliday explained how he writes about murders: “I usually put myself in the criminal’s shoes and then I keep asking myself, uh, what do I do next?” He admitted, however, that “I’m afraid my murders would be something like my bridge: I’d make some stupid mistake and never realize it until I found everybody was looking at me.”
That appears to be the fate of MSNBC commentator and the Nation’s Justice Correspondent Elie Mystal, who recently accused Sen. Josh Hawley of trying to kill Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. His weapon: a question about her prior legal positions.
Hawley and others have criticized the record of Judge Jackson as soft on crime, including child pornography. He noted that she recommended eliminating the five-year minimum sentence for child pornography. Hawley was criticized for conflating all sexual offenders with the issue on the sentencing of child pornography defendants. However, Jackson can easily address any such generalization in her own testimony.
Mystal saw not senatorial interest but homicidal intent in such questions. He declared on MSNBC that Hawley is “trying to get [Judge Jackson] killed.”
Hawley’s murderous plot was due to his interest in Jackson’s record on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Without any push back from the host Tiffany Cross, Mystal explained that just discussing Jackson’s positions on sentencing is an effort to have her murdered: “What Josh Hawley is doing. Let’s be very clear. What Josh Hawley is doing when he tries to do this is he’s trying to get her killed. He is trying to get violence done against a Supreme Court nominee.”
Staying on the topic of people who really aren't ready to be on the airwaves, let's include Evan Rachel Wood when she's not acting.
"TV: 'No one was looking after me!' (that includes you yourself)" (Ava and C.I., THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW):
We're not fools and we're not fond of 'documentaries' that only work if the audience is foolish.
So, no we're not fans of PHOENIX RISING.
What's the purpose of this HBO limited series?
To celebrate Evan Rachel Wood?
For
what? She's not that good of an actress. She should be studying her
craft. She's a child actress who recites exactly what is on the page
and makes her face match whatever she's saying. That's acting to her.
Characters with internal conflicts? Ones who shake their heads "no"
while saying "yes"? Things like that don't enter her empty head. This
despite the fact that she's beaming on camera with a wide grin while
recalling a fight her parents had when she was a child that caused her
and her brother Ira to flee the house and how "we could still hear the
yelling from outside the house." When performing, Evan can only offer
the most literal take and that's why she's not much of an actor. As a
child actor, that made her incredible to some. (We think her
performance in 13 is both brilliant and ignorant -- it's spotty and the
only thing holding it together is Holly Hunter's reactions as Evan's
mother.) It doesn't cut it as an actress once you become an adult.
Her beauty?
She's not pretty. She was wrongly considered it when she was younger. She was shiny. And, this matters in a racist society, she was blond. Shiny and blond passed for pretty when people weren't paying attention to things like bone structure. Now you can't avoid and it looks a bit like Dr. Frankenstein manufactured it. Shiny is all gone now and it's hard to believe that's not the result of too much booze -- look at her face in close ups and then note the skin of her brother Ira who is actually older than her but has better skin.
So she's not a great actress, she's not a great looker, what's left?
Her activism. We could applaud her for that.
But part of the activism is the self-narrative she constantly tells (and tells again in this series).
And there are just too many problems with it.
She was ''groomed'' and other things. She was the victim. Poor Evan.
If all the things she said happened did -- if even only half did -- ti's still hard to admire her when she constantly stretches the truth, when's she's forever unaware that she's no unique flower in the garden and when she won't take responsibility for her own actions.
At one point, she's explaining -- boo-hoo -- that she didn't know about sex and was even fearful of her own genitals. Boo-hoo. You know why that was? She was home schooled!!!!!
That's what she tells you.
Okay. So at the age of 12, she finally learned reality when she found an old nudie magazine on a street and looked inside.
Problem?
She went to public schools. A detail she forgets. She went to them until she was -- wait for it, 12. That's not in the series. You have to do the work because no one's working for the truth in PHOENIX RISING. So the same year she begins her home schooling, she also learns about her genitals. Her mother, she explains, wouldn't tell her and she couldn't, she explains, count on school because she had been home schooled.
What is it with these lies?
If we were sitting across from Even in the past and she shared that we would have just nodded. (Today, we would not sit across from her. We're not consumers of self-created drama.) But she's not sharing this as conversation, she's putting onto the public record and it's not the truth.
There are things she says in the 'documentary' that don't
strike us as truthful but we give her the pass for it in many cases.
That's not something that she ever does for the man she's accusing.
He called her his "soul mate" and that's something he did to others!
What guilt does that prove? Or how is that a shortcoming? Most non-writers have a limited amount of terms they use in their daily lives. Equally true, someone who uses "soul mate" is someone who thinks they found one. To find one, you have to look for one. And so he may very well have thought that Evan was his soul mate and then, after that was not the case, met Glenda or Brenda or Shonna or Donna -- or all and many more -- thought that she was his soul mate.
It's really
something to watch how the 'documentary' tries to make almost every
action and word from Brian's mouth seem to be proof that he's evil,
guilty and a sociopath.
"He studied," Evan's mother snarls to the camera. "He studied how to manipulate people. He's a predator. He's a predator."
Apparently, Sara Wood believes that the best way to convince is through repetition.
Well, when you don't have the facts on your side . . .
Read the whole thing and grasp that what they wanted to cover was HBO's MINK. But having watched Evan's 'documentary,' they knew they had to cover it.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
And yet not even during the heated final debate of the primaries in 2020 did Bernie Sanders (who had voted against the invasion in 2002 as a representative of Vermont) make the case — which he had alluded to on the campaign trail more than once — that Biden was unfit to serve as president because of what was, in Sanders’s view, “the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of the United States.”
Elizabeth Warren, another candidate who had called the Iraq War a mistake, also failed to challenge Biden’s historical defense of the invasion — from denying that he had ever believed Hussein possessed WMDs to lamenting that the only mistake he had made was to trust the Bush administration. When asked whether Biden was to blame, Warren — a legal academic who had begun her political career taking on the president over the 2005 bankruptcy bill — demurred.
In fact, the most strenuous criticism against Biden’s role in the Iraq War was leveled in March 2020 by an air force veteran who accused Biden of having the blood of fellow service members on his hands. But despite his overtures that he had come to regret his support for the war — which became increasingly unpopular in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party in subsequent years — Biden never learned from his mistake.
Eleven years after the intervention in Libya’s [. . .]
Tulsi Gabbard? Isn't that the name that belongs in the above? Yes, it is. Caling Tulsi out for fake assery isn't a popular move. We don't worry about popularity here. We worry about the truth. SO we won't just be Abby Martin saying her name on a JaACOBIN podcast and then laughing. No, we'll actually go there as we did in real time. In the final debate that candidate Tulsi made the stage for, we were all expecting the big showdown. This was anti-war Tulsi. She'd played that anti-war arm chair zealot over and over. And the war, she'd tell voters over and over, was her biggest issue. It effected everything -- including how much money we had to spend on other issues -- needed issues.
Bill de Blasio and others had confronted Joe during the debqtes of the candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Tulsi hadn't. And she had an excuse, she wasn't on the stage with him. The field was so crowded back then that they had to divide them up into groups.
So she'd go on MSNBC, for example, on June 26, 2019 and slam Joe for his actions regarding Iraq but she wasn't on stage with him.
"First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004* and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break."This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...
-
Tiny Desk Meets SXSW: Yard Act3 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Charmed2 days ago
