Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

Wednesday, March 23, 2022

Donna Summer

Jillian is a big fan of Donna Summer's and feels I've never given Donna any real sttention.

I probably haven't. I know Donna's music like everyone does. It was very popular and it remains popular.

In terms of albums, BAD GIRL is a classic and an album I really love.

In terms of singles, she has some classics -- "Enough Is Enough" duet with Barbra Streisand, "Love To Love You Baby," "Hot Stuff," "Dim All The Lights," "Bad Girls," "Heaven Knows," "Last Dance," "The Wanderer," "Love Is In Control," "State of Independence," "There Goes My Baby," "This Time I Know It's For Real," "Unconditional Love" with Musical Youth and "This Time I Know It's For Real."

Those are all hits. But my two favorite hits weren't noted above.

1) "Dinner With Gershwin"

Brenda Russell wrote this song I love it. I always wanted her to do a version but then she did one and I hated it. It was organ-synth like and it's the pounding piano that makes the song.

2) "The Woman In Me."

This song is often forgotten but it's one of Donna's best ballads. It was used, one summer, on NBC's DAYS OF OUR LIVES as a theme song for Kayla and Steve.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, March 23, 2022. The cerafully crafted narrative on Ukraine continues to unravel and a major report is released chornicling the persecution of the LFBTQ community in Iraq.

Every day, JUS President Joe Biden and the White House lose a little more control of the narrative regarding Ukraine. Every day the action becomes less popular. Every day, people realize how much they've been manipulated I said "people," that doesn't include Amy Schumer. After all, there's a reason we don't let her on the furniture.

Dan Cohen (MPN) reports on how the whole effort has been sold to the public by numerous public relations firms:

Since the Russian offensive inside Ukraine commenced on February 24, the Ukrainian military has cultivated the image of a plucky little army standing up to the Russian Goliath. To bolster the perception of Ukrainian military mettle, Kiev has churned out a steady stream of sophisticated propaganda aimed at stirring public and official support from Western countries.

The campaign includes language guides, key messages, and hundreds of propaganda posters, some of which contain fascist imagery and even praise Neo-Nazi leaders.

Behind Ukraine’s public relations effort is an army of foreign political strategists, Washington DC lobbyists, and a network of intelligence-linked media outlets.

Ukraine’s propaganda strategy earned it praise from a NATO commander who told the Washington Post, “They are really excellent in stratcom — media, info ops, and also psy-ops.” The Post ultimately conceded that “Western officials say that while they cannot independently verify much of the information that Kyiv puts out about the evolving battlefield situation, including casualty figures for both sides, it nonetheless represents highly effective stratcom.”

Key to the propaganda effort is an international legion of public relations firms working directly with Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to wage information warfare.

According to the industry news site PRWeek, the initiative was launched by an anonymous figure who allegedly founded a Ukraine-based public relations firm.

“From the first hour of war, we decided to join the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to help them distribute the official sources to show the truth,” the nameless figure told PR Week. “This is a hybrid war: the mix of bloodily struggling fight with a huge disinformation and fake campaign lead by Russia [sic].”

According to the anonymous figure, more than 150 public relations firms have joined the propaganda blitz.

The international effort is spearheaded by public relations firm PR Network co-founder Nicky Regazzoni and Francis Ingham, a top public relations consultant with close ties to the UK’s government. Ingraham previously worked for Britain’s Conservative Party, sits on the UK Government Communication Service Strategy and Evaluation Council, is Chief Executive of the International Communications Consultancy Organisation, and leads the membership body for UK local government communicators, LG Comms.

Everyone sang from the same hymnal for a reason and it wasn't because they were citing facts. It would be interesting to know how many celebrity 'influencers' were paid off to share tehir deeply, held and long standing beliefs that all developed about six weeks ago.

The man heading the neo-nazi government in Ukraine continues to step in it and track it all over their well laid plans. Richard Medhurst reviews how his propaganda has gone off script.

The reality is getting out. And that's why you see the Whoopi Goldbergs losing their s**t on air. The narrative has collapsed. And is collapsing.

The truth is out there and people are catching on. Be cute if all the liars who delibertaely lied -- for money, to egg on war, whatever -- got held accountable. They won't. But we cand ream.

Binoy Kampmark (DISSIDENT VOICE) notes:

The Ukraine War is now making Russian citizens, at the behest of various quarters, undertake acts of purification in various foreign theatres. They are being told to engage in crude demonstrations of loyalty (or, in some cases, disloyalty). Admit you hate Putin, and you can attend a tournament to earn your crust.

UK Sports Minister Nigel Huddleston has taken a keen interest in this daft effort, hoping to encourage the organisers of Wimbledon, the All England Law Tennis Club (AELTC) to take a more severe approach to players from “pariah states” as long as they do not include such angelic wonders as Saudi Arabia. Before a select parliamentary committee, Huddleston noted that, “Many countries have agreed that they will not allow representatives from Russia to compete. There are also visa issues as well. When it comes to individuals, that is more complex.”

Complexity and Huddleston do not get along. “We need some potential assurance that they are not supporters of Putin and we are considering what requirements we may need to try to get some assurances along those lines.”

Tennis player Daniil Medvedev and his colleagues are facing the prospect that not engaging in public denouncement of the Kremlin will be insufficient to enable them to compete. They are already not permitted to compete under the Russian flag, and they are being told that a Russian winning Wimbledon would be unpardonable for the glorious British tournament. Their country has already been banned from competing in team events such as the Davis Cup and Billie Jean King tournaments.

And The Queen of Lard Amy Schumer is trying to get the Academy to put this on stage? She doesn't nknow about art, she doesn't know about fitness, she doesn't know about comedy. All of her commentar sare driving viewers away. SHe needs to shut her mouth now. She has not been given a post that tells her she can speak on behalf of the Acadmey. She is entertaining at the Oscars as a co-host. That is all. Knowing her, she won't provide much entertainment.

This was a huge mistake to make her a co-host and everything she's done in the last two weeks has made that obvious. She is turning off potential viewers and that's not why she was hired. She was hired. Grasp that. She's working there. She's not nominated for anything. Probably never will be. But she thinks she can use this post -- mis-use it -- for her own personal politics? No.

Turning to Iraq,, a major report has been issued by Human Rights Watch and IraQueer regarding the ongoing targeting of LGBTQs (and those thought to be) in Iraq. The report is entitled "Everyone Wants Me Dead’: Killings, Abductions, Torture, and Sexual Violence Against LGBT People by Armed Groups in Iraq," Rasha Younes (Human /rights Watch) notes:

In February news circulated that a 23-year-old transgender woman, Doski Azad, had been killed by her brother in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. I read the news, having just concluded my research on armed groups’ killings, abductions, torture, and sexual violence against LGBT people in Iraq, and thought, how can LGBT people get justice and accountability when they can be killed and abused with impunity, even in their own homes?

Over the past six months, I interviewed 54 LGBT Iraqis who have survived harrowing violence at the hands of Iraqi armed groups and the police. Some of them also had intimate knowledge of other LGBT Iraqis who had been killed or disappeared by armed groups due to their gender presentation or perceived sexual orientation.

Our new report documents 8 abductions, 8 attempted murders, 4 extrajudicial killings, 27 instances of sexual violence, 45 threats to rape and kill, and 42 cases of online targeting by armed units within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), groups nominally under the prime minister’s control since 2016, against LGBT people in Iraq. In eight cases, abuses by armed groups and police were against children as young as 15. In thirty-nine cases, the victims were able to identify the armed group behind the attack against them.

The numbers are most likely much higher. The attackers are known. Yet, as with so many killings and disappearances in Iraq, the perpetrators have not been held accountable.

Many of the people I interviewed were young enough to have just graduated from high school, yet the fear and isolation they described stretched as far as they could remember. Most had never spoken to anyone about what had happened to them. I found myself on several occasions setting aside my interview questions and just talking to them. I listened to a 27-year-old gay man describe how his boyfriend was tortured in front of him. “Then they shot him five times,” he said.

From the summary of the report:

The Iraqi government has failed to hold accountable members of various armed groups who in recent years have continued to abduct, rape, torture, and kill lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, with impunity. The cyclical nature of abuses against LGBT people, emanating from the family and stretching into every aspect of their public life, renders any “suspicion” of homosexuality or gender variance a cause for potential violence, which not only results in the death of LGBT people but makes their lives unlivable.

This report is focused on killings, abductions, torture, and sexual violence against LGBT people by armed groups in Iraq. It is based on 54 interviews with LGBT Iraqis who have survived violence and discrimination by state and non-state actors, based primarily on their gender expression and presumed sexual orientation.

Human Rights Watch, supported by the Iraqi LGBT rights organization IraQueer, documented eight cases of abductions, eight cases of attempted murder, four extrajudicial killings, twenty-seven cases of sexual violence—including gang rape—forty-five cases of threats to rape and kill, and forty-two cases of online targeting by individuals who identified themselves as members of armed groups against LGBT people in Iraq. In eight cases, abuses by armed groups and state actors, including arbitrary arrest and sexual violence, were against children as young as 15. In thirty-nine cases, individuals were able to identify the armed group behind the attack against them.

The public nature of the abuses documented, mostly occurring in broad daylight in the streets, coupled with their chilling intentionality, signal the climate of impunity afforded to perpetrators. The arbitrary nature of the attacks demonstrates that individuals are targeted as part of a larger scheme to intimidate those who do not adhere to normativity and to punish aberration. The Iraqi state’s failure to tackle the discriminatory social norms that underpin violence against LGBT people, as well as its reinforcement of these standards by way of promoting an anti-LGBT discourse through ‘morality’-based policies, contribute to fueling violence against individuals perceived as non-normative.

The abuses documented in this report, including enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture, and killings, are not unique to LGBT people. Other ordinary Iraqis also face these forms of violence. But in the case of LGBT people, the violence emanates from and is exacerbated by their gender expression or perceived sexual orientation.

LGBT people across Iraq face routine violence from security officials, who verbally abuse and sexually assault them, arbitrarily arrest them, and detain them. Security forces also physically, verbally, and sexually harass people at checkpoints whom they perceive to be LGBT.

LGBT people can be arrested under a range of vague provisions of the penal code aimed at policing morals and public indecency and limiting free expression. Human Rights Watch documented 15 cases of arrest by security forces of 13 LGBT people in Iraq. In June 2021, police in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) issued arrest warrants based on article 401 of the penal code which criminalizes “public indecency” against 11 LGBT rights activists who are either current or former employees at Rasan Organization, a Sulaymaniyah-based human rights group. As of March 2022, the case remained open pending investigation, though authorities had not detained the activists.

Most of the arrests of LGBT people documented in this report had no legal basis, even under Iraqi law Individuals stopped at checkpoints and subsequently arrested were rarely charged or convicted in accordance with the law. LGBT people arrested reported being forced to sign pledges stating that they had not been subjected to abuse and being denied access to a lawyer. The conditions of their detention included being denied food and water, the right to access family and legal representation or obtain medical services, as well as being sexually assaulted and physically abused. One 18-year-old gay man said he was subjected to a forced anal exam when he was 17 years old. Another 18-year-old gay man said officers attempted the same when he was 17.

Twenty-seven of the fifty-four LGBT people Human Rights Watch and IraQueer interviewed said they had experienced sexual abuse and violence by armed groups, including unwanted touching, rape, gang rape, genital mutilation, and forced anal examinations.

Human Rights Watch also documented cases of digital targeting and online harassment on social media and same-sex dating applications by armed groups against LGBT people. As evident from the accounts of those interviewed by Human Rights Watch and IraQueer, the offline consequences of digital targeting are long-lasting. Individuals targeted reported being forced to change their residence, delete all social media accounts, change their phone numbers, and in some cases flee the country for fear of being monitored, blackmailed, and entrapped by armed groups.

The accounts documented detail a cycle of abuse, including a pattern of attempting to hunt LGBT people down to perpetrate harm against them, amounting to structural violence against them. The combination of hypervulnerability, loosely defined “morality” clauses, and the absence of domestic violence and anti-discrimination legislation and reliable complaint systems, are formidable barriers that impede LGBT people’s ability and willingness to report abuses they suffer to the police, or file complaints against law enforcement agents, creating an environment in which police and armed groups can abuse them with impunity.

Forty out of the fifty-four LGBT people whom Human Rights Watch and IraQueer interviewed reported experiencing extreme violence at least once by family members, almost always by male relatives, for their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. Such violence included being locked in a room for extended periods; being denied food and water; being burnt, beaten, raped, electrocuted, attacked at gunpoint, subjected to conversion practices, and forced hormone therapy; being subjected to forced marriages; and being forced to work for long hours without compensation. Unlike the KRI, Iraq has no domestic violence legislation, instead its penal code allows for violence against women and children.

Each of the LGBT people whom Human Rights Watch and IraQueer interviewed reported experiencing harassment in the streets, ranging from verbal abuse to being attacked at gun point. Lack of access to protective mechanisms limits LGBT people’s mobility to a debilitating extent and deters them from seeking redress for abuses committed against them. Children facing violence from family members or others may be completely isolated, with nowhere to turn for safety.

As a result, many LGBT people said they felt they were forced to hide who they are to stay alive. Those who could not or did not wish to conceal their identities described a form of self-imposed house arrest, by which they refrained from leaving their homes at all, due to fear of harassment and the possibility of being stopped at checkpoints or targeted by armed groups. Sixteen LGBT people interviewed by Human Rights Watch and IraQueer said they attempted suicide at least once.

All 54 LGBT people interviewed for this report said that they would not report a crime committed against them to the authorities, either because of previous failed attempts where the complaint was dismissed or no action was taken, or because they felt that the blame will be redirected at them due to their non-conforming sexual orientations, gender identities, and expressions.

The Iraqi government is responsible for protecting Iraqis’ right to life. Iraqi authorities should investigate all reports of armed group or other violence against people targeted due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity and expression, prosecute, fairly try, and appropriately punish those found responsible, and publicly and expressly condemn all such violence. The government should take all appropriate measures to end torture, disappearances, summary killings, and other abuses based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity, and compensate the families of all victims of unlawful killings and survivors of serious abuse.

Iraqi security forces should stop harassing and arresting LGBT people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender expression and instead ensure their protection from violence. Iraq should introduce and implement legislation protecting against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Human Rights Watch and IraQueer also call on states providing military, security, and intelligence assistance to Iraq, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, to urge Iraqi authorities to investigate allegations of abuses by armed groups and the role of their own assistance in these alleged violations. These states should suspend military, security, and intelligence assistance to units involved in these violations and explain any suspension or end to military assistance publicly. These states should continue to suspend assistance until the government adopts measures to end these serious human rights violations.

This is ongoing. And that's why we call it out and that's why we call idiots on our side (the left) who try to glorify a terrorist who targets LGBTQs in Iraq. Let CODESTINK go down that road all by their lonesome. I'm not joing them to walk among the homophobes and mourn their passing. People like the 'poet' and general they publicly mourned over and over have terrorized the LGBTQ community and we won't mourn trash like that. We'll side with the people, with the LGBTQ. Not their attackers.

The following sites updated:

Tuesday, March 22, 2022

Diana Ross' "I Still Believe"

That's a new mix of Diana Ross' "I Still Believe" from her new album THANK YOU (which I loved and which I picked as one of 2021's best albums). And I love the remix of "I Still Believe." On Friday, it had 350 or so views. Now it's up to 5,000 and climbing. Give it a listen and you'lls ee why.

I'd love it if they'd do a full album of remixes from songs on THANK YOU. I really want a remix of "In Your Heart" next.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, March 22, 2022. Again, we look at the lies about the IRaq War -- and how Barack Obama has never been held accountable. Plus I've added a response regfarding some e-mails about the upcoming Oscars.

As we did yesterday, we'll again be noting Saif Ansari's bad piece at JACOBIN. His piece is the perfect example of how and why the Iraq War cotninues. Lies, selct truths, favoritism, omissions, all passed off as 'nothing but the truth.'

An e-mail Martha passed on to the public account yesterday included this:

So President Obama wasn't sure how he would have voted if he had been in Congess when the Iraq War took place, so what? He was anti-war and wanted to end the war before it started and after he it started. He never waivered and he did end the war.

Saif, is that you?

There's so much wrong with the stupidity in the quoted statements above.

First, yesterday's snapshot ended when it did because I was done dictating having gotten off the treadmill and having done my cool down so I was headed to the shower. On my end, there was the belief that this private conversation in a public sphere would not be confusing because we should all know what happened after he became president but apparently we're too invested in lying there as well.

Before we get to Barack as president -- and this is not a biography and will not cover every point -- let's drop back to before that.

Some idiots supported Barack because he was 'anti-war.' He was not.

Elaine covered this at her site, I covered it here. But for those late to the party, by several years, who want to pretend like they arrived on time . . .

I have always maintained I understood how someone could be taken in by Barack even if they were pro-peace. And I've explained how I was taken in.

Anyone who considered thmselves a friend of Barack's in Chicago back in the day, Elaine or I knew. Most of them, we both knew. The more radical they were politically, the more likely we knew them. (Note, they've all been discarded by Barack and that happened once he became president.) So we knew of Barack. Equally true, I've knwon Bobby Rush for decades. So I also knew that Barack wasn't who he pretended to be.

Fine, I don't care, I just wanted politicians who would end the war. He was going national. He was going to run for the US Senate. And because Elaine and I had money to donate, we were invited to one of his earliest fund raisers.

We chit and chatted and nodded with others present -- we knew over 2/3s of the room, and waited until we got our face time with Barack. Elaine immediately spoke of how illegal the war was and how we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. And she notes how the US troops need to come home. And 'anti-war' Barack? He informs us that US troops are on the ground now so it no longer matters. Huh?

He tries to move along the conversation with the fake ass charm that too many have fallen for but I stop him with a nicer equivlaent of "Bitch, what did you just say?" And he's quite clear that he's not for ending the war, it's started.

We had assumed we'd be writign checks ofr the maximum amount -- that our initial donation would be it for the primary race he'd be fighting (and, as it turned out, fighting dirty -- no one ever wants to note how Barack used sealed court records to destroy an opponent in the primary and again in the general). We went from, "Let's get him in the Senate!" to "get the f**k away from us." We left.

But prior to that moment of face to face time, it had been exciting. He was against the war, He was bi-racial and a fresh start ("fresh start" was especially popular among his Chicago friends that and "a new page"). We were taken in by the narrative. We knew better or should have, but we got taken in and that's how we ended up in Chicago.

But unlike a lot of idiots, when he showed us his true nature, that was it. We didnt' support him. We didnt' defend him.

Far too many people claimed he would end the war and that we had to vote for him. Even now they lie.

Barack didn't end the war. And while he promoted the lie that he wanted to in his 2007 and 2008 speeches, he didn't plan on it. Samantha Power -- despite John Nichols whoring for her -- did not leave Barack's campaign because she called Hillary Clinton a "monster." She'd already survived that and it didn't really matter. BArack was on camera flipping Hillary off. He was making sexist remarks about her constatntly and that didn't matter. he was putting 'converted gays' onstage, excuse me, ex-gays. That's who he was on the campaign trail and people lied for him and looked the other way for him. Self-laothing lesbian Laura Falnders gave him a pass on that. Remember her mantra, we will hold him accountable, just not now! COuldn't do it in the primary, she said. Had to line up behind him. But in the general election, we'd hold him accountable and make our demands. Then she never did that but insisted when he was in the White House . . . But she never did. She didn't defend immigrants when he beacme the deporter-in-chief, she defend We The People when his two terms saw that massive transfer of wealth from the people to the already rich. She never did anything.

At any rate, people should have woken up. Yes, their so-called 'leaders' failed them. Medea Benjmain, et al. Though Barack was voting for every war funding item, CODESTINK didn't bird dog him. CODESTINK did find a face of color to hide behind when they wanted to go after Hillary for being White. It was a rare moment when a CODESTINKER found the time to share a byline with an actual woman of color.

The whores lied to get him in the White House and then they continued to lie.

Just looking aback on it, it's appalling what they got away with. Hadn't planned to go into this but let's note that Barack was friends with someone who was once on the most wanted list -- the FBI most wanted list.

So the press lied for him and FAIR hissed in the most idiotic way possible and tried to insist that Barack was treated unfairly in a debte because he was asked about it.

The Weather Underground was a desiginated terrorist outlet. Do you believe that they were terrorists? Doesn't really matter. When someone's running for president -- especially while touting their supposed superior judgment, things like that do matter.

People have a right to ask. And Barack should have been, if he were truly left, able to talk about how a corrupt system went after the Weather Underground (the FBI did not need to steal a woman's panties for their investigation -- sickos).

In fact, a year before Barack began his run for the nomination, THE NATION had rolled out another attck on Weather Underground. We defended the group at THIRD. Toad Gitlin -- thankfully now dead -- was forever attacking the Weather Underground.

We saw them as a response to the times they were created in.

We also saw the sexism at play as everyone went on and on about Bill Ayers. I love Bernardine Dohrn to this day. I think she is a fascinating person. I still speak to her. I've never had any use for Bill. No one with any brains ever has. Bill was the arm candy, he was the trophy wife. Benardine was the leader. She didn't write a passive aggressive memoir -- one the media avoided in terms of what it said about them and how it explained some of them were in on what was taking place.

Bernardine would never write such a friviolous book. She was and remains a revolutionary. And I respect her. She led the Weather Underground. But, in 2008, the press couldn't grasp she was the power in the couple and focused constnatly on Bill. and they went with the lie Barack and his campaign told, their kids were in school together. That's how they knew each other.

No.

The Obama girls were not born in the 70s. But the press -- including THE GUARDIAN -- ran with that lie. Chease Boudin is 41 years old -- Bernadine and Bill raised him. Barack's oldest daughter is now 24. They did not go to school together. And heaven ehlp us all if the two had lseep overs back in tn 2008.

It was one lie after another. And people gobbled it up over and over. Because they chose to. At some point, when all the evidence is before you and you make the decision not to recognize it, you are choosing to be fooled.

Samana Power was not fired for calling Hillary a "monster." That moment had passed. It was what was coming. And we wrote about it the Friday it started coming out. And continued to write about it the next week. By contrast, after it came out, the day after, John Nichols ignored it and wrote a lie-filled column in which he even lied that Hillary and Samantha were friends. They were not. He was using the "monster" flap to distract from reality.

Reality was that Samantha had opened her big mouth to the BBC. Barack was claiming to be anti-war and saying he would pull US troops out of Iraq and would do so quickly. He gave a timeline. And the chief diplomatic expert in his campaign? She told the BBC that this promise wasn't a promise. They you had to say things to get elected but you weren't bound by them when elected. When Barack was elected, Samantha insisted, he would asses the situation in Iraq and then decide what he would do.

All the whores played dumb.

Many months later, the forever useless Tom Hayden -- oh, if only he'd lived long enough fo# #METOO -- emerged months later in July finally agnry -- momentarily -- about Barack and took THE HUFFING POST to huff about this March incident -- in July, he huffed. And pretend no one had known about it. And blame Hillary Clinton for that. SHe should have informed the world. Well, Tom, she did raise the issue. Her campaing rasied it repeatedly for over a week. Back in March of 2008, when it mattered. It was whores like yourself who stayed silent. Tom knew about it in real time. I have the e-mails form him where he was whining to me about my covering it here in real time and how I was hurting "the case."

Funny, he said that to me back in the 80s as well -- that I wa shurting "the cause." HOw so? By refusing his advances and making it clear that I would never, ever sleep with him.

Barack gave a very informative interview while he was running. It was to THE NEW YORK TIMES. War cheerleder Michael Gordon wrote it up. Most ignored the write up. It wasn't much to read. The transcript of the interview, however, was wroth reading and the paper published that online. It was covered in this "Iraq snapshot," and, at THIRD, we used the transcript to write what THE TIMES should have written "NYT: Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq." Read it, in his own words, read him saying that even if he pulls troops out, he's open to putting them back in.

He never ended the war.

All US troops did not leave. We covered the Senate hearing where the late Senator Kay Hagan made that point in real time. The press was there in full force but, strangely, they didn't cover the truth about what their little pet was actually doing. Ted Koppel did. On NPR and on NBC, he covered what was actually happening during the drawdown passed off as a withcrawl, he covered how many would be remaining, he had confirmation on camera from the military for the NBC report.

STrange, isn't it. This was his post-NIGHTLINE beginning. And it ended with those stories. First the NBC outlet was pulled fromt he airwaves, then the long-running NPR program hit the dust.

And we never really got reporting from Ted again.

But we covered those reports here at lenght. The NBC one? We covered it before it aired. REpeatedly. Then we covered it after it aired. And then we covered it for years aftwards.

Barack did not oversee a withdrawal. He oversaw a drawdown -- a reduction. That's not what he promised on the campaign trail but the press was happy to join him in lying about it.

In 2012, the idiot Mitt Romney was told that he needed to point this out. He was told that he needed to go for this because Barack was running with the lie that he'd kept his promises -- except of course for closing Guantamano Bay. He had withdrawn US forces from Iraq!!!!

Mitt was told by his chief advisor that this was where Barack was weak and this was what he needed to hit on.

But he didn't. Because he's trash and he always was trash.

This paragraph used to appear here a lot:

December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."

September 25 of 2012. The election year. That's when Tim was able to get the truth into the paper of no record. Jill Abrramson was still the eidtor of the paper and she was insisting that no truth be in the paper about Barack, he had to be re-elected. Tim snuck that into a report on Syria. It ran buried in the middle of that piece. It should have been front page news but Jill repeatedly nixed it.

A year after the wisthrawal that wasn't, Barack was sending US troops back into Iraq. (Where they joined other US troops becuase all troops did not leave.)

That's the reality regarding Barack.

And if you stil l think he ended the (ongoing) war, that's on you for believing it now.

JACOBIN whores for him all this time later. Apparently, Laura Flanders, it's still not the time to hold Barack Obama accountable.

And that's how we ended up with the 19th anniversary of the ongoing IRaq War.

_________________________________

Added at 1:48 pm EST 3/22/22:

Shirley reports a number of e-mails to the public e-mail account insist that I wrote the above to avoid weighing in on Amy Schumer. Sorry, you're wrong.

I didn't have Amy on the mind at all. U dud bute nt tibgye ib /ant ub tge oast, She was maing a complete ass out of herself for over a year. But I said nothing because a firend had made a film with her and I wanted the film to do well (Goldie Hawn is the friend)> So Ignored her and didn't call her out for being a poor sport and getting NETFLIX to cahnge their ratings.

Sorry, Amy, no one likes you anymore. You were briefly a film star. And then you had to open that mouth of yours. You don't know anything and should frankly just sit down and close your mouth.

You are no longer a film star. You're even questionable as a film actress. That's because you have alienated so many people with your views that they never needed to know about.

You are a joke in the industry and that's why HULU is your last shot after the film career died, after the reality nonsense flopped.

ABC has gotten the Academy to elimat handing out some awards live because they think the problem is the long hours the broadcast runs. No. Ratings are down for the Oscars because of all the partisan nonsenset that's passed off as politics.

Her statements abouit 'going there' do not help the ratings. The first commercial featuring the three hosts was an embarrassment. Amy had all the lines and all the action. While Regina Hall -- an award winning actress -- and Wanda SYkes -- a comedian and actress of many years -- had to watch White failure act the fool. Are they co-hosts or her sidkicks?

Now Amy has said that the president of Ukraine should appear.

No.

Are you working for your cousin Chuck Schumer? Amy, you're not working for the Academy. As a member of the Academy, you are not working on my behalf.

You are trying to bring your partisan nonsense into a celebration of the arts.

The fact that we are not celebrating the arts in the broadcast is what has hurt rating.

Among other things, the man you want to bring to the Academy Awards night of honor is shutting down leftist outlets in Ukraine.

Forget everything else, Amy, that alone says no. Equally true, you may love him but he's not Nelson Mandela. Take your crush somewhere else. It does not belong on stage.

But more to the point, there was never a reason to say "Yes."

The Oscars are about art. And you clearly are not qualified to co-hsot because you don't grasp that.

We need to celebrate the arts. We do not need your current cause or your current nonsense.

That's Diana Ross with her latest mix of "I Still Believe" from her latest album THANK YOU.

Why am I noting that? Diana's a frined. It's a great song. I love THANK YOU> That is all true.

But there's another reason and goes to the failures of ABC and Amy.

It's great that Regina and Wanda are co-hsoting -- even if the commercials keep focusing on White Amy. This is big step.

It is not, however, the first and we need to celebrate the people who got us here. Diana Ross is the first woman of color to ever be a co-host of the Oscars. That should be pushed by aBC, that should be discussed and addressed. This is historic. I'm sure REgina will bring a full appreciaton of the arts in her duties as co-host. I look forward to Wanda cracking me up.

They got here because pioneers like Diana broke down the barriers. We should ignore White Amy and her patisan nonsense and celebrate Regina and Wanda while acknowledging all the men and women who came bfore and brougtht us to this point.

-------------------

The following sites updated:

Monday, March 21, 2022

George Michael on vinyl

Oops people are getting mad at me and irritted with me. I know because Twyla e-mailed, "I'm mad at you" and Charlie told me, "You're starting to irritate me."

What;s going on? It's almost April and I haven't done one album review so far this year.

They're right, I haven't. There's nothing I've liked. I thought I was going to love something but it is Lawrence Welk music, not rock, not soul. However, if there's nothing out on Friday that I want to write about, I promise I'll rip that album apart and may also rip apart another album. There are so many albums that have already disappointed me this year.

Now Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "We Feed Them" went up Saturday night.

Great comic.

Now for what I got online to write about.

Vinyl costs way too much. The greed is astounding. And that's Joni Mitchell and everyone. There's no reason that vinyl albums should be so outrageously priced and that's especially true when you're dipping into the archives and not releasing newly recorded music.

I wanted to get some George Michael on vinyl. The price on AMAZON -- used -- and eBay was outrageous. Over $100.

Then I found a $20 or so vinyl of new copies of George Michael's LISTEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE on AMAZON. And it's also available new on WALMART's website. I ordered from AMAZON. It arrived today. I've listened to it, it's a solid copy. So if you're looking for it and you want it cheap, you can get it that way. Again, these are new copies.

Shame on people charging hundreds of dollars for used copies. Shame on them. That's my favorite George album so that'll be it for my vinyl collection when it comes to him. I'm not paying one hundred or more dollas for FAITH or, really, for any album.

Closing with C.I's "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, March 21, 2022. JACOBIN whores for the IRaq War.

Over the weekend, the Iraq War hit the 19th mark, 19 years and still going. Will US troops ever leave Iraq? At this rate, no. And we know how the corporate media in the US did their part to start the illegal war and to keep it going. We address that fact constatly. We've also noted, over the years, how Pandhandle Media -- the beggar media -- send money, send money -- also keeps the illegal war going. This anniversary?

Silence from the beggar media for the most part.

To be clear, when we don't get silence from them on Iraq, we don't get much of anything. They do af, "It's 19 years old" statement and then rush to offer what everone knew back when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House. Nothing as recent as two years prior is ever offered because they don't pay attention to Iraq. They can show up to do their useless segments and writing that would be the same if they wrote it ten years ago but they can't talk about Iraq today -- the political stalemate, the protests (more and more over rising costs), the large number of women being murdered (Juare is apparently the furthest US 'feminists' will allow their minds to wonder when women are being targeted), etc.

Enter JACOBIN and Saif Ansari -- the latter of whom bill shimself as "Philosopher, lawyer and writer. Indian American/Muslim atheist." SOmeone break it to the idiot that Muslim isn't a race, it's a religion so, if you bill yourself as an aehist, you're not a Mulsim. Basics are hard for Saif as he makes clear when writing about Iraq for Jacobin -- a place he doesn't normally cover but apparently someone at JACOBIN felt that the piece was needed and theyf armed it out to Saif as one of the non-White guys they actually have working at JACOBIN. Isn't that just another form of colinialism?

At any rate, Saif starts out his piece slamming US President Joe Biden which is more than fair. Joe is president and the war continues under his watch. Joe supported the war in the US Senate. And then, the whole thing quickly falls apart. The first section with huge pro lems:

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.

But Wednesay, July 31st, she was finally on stage with Joe Biden. And big talking Tulsi, whose big issue was the war, was on stage with Joe Biden who voted for the IRaq, War, who did a pre-war hearing that was stakced with war supporters though Joe tried to pretend it was fair and balanced, the man who voted over and over to keep funding the war, the man whod efended it over and over (despite his 2019 lie that he had turned on the wr the minute bombs started ropping). Here was Tulsi's chance to finally take the fight to Joe.

It was going to be an epic throwdown, right?

Wrong.

We recounted it at lenght and repeatedly over and over. For example, see the next day's snapshot.

Joe Biden was on the ropes. He was struggling and he could have been eliminated that night. If Tulsi had done the job she should have, he could have been out of the primary.

But instead, she decided to take out Kamala Harris. Jimmy Dore rightly points out that Kamala ended up without any support at all. Throughout the entire thing, the long process, no one was flacking to her. He's right. But he is someone who has some allegience to Tulsi that is greater than his allegiance to the truth. Now I'll overlook that on Jimmy. He speaks out on many important topics. And I'll defend her from the lunatic attacks from WHoopi Goldberg and others.

But I'm not going to pretend that we saw Tulsi was a whore at the debates.

Read the transcript -- or read the snapshot -- because Tulsi went after Kamala and Kamala was no threat. She was never going to get the nomination. She had no large base of support. Most women did not rally to her. African-Americans in the south did not relate to her.

But Tulsi used her time and her ammo on Kamala. Not on Joe.

Her defenders -- and, sadly, that included BLACK AGENDA REPORT -- would make excuses for her. There was no excuse. Joe Biden was the choice of the establishment and he was being carried by the corporate meid and covered and pimped by them.

She should have taken out Joe.

Sher refused to do so.

If you missed that debate, you may join the liars and insist that she was making statements and -- B.S. That's a damn lie. Jake Tapper was a moderator. He specifically called on her regarding Joe Biden and he was puzzled -- watch his face -- by her remarks which were rescuing Joe and excusing his actions.

He looks like he's wondering if she understood the question. SO he then goes back to her for a second time and is more specific. And Tulsi again takes a pass.

That night, the next day and through the weekend, Tulsi shows up where ever she could on TV and repeatedly insisted that Joe said his vote was wrong and that was good enough for her.

His actions wnet far beyond just his initial vote but Tulsi buried that in hre comments and buried Joe's Iraq issues for the press. When the self-promoted anti-war candidate told the American people and the press that Joe had nothing to apologize for or make amends for that everything was fine? There was no longer a story there. The media wants conflict. And it wants conflict is can hide behind to pretend to be objective. Had Tulsi held Joe accountable on the stage, the issue of the Iraq War would have been forced itno the conversation by the national press.

My allegiance is not to any politician.

Tulsi is one of the reasons Joe Biden is in the White House. She had the chance to tak ehim out and instead aimed her fire at Kamala. People like pig Michael Tracey were overjoyed.

What they refuse to admit now is that Tulsi gave the nomination to Joe on that night in July of 2019. They refuse to also admit that the woman Tulsi 'destroyed' on stage is now Vice President of the United States. So exactly how badly did Tulsi destroy Kamala?

It was pure fake assery.

Dennis Kucinich left people in tears in Boston back in 2004 at the DNC convention. I didn't defend him. I told the young teenagers who were crying in the open -- especially one young woman -- that Dennis didn't deserve them. That they had more integrity and more ethics than he ever would.

I don't whore for a politician. I hold them accountable.

It's a shame that no one wants to hold Tulsi accountable. It's how we will get another Bernie Fake Ass SAnders to divert us all and we will pour energies into him and risk our own health to try to deliver the nomination to him and he will sell us out and try to use us as his fan clubm.

JACOBIN trets Tulsi as an aside because they get vicious feedback. I don't care what the e-mails to the public account are like. I will defend her right to speak. I will defend her from vicious attacks on her patritoism. I will not, however, pretend that she's anti-war or that she will speak with an anti-war voice.

She betrayed everyone and she needs to be held accountable.

Saif writes:

American voters used to give a damn about the Iraq War. In 2008, Barack Obama leveraged widespread discontent with the war to secure the Democratic nomination, courting progressives and young people alike. In fact, it’s widely believed that Hillary Clinton lost to the senator from Illinois not just because she had voted for the war — and was instrumental in rallying ambivalent Democrats to the cause — but because Obama had decried the invasion from the start.

Where do you start with that garbage.

American voters used to give a damn about the Iraq War?

The voters are the ones who walked away?

I don't remember the voters issuing a statement the week after the November 2008 election stating that they were shutting down. No, that was United for Peace and Justice which made a ton of money off the war. But they then used their organization to shelter elected Democrats and theywhore to get Barack into the White House. Leslie Cagan is a grown ass woman and then some -- the whiskers on her chin prove that. But the woman who's too cowardly to tell a board meeting that she's a Community -- she is one -- is the same woman who whored for Barack and didn't want to be around to hold him accoutnable.

They lied. They lied to the voters and told them Barack was an anti-war candidate.

He wasn't. He never was.

The media stuck in on Iraq just a little bit longer. As 2008 drew to a close, newspapers and networks in the US announced that they were closing BAghdad desks ABC announced that anything that happened in Iraq could be covered by their using BBC coverage of the war.

So the 'leaders' deserted and then the US news deserted all before Janaury 2009 and yet the person JACOBIN blames is voters?

When we do our Zooms there are always students who will say they showed up thinking this was going to be historical, a look at what had been done to Iraq. They didn't realize that it was still being done. I don't them blame them or attack them. I understand why they don't know about Iraq, the corporate media doesn't cover it and the so-calleldl politicians who care (Barbara Lee) won't mention it.

Saif writes tht ''some believe'' Barack used Iraq to destroy Hillary's chances. Some believe that? It was his whole argument advanced by his suppoters. as well as by himself. It demonstrated his supposed superior judgment.

We heard tht over and over. And we saw CODESTINK bird dog Hillary while avoid him despite the fact that hew as voting for the Iraq War once he was in office.

No, he did not vote for the 2002 authorization of the war. He was not in the US Senate at the time so he could not vote for it.

Patricia J. Williamson was a typical whore for Barack. Despite being a law professor, and presumably understanding what ethics are, she wnet on KPFA and lied on THE MORNING SHOW about how Barack, in 2002, had voted against the Iraq War. When confronted with her lie by a caller, Patty refused to admit the truth.

They all lied, they all whored. THey used poor Kimberlé Crenshaw. I told her they were using her so I don't feel sorry for her. She was warned. They wanted to attack Hillary and promote Barck so White women teamed up with Kimberle to use her skin color in the byline. They didn't give a damn about her or her observations. She thought she was breaking through. HUFF POST, THE PROGERESSIVE,e veryone was noting some column she had co-written and the importance of it and . . . . By 2009, when she was no longer needed as cover to hide behind, she went back to being unwanted in the circle jerk that ignores most people of color. But for awhile there, she was convicnced that everyone was interested in her and she'd finally broken through.

Saif wants you to know that Barack was agains the war from the start.

But he wasn't.

He was against it enough to give a tiny speech. It was so smallt hat iwas insignificant. Footage existed of it -- I'm still friends with the person who asked Barack tp speak in Chicago that day. But the turnout was small. So 2008 campaign decided to 'recrete' it and the press let them do that. I've seen the original. It's not inspiring, the voice doesn't soar. Hes not impressive in his remarks or in his delivery. So they shot it several years later and the press let him get away with it.

Why dods it matter?

I mentioned Boston 2004, remember. I was there. I was there when he gave that lousy speech at the convention. Matthew Rothschild called it out in THE PROGRESSIVE. It was a war speech. And then, three years later, Matty wants to whore for Barack and begins praising the speech. That's what a whore does, erase the past.

And that's what JACOBIN's doing.

It was in Boston that THE NEW YORK TIMES asked Barack -- anti-war Barack -- about he Iraq War and noted that the top of the ticket, John Kerry had voted for it. Barack pointed out that he wasn't in Congress and said he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in Congress.

When Bill Clinton raised this point, he was smeared as a racist. We've repeatedly noted Bill's criticue over the years

But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' "
"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...

I dictate the snapshots. I am not looking at the above. I mention that because as we repeatedly returned to that quote, we would add more links to it to back up what Bill was saying. My friend's pulled that from a piece I did with Ava back in 2011. I steered him to that because I'm hopning it has all the links in it. If it doesn't do the research yourself. I'd also recommend the piece for THIRD entitled "The Temple Prostitutes in the Cult of St. Barack."

JACOBIN fits in that same temple with the other prostitues when they publish garbage like this.

And I'm not even at the half-way mark on that awful article.

How does the Iraq War continue? Be cause of whoring like what JAOCBIN posted that never hodls anyone acountable.

Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "We Feed Them" went up Saturday night.

And you can pair that with this video from Jimmy Dore.