Mikey Likes It!: Jimmy Dore and James Bond

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Jimmy Dore and James Bond

Let's start with Jimmy Dore.

I'm not sure that I highlighted that one yet. I think Dianne Feinstein should have retired in 2016. She's too old. I feel the same about Nancy Pelosi. And especially Don Young.

Who is Don Young? A Republican who was elected to the House in 1972. That wasn't a typo. In March of 1973, he won a special election (after losing in 1972 to a man who later died in a plane crash) and he's been in the House ever since. Richard Nixon was president when Don Young entered Congress. It's time to go. Someone needs to tell him, it's time to go.

Dianne Feinstein is the oldest member of the US Senate. Don Young is the oldest member of the House -- and he's actually older than Dianne making him the oldest member of Congress. He's 87 years old.

This is from THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER:

Twenty-five years ago, Pierce Brosnan introduced a 007 who wasn’t rugged, but possessed a devil-may-care charm and attitude.

“For England, James?” It began with one of the greatest cold opens to ever kick off a 007 film. MI6 agent James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) destroying a Soviet chemical weapons base, in the process losing his partner and closest friend, Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean), before plummeting, parachute-less, thousands of feet, to enter the cockpit of a plane mere seconds away from crashing nose-first into the rocky maw of Russia’s harsh landscape. And it ended with Bond destroying the satellite GoldenEye, reassuming his mantle as one of the greatest action heroes ever, and proving to be just as relevant as he ever was in the post-Cold War climate at the end of the 20th century.

It’s been 25 years since GoldenEye reinvented James Bond by distancing itself from the works of author Ian Fleming, and appealing to a whole new generation of Bond fans who couldn’t be sold on the same thrills that had captivated their fathers and grandfathers. It's been 25 years since — with the help of Tina Turner and the Nintendo 64 — James Bond was made cool again.

When Martin Campbell’s GoldenEye arrived in theaters in November 1995, it had been six years since 007 was last seen onscreen. In order to fully appreciate what has given GoldenEye such a hold on pop culture over the decades is to understand where the franchise had been six years prior to its release. GoldenEye, the 17th Bond film, is often attributed to pushing the franchise in a more serious and realistic direction. Though similar to Frank Miller being credited with taking Batman back to his darker roots, rather than Dennis O’Neil and Steve Englehart who set the stage for Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, GoldenEye could not have become what it did without the two prior Bond entries. The Living Daylights (1987) and Licence to Kill (1989) introduced audiences to a darker Bond with Timothy Dalton. Though Dalton’s Bond has been reappraised in recent years, and his rough demeanor and capacity for brutal violence served as the precursor to Daniel Craig’s contemporary Bond, he was considered to be humorless and lacking the playful wit of his predecessors.

Coming off of Roger Moore’s Bond, who had become too aged and silly over the course of his tenure, Dalton was something of an extreme departure. Funnily enough, it was Batman that Dalton’s Bond was compared to in the controversially violent Licence to Kill.

Dalton’s Bond was believable as a weather-worn spy, but the small-scale nature of his adventures, embezzlement and drug trafficking, rather than the Moon bases, Egyptian ruins and circuses of Moore’s films, pushed the films closer to the territory of Lethal Weapon (1987) and Die Hard (1988). But, without the American star power and tongue-in-cheek humor, Dalton’s Bond films didn’t light the box office on fire. Legal disputes between distributors following Dalton’s second entry provided the time for producers Albert R. Broccoli and his daughter, Barbara Broccoli, to reconfigure Bond for the '90s. Pierce Brosnan signed on following the departure of Dalton, who wanted to do one more film that he had originally signed on to, rather than the four or five more he was asked to extend his contract for.

I think Pierce Brosnan was a great Bond. My favorite? It's a tie between Sean Connery and Daniel Craig. I used to not enjoy Roger Moore much but times change. I like Timothy Dalton but, honestly, his are my least watched Bonds. It's not him. I just don't reach for them very often if I'm popping in a DVD. There are not a lot of good set pieces, for example, in his films. They're the great sequence where they use an instrument case as a sled, for example, but that's really it for his two films.

My most watched Bonds?

1) GOLDFINGER

2) YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE

3) DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

4) CASINO ROYALE

5) QUANTUM OF SOLACE

6) FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE

7) THE SPY WHO LOVED ME

8) DIE ANOTHER DAY

9) GOLDEN EYE

10) THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

A VIEW TO A KILL may hop onto the top ten shortly. I watch it more and more.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, November 17, 2020. We look at the claim that Kamala Harris delivered nothing towards the election of Joe Biden and we look at the way the media is reporting a possible departure of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Starting with RISING.

Krystal Ball makes some interesting arguments. But they amount to nothing in the general election.

Yes, Kamala was not a first choice for a number of people in the primary. We're not talking about the primary. We're talking about the general election.

Krystal's judgments may be right, they may not be. Nothing she said baked up her claims. "Identity politics"?

Did Kamala help the ticket as a bi-racial person?

Show the proof that she didn't. I don't see any proof. A bi-racial woman -- Kamala is Black and Asian -- may have helped the ticket. It's strange that Krystal kept citing African-Americans. Kamala is bi-racial, she's not just Black.

More to the point, Krystal plays "identity politics" when she examines Kamala's support. Why are only African-Americans supposed to be influenced?

Here's the thing, Joe Biden is hugely unpopular with younger African-Americans based upon Bernie Sander's winning their votes and based upon what I heard over and over, even after Joe got the nomination, .from young adults.

Without Kamala on the ticket, can Krystal demonstrate that Joe Biden would have done better, worse or the same? No.

I agree with Krystal that we need to move beyond "Our first!!!!" Whether it's gender, race, what have you. I agree with those points and her large argument. But she's building it on Kamala making no difference to the votes -- that's her argument -- but Kamala may have saved the ticket. At present, no information says she did, no information says she didn't.

Younger people we spoke with who were voting Joe Biden noted repeatedly that Joe wasn't up to the job but would state that Kamala could "step up when needed."

Joe, with his history, probably needed a balance on the ticket and that would be someone of color due to Joe's racist roots. Joe was balance in 2008 for those who feared Barack Obama might come off too inexperienced, or did we forget that? Joe balanced the ticket with his 'experience.'

Let's move over to Glenn Greenwald talking about the three most likely danger areas from a Biden-Harris administration.

I guess I'd take Krystal's argument more seriously if it had facts to back it up or if it wasn't coming from a woman who co-hosts a show that refuses to feature female guests in equal measures. Why do I even have to raise that issue in 2020? I'm tired of it. We should have progressed to the point that we all agree that since women are move than 50% of the population, they should make up at least half the guests. If you can't do that, don't talk to us about 'identity politics.' Too often, that term has been used by people trying to justify their refusal to embrace equality.

I know RISING is trying to do better. I know Katie Halper (on her own show) is trying to do better. And I do appreciate that. But if you don't like being singled out, if you think that's just so off putting, imagine for one moment having to be the one to single you out? To call you out? There are a ton of people with platforms larger than this who could call you out and want to call you out but don't. I hear from the constantly -- most of the time over the phone because I know them personally.

Why can't you clean up your own mess and not make be Mommy telling you no X-Box until you've cleaned up your mess?

It's like James Jeffrey, that discussion we've been having. Friends who are Constitutional Law attorneys can't stop calling, "Right on! That's the call to make!" Well, why don't you make it? I'm out on the limb here all alone. I can handle it, I've been here before and will be again. But if you really agree that the conspiracy that Jeffrey took part in and bragged about to the press was wrong and was treason, then why don't you say so publicly? Many of you write op-eds. Why can't you write it?

And don't think I don't toss that back to them on the phone.

FOX BUSINESS discusses, with US House Rep August Pfluger, the talk that Donald Trump may withdraw US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

NPR's Dustin Jones types:

The White House will bring home 2,500 troops from Afghanistan and Iraq by the end of the year against the guidance of top military officials, a drawdown order that reduces the American presence by about a third, from 4,500 to 2,500 in Afghanistan and 3,000 to 2,500 in Iraq, according to a U.S. official.

NPR's Tom Bowman reported the move is opposed by senior military leaders, given Afghanistan's fragile state. Peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban have seemingly stalled, and violent attacks have risen 50% in recent months. Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, have advised the troop reduction be pushed to the spring, Bowman reported.

Do military officials and leaders tell Tom Bowman that, Dusty?

Well what do the others say, Dusty?

Where's the balance?

Cindy Sheehan has dedicated her life to peace. What's her reaction, Dusty? What's US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard's reaction? How about the reaction from people who were members of the Out of Iraq caucus? Where's Senator Russ Feingold's reaction? Where's the reaction from Iraq War veteran Adam Kokesh and other veterans who spoke out against the US being in Iraq? Where's Mike Gravel?

Where's that, Dusty?

Why do the American people not matter? Why does the defense industry matter so much to you? Because of who pays the bills, Dusty?

Eric Schmitt, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Charlie Savage and Helene Cooper (NEW YORK TIMES) offer:

President Trump is expected to order the U.S. military to withdraw thousands of troops from Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia by the time he leaves office in January, using the end of his time in power to significantly pull back American forces from far-flung conflicts around the world.

Under a draft order circulating at the Pentagon on Monday, the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan would be halved from the current deployment of 4,500 troops, officials said.

In Iraq, the Pentagon would trim force levels slightly below the 3,000 troops that commanders had previously announced. And in Somalia, virtually all of the more than 700 troops conducting training and counterterrorism missions would leave.

Taken together, the cuts reflect Mr. Trump’s longstanding desire to stop shouldering the cost of long-running military engagements against Islamist insurgencies in failed and fragile countries in Africa and the Middle East, a grinding mission that has spread since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Here's CBS NEWS reporting on the developments:

At WSWS, nothing on this development. But Ray Coleman and Nick Barrickman did examine the team Joe Biden is building:

Last week, President-elect Joe Biden named key members of his Department of Defense transition team. Eight of Biden’s 23 team members are from pro-military think tanks. Kathleen Hicks, senior vice-president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington D.C. think tank with close ties to the US military and intelligence agencies, will head Biden’s Pentagon transition team. Hicks is also “Henry A. Kissinger chair” and director of the International Security Program at the CSIS.

The CSIS gets significant funding from war contractors such as General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. According to Hicks’ profile on the CSIS website, her areas of specialization include Asia, climate change, counterterrorism and homeland security, the defense industry, defense strategy and capabilities, NATO and weapons of mass destruction proliferation.

She is a member of the board of trustees of the Aerospace Corporation and sits on the board of directors of the US Naval Institute. She has received distinguished service awards from three secretaries of defense and a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Hicks was a high-ranking Pentagon official in the administration of President Barack Obama during the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. She served as principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy in the Defense Department. She also held the post of deputy undersecretary of defense for strategy, plans and forces.

The CSIS has supplied several other individuals chosen for Biden’s Pentagon transition team. Melissa Dalton was a Pentagon official from 2007 to 2014, a period that spanned the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Her focus is the Middle East.

Another member of Biden’s defense transition team is Andrew Hunter, who served in the Pentagon from 2011 to 2014.

“The DC think tank scene is well represented” on Biden’s military transition team, states Defense News.

Jimmy Dore covered the issue of possible withdrawals last night.

The following sites updated: