I have to start with SUPERMAN AND LOIS. Which airs on THE CW . . . sometime.
That is the biggest problem with the show -- THE CW's inability to air it regularly.
I missed an episode last week that wasn't in my YOUTUBE CLOUD. It wasn't there so I missed it. Then I went to THE CW on YOUTUBE TV to see if there was anything the network had that I wanted to stream -- that was Thursday -- and there it is, last week's episode. So I check to see when the next new episode airs and that's . . . July 13th.
There's no excuse for that bullsh**. No excuse. That's almost a month later (June 22nd to July 13th is almost a month).
That is the biggest problem with the show.
It has another real problem. And I love the show but there is another real problem.
Episode before last, you had Lana with Superman and she never notices? Then the episode that aired most recently we see how Lois and Clark met. And she falls in love with dorky Clark (I don't think Clark's a dork, I think he's a person with integrity in a world where few have it). She's then interviewing Superman. Superman finds out how she feels when a producer pulls her away and says there's sexual tension between her and Superman and she responds no, there's not, she's in love with dorky Clark and she hasn't even told Clark.
How stupid are these people supposed to be?
Clark is not Bruce Wayne. He's not pulling on a mask and becoming Batman. He's taking off his glasses and sporting stubble. That's it.
If Lois is in love with Clark and standing in front of Superman, why can't she tell they are one and the same? Or at least that they are two guys who look strangely alike.
Lana, for those who don't know the story -- forget the show -- is Clark's high school girlfriend in Smallville. She can't tell that Superman and Clark are the same? That Superboy and Clark are the same. Or at least that they look enough alike to be twins?
Now we're supposed to buy that Lois Lane, not just a girlfriend but the love of his life, can't tell that Clark and Superman look the same?
In the Superman movies with Christopher Reeve, you had him at least change his hair as Superman.
Tyler Hoechlin does a great job playing the part.
But this is nonsense. It's getting worse each episode. I don't care about all that came before in the comics. I'm watching a new show in the 21st century and the 'undercover' hero hides in his secret identity by wearing . . . a pair of glasses.
I thought Kyle was going to catch on this season and that the point there would be that Kyle, unlike Lana and Lois, is not in love with Clark so he could see clearly. And I would've accepted that as a valid point. We can be blinded by love.
But with no one picking up on it? Not Lana, not Lois, not Kyle?
Or his two kids -- his own two kids.
Seems like someone needs to be wearing glasses and it's not Clark. A lot of someones need to be wearing glasses.
So the latest episode, the one I'd missed. Remember the time before? Superman saved everyone from Morgan Edge? And it left him weakened?
In that weakened Superman has Morgan used a device on him that lets him see Superman's life -- how Clark met Lois, etc. He's going to go after the boys. Morgan beats up Superman and flies back to Smallville. Lois tells him to get away from the boys and that his problem is with her. Jon and Jordan get ready for battle but Superman flies in to save them.
By agreeing to join Morgan in taking over the world -- as John/Lex had warned would happen -- by destroying humans.
Superman flies off with Edge -- with me hoping he's planning a way to defeat Edge and just biding his time -- and with Lois leaving a voice mail for John about what's happening.
Okay, now can someone help me out? Two episodes ago, we found out that Morgan was from Krypton. He referred to Ka'el as "my brother." I thought he meant that he and Clark were brothers in that they were both from Krypton. But I'm confused with this latest episode -- are they actually brothers? If they are, it's got to be half-brothers because they have different fathers.
I guess they're half-brothers. This is from WIKIPEDIA's entry on Morgan Edge:
- Morgan Edge appears in the TV series Superman & Lois, portrayed by Adam Rayner. Sometime after the "Crisis on Infinite Earths", Morgan Edge is depicted as an intelligent, eloquent, and impassioned self-made mogul who has bought out different media outlets including the Daily Planet, leading to the firing of Clark Kent and the resignation of Lois Lane. In Smallville, Edge's company Edge EnerCorp gains ownership of a mine that contains X-Kryptonite which he plans to use to continue experiments in an attempt to create a superpowered army. His previous experiments resulted in only one non-flawed subject, his assistant Leslie Larr (portrayed by Stacey Farber). His work in Smallville brings him into further conflict with Lois Lane and an alternate John Henry Irons, who comes from an Earth where a similar army led by Superman ravaged Metropolis and murdered John's wife, Lois. Edge is later revealed to be a Kryptonian named Tal-Rho, the son of Lara Lor-Van and Zeta-Rho and thus Superman's maternal half-brother. His escape pod landed in England, where he immediately came into conflict with the local townspeople. He was captured and experimented on before managing to escape, causing him to hate mankind. His goal is to resurrect Krypton on Earth by implanting Kryptonian consciousnesses into human hosts using the X-Kryptonite and the Eradicator. Upon finding Superman's body at the Fortress of Solitude following the defeat of most of the Subjekts, Tal-Rho uses Kryptonian technology to review Superman's memories, discovering his human family. With his family threatened, Superman agrees to accompany Tal-Rho to his hideout where the A.I. of Zeta-Rho instructs Tal-Rho to use the Eradicator on him.
Okay. Before I move on, let me note again that Tyler Hoschlin is doing a great job in the role of Clark Kent-Superman. He's everything you could want in the character. I have nothing but praise for him.
Now for Jimmy Dore.
I think Jimmy said it well in the video above.
Ana and TYT have been hideous. Ava and C.I. have followed this story for some time and did it most recently in "TV: Moments of Wonder:"
Again, we wonder.
We wonder about Ana Kasparian. Specifically, why JACOBIN continues its association with her?
At the start of the year the 'star' of THE YOUNG TURKS used her JACOBIN podcast to launch a loud, nasty, shrieking attack on Katie Halper for daring to draw attention to Ana's extended throw down with a War Hawk.
That's Ana pictured with her spirit lover Mad Maddie Albright. Ana chose to play footsie with War Criminal Maddie and yet is so sensitive when people point out how wrong that was.
JACOBIN, for those who don't know, promotes itself as "socialist." WSWS would beg to differ and, on that, we agree with them 100%. (We agree with them on many things but not on everything.) If you're thinking, "I'm familiar with IN THESE TIMES, THE PROGRESSIVE, THE NATION, etc, but this JACOBIN . . ."
The weirdly pronounced outlet is new-ish. It's basically the US SOCIALIST WORKER renamed. That outlet imploded due to massive internal racism and sexism. There were rumors and charges of abuse and harassment and it became so toxic we can't imagine anyone putting it on their resume for at least another ten years. In it's puddle, JACOBIN emerges.
If you're thinking, "You two really hate JACOBIN," you're wrong. We don't kiss ass. And we don't fluff. Don't mistake that for hate. What we do hate about JACOBIN is that they pimp for the Democratic Party at election time. We think if you're a voting age adult reading a publication pitching itself as "socialist," you don't really need anyone telling you how to vote. We think a lot of outlets on the left are forgetting themselves and mistaking their readership for a cult that will follow orders.
JACOBIN has many things going for it of the positive nature and they include some very passionate writers. We'd call the addition of David Sirota a positive.
But then there's Ana.
March 21, 1973, criminal John Dean told criminal and then-president Richard Nixon, "I think that there's no doubt about the seriousness of the problem we've got. We have a cancer within -- close to the presidency, that's growing. It's growing daily. It's compounding."
For JACOBIN, Ana is both their cancer and their nasty Dick but who will be their John Dean?.
Because she really needs to go.
She has been attacking Jimmy Dore and Aaron Mate for months now. We haven't weighed in once. They're big boys and they can take care of themselves.. No, Glen (Rodney) King, we can't all get along. And we don't have to. And a critique or a slam comes with the territory.
Ourselves? We're not slamming Glenn Greenwald or Naomi Wolf these days. Both are getting a lot of slams. Both are trying to deal with serious issues. Whatever problems we may have with either in the future or have had in the past? They're trying to do real work as opposed to offering empty chatter on MSNBC. We'll stand with them against attacks.
And we're not upset that Ana's got a smart mouth and a nasty attitude. That puts her in the category of pig -- which is where easily half the men on YOUTUBE being 'political' land.
But we noted back during the attack on Katie Halper and Brihana Joy Gray that Ana was hurting JACOBIN's brand and shouldn't have pulled that stunt on a JACOBIN program.
What she's done lately, she's pulled on THE YOUNG TURKS.
But it was so offensive, she should have been pulled from JACOBIN for it.
Screeching and hollering, the pig snarled "F**k you" to a non-present Aaron Mate and raised one of her hooves to flip him the bird. All of this was done in defense of . . . herself. While others worry about war and famine, Ana gets outraged over the top results from Googling her own name.
Who exactly did she think would find that 'performance art' attractive?
We don't watch RING OF FIRE because Farron Cousins pulls out that toxic masculinity.
And, yes, boys and girls, women can possess toxic masculinity as well and, yes, boys and girls, Ana does.
As we noted in June of 2017:
The 'independent' film scene today isn't independent and is really just a farm for the studios to make their low budget dramas even cheaper than they used to.
That which stands out is either beaten down or co-opted.
Ellen Barkin's Smurf does that with her children and her grandson J (Finn Cole). She's drugging her son Pope, for example. She pulls the strings. If she can't, she's plotting to take her own children down.
Of all the masculinity on display in ANIMAL KINGDOM, the most toxic is that exhibited by the matriarch Smurf.
We don't think Ana's currently exhibiting the most toxic masculinity -- Cenk is one of the fools riding ahead of her -- but, yes, she is exhibiting toxic masculinity. It's that trait, in fact, that let her take part in TYT all these years where overgrown (and overfed) men tried to pretend they were young boys and that frat boy mentality was the norm.
We wish Ana's attack on Katie and Bri had registered more. Independent outlets have privately expressed agreement with us that Ana went too far and JACOBIN needed to replace her. But Ana's attack on Aaron Mate has registered. Because he's a man? Maybe. Maybe when a woman attacks two women some just see it as a cat fight. Her attack on Aaron is not seen that way. Aaron is seen as a journalist because that's what he is. And journalists aren't attacking Aaron. Partisans are, but journalists aren't. We heard from reporters and editors for THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE and THE MIAMI HERALD as well as from two producers and one anchor for CNN and ABC. Ana's little stunt, her explosion, was noticed by the corporate press. This is not the time for JACOBIN to be associated with or linked to her.
So we wonder why she's still at JACOBIN and why her cozy love-fest with Mad Maddie wasn't enough to get her hall pass pulled?
War Criminal Mad Maddie supported the sanctions, remember. These would be the same sanctions of which ALJAZEERA noted, "The UN estimated that up to 1.7 million Iraqis may have died as a result of the sanctions; 500,000 of them were children, by 2003."
A year ago, at COMMON DREAMS, Tom Gallagher explained:
Dig deep into the June issue of National Geographic magazine and you might just find something that will cast a major aspect of American foreign policy—our economic sanctions regimes—in a new light. The issue’s cover story, "The Last Voices of World War II," includes a graphic showing the death tolls of the various nations in that war’s European and Pacific Theaters. Unfold that graphic and you’ll find an even more interesting one within—"Peaks of Brutality," which displays the "100 deadliest events of the past 2,500 years." World War II’s 66 million deaths (an estimate, as all the numbers are) lead the list. The events are not limited to wars, so in second place we find Genghis Khan, deemed responsible for the death of 40 million—over 10 percent of the 13th century world population. But the most interesting and relevant listings are found down at the bottom—"Saddam Hussein" in 100th place and "Sanctions against Iraq" in 95th.
You read that right. By this list’s reckoning, the 1979-2003 reign of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein constituted the 100th deadliest event in world history, responsible for an estimated 300,000 deaths. It was surpassed in deadliness, however—and in a considerably shorter time period (1990-2003)—by the economic sanctions which killed an estimated 350,000 Iraqis following their country’s invasion of Kuwait. In other words, in the matter of Saddam Hussein, the supposed cure proved deadlier than the disease.
To say that the American public has exhibited less concern over the Iraqis killed by sanctions than over those whose deaths were attributable to Hussein himself is a serious understatement. But then, with mainline journalism being ever-responsive to the D.C. propaganda machine, how many are actually aware of these numbers? Really, the only time the matter of the sanctions’ deadliness made a ripple on the American political scene was in reaction to then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright’s response to a 1996 60 Minutes question about sanctions killing Iraqi children: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”
This profoundly cynical response was clearly not enough to harm her career, though. Following a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing that she opened by stating her determination to keep the sanctions in place, the Senate confirmed her appointment as Bill Clinton’s secretary of state—by a 99-0 vote.
The verdict on Mad Maddie has long been in on the left. On the left. Not necessarily among the partisans. But on the left, we know she's garbage and that's who Ana was scissoring publicly.
We wonder, "In what world?" Really, in what world?
C.I. covered the issue regularly at THE COMMON ILLS. This included in the June 16th snapshot:
Women deal with real issue every day and around the world. So I'm just not in the mood for bitches. I'm less and less in the mood for bitches. In fact, see February's "DUMB BITCHES or SISTERHOOD IS NO EXCUSE FOR PRAISING A BAD BOOK.''
Feminism is not your excuse for doing a sorry ass job. Feminism is not a cloak that protects you from criticism.
I'm referring to the hideous Ana Kasparian who suffers from toxic masculinity but is now trying to cry and moan that she's been harassed by Jimmy Dore. It was years ago but poor Ana didn't have the strength to speak up until now. Shudder, cry, sniffle, bad Jimmy, noted that her skirt was so short you could see her thong! Oh the horror, oh the outrage. It was like, Ana needs you to know, being raped.
So many ways to reply. First off, dumb bitch, we aren't as stupid as you hope we are.
Bulls**t. Thats the call to your claim. You wore an outfit that was inappropriate. Not the first time. You wore it in the workplace.
Ana, you dress like a slut. That assessment came from one of your co-workers years ago. I've never spoken to Jimmy Dore, I don't know him. But I am friends with a woman you worked with. And you were an embarrassment. "Slutting around"? I use that term from time and that friend -- I'm sure you know which woman I'm talking about -- taught me that term and applied it to you.
You came in day after day, while she and other women were trying to get a toe-in at TYT and you'd be dressing like a slut, "goodies on display," as she said and flirting with men, hanging all over them.
That's you, Ana.
And you be you. But don't turn around and whine that someone made a joke about your outfit.
It was a pattern with you.
And it's not sexism. It's you not knowing how to dress appropriately in the work place and not knowing how to keep your hands off men -- including Cenk.
Long before I could even put a face to your lousy name, I knew all about you. And that was based on the opinion of women, actual feminists, who knew you and who worked with you.
Jimmy made a joke about your inappropriate outfit. Get over yourself.
And stop pretending you're a feminist. Your work demonstrates that you are not.
Women deal with real issues every day and you and TYT ignore that. You offer smutty grabage not real issues and you do nothing for women so just drop the pretense.
Jimmy, a comedian, made a joke. Get over yourself.
ADDED at 1:32 PM 6/16/21: And, Ana, your use of the term "f*g" not so long ago in the work place is also well known by people who worked with you -- as are your 'jokes' that speak of homophobia, so keep pulling at that strand and see where it lands you.
Watch Jimmy's video above and then read what C.I.'s written above and grasp that Kyle is an idiot.
In fact, he's Idiot of the Week. We just got back today -- we're at C.I.'s -- and I know she and Ava and talking about writing on this topic at THIRD so I'll stop there but Kyle is a weak-ass, he's pathetic and now he's lying to try to make it seem as though Jimmy is at fault or that Jimmy has done the same sort of bad things. There's no equivalency and Kyle is an idiot if he thinks anyone's going to fall for his crap.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, July 2, 2021. Let's spend another day on Donald Rumsfeld because his War Crimes were immense.
TEEN VOGUE notes:
Yes, Donald remains thankfully dead. Before we get into the War Criminal, let's note a basic truth: If you've spent the last days with more attention on Bill Cosby than on Donald Rumsfeld, you really aren't much of an adult.
If Bill is guilty of what he was accused of, his crimes shrink in the scope of Donald's crimes -- unless you only care about American people and feel other people -- especially people in the Middle East -- don't matter at all. I don't like Bill Cosby. I've never liked him and I've never owed him a damn thing. But he rescued a lot of people's careers over the years and it was so sad/strange to watch those people play dumb in public. I'm not talking about TV actors who worked with him. I'm talking about people whose careers were over and who he helped restart their careers. I'm talking about people like Cher who were a joke and who were over but Bill put his reputation behind Cher and Sonny to help their comeback.
I don't like Bill. I never have. I've encountered him many times. (He doesn't like me either, it's mutual.) But if he'd ever helped me in some way, I think I would at least state something publicly like, "That's not the Bill I knew. I'm deeply saddened if the charges are true." But we didn't get that. And so many in Hollywood owe Bill. That's why he was able to get so many people to make idiots of themselves by appearing in LEONARD PART 6.
Bill's not guilty because the conviction was overturned. Legally, he's not guilty. This wasn't a pardon. This was the conviction was overturned. "On a technicality!"
Yes, and it's a hell of a technicality.
So much so that if you care about justice, you should be in agreement. If a legal agreement is reached in 2004, the government can't overturn it a few years later because they don't like it.
The 2004 agreement never should have been made but it was made. Instead of building what appeared to be a strong case on real evidence, the prosecution went too far -- and the judge overseeing the case allowed them to go that far. The government is not supposed to go unchecked.
Do I think Bill committed the crimes? Yes, personally I do. I also don't feel it was that difficult of a case to be built. But the government chose to cut corners and to cut basic principles in our legal system. That was outrageous. They deserve to have their work disputed and spat upon.
There is no conviction now. I'm sorry if you were assaulted by Bill. I hope you get whatever help a failing system can provide. But this is our legal system and it is better that a guilty person go free than that the system is abused and destroyed so that many more suffer. (Even when not abused, our system still suffers and that's evident by the huge number of people incarcerated throughout the US.)
The system doesn't guarantee you justice -- a fact that many don't appear to grasp. It guarantees you -- or is supposed to -- a public say. The government abused the system and a higher court rightly called that out and overturned the verdict.
Donald Rumsfeld was a War Criminal who is responsible for the deaths of millions. He was in a position of trust -- not because he was an entertainer but because he was a public servant -- a role that comes with the expectation that the public can trust the person. The public couldn't trust Donald and were wrong to have thought that they could. He abused democracy, he advanced torture and he is responsible for the deaths of millions.
"Rape!" Yes, rape is an important issue and I'm not saying it's not. But if you're unaware of how many rapes have taken place in Iraq because of the illegal war (and let's include 'trial marriages' in that category as well as forced marriages where underage girls were married off to elderly men against their will), that's really on you.
Don't pretend to me that rape matters to you if you're unaware of, for example, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi who was gang-raped and murdered on March12, 2006 while Donald was still Secretary of Defense. She'd be 29-years-old now but she instead she's dead.
Donald set the tone. He had US troops torturing people -- in CIA black sites, at Guantanamo, in Abu Ghraib and many other places. That's what send the message that US troops can get away with rape and murder.
And US troops gang-raped and murdered Abeer. While they were taking turns raping her, she could hear her five-year-old-sister and her mother and her father being shot dead in the next room.
The focus on Bill Cosby at the expense of Donald Rumsfeld? It may be part of the refusal to own what our government has done. It may be part of the natural gossipy nature of our society to focus on celebrities. It may also have some elements of racism. There was a glee with which Bill was taken down. I don't like Bill. I actually loathe him and that's been clear for years. But I was sent reeling by the glee that surrounded this entire chapter.
Rape is a serious issue. If you're unhappy that Bill's not behind bars -- and is no longer guilty of rape (a verdict overturned means it no longer exists) -- you need to blame the government for how they argued the case and how, in arguing it, they abused the system.
[ADDED: 3:13 PM EST, 7/2/21 E-mails coming in have noted that Jonathan Turley weighed in earlier this week on Cosby's verdict being tossed aside:
In their 79-page opinion, the judges found that a “non-prosecution agreement” reached with Cosby should have barred the prosecution. In the earlier agreement, the prosecutor, Bruce Castor Jr., agreed not to charge Cosby in return for his civil deposition. He proceeded to incriminate himself in what the Court said was a bait-and-switch. The later prosecutor then just ignored the nonprosecution agreement. The trial was also undermined by the decision of the trial court to allow women to testify as witnesses on uncharged alleged crimes against Cosby.
It is clear that, absent the agreement, Cosby would never have agreed to the four depositions. Free of the threat of prosecution, Cosby incriminated himself. Dolores Troiani., counsel for Andrea Constand, asked “When you got the Quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these Quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?” Cosby replied, “Yes.” That and other statements were used at his criminal trial.
Kevin Steele, the Montgomery County district attorney who convicted Cosby, issued a statement that was embarrassing in its evasion of responsibility. He dismissed the ruling as “a procedural issue that is irrelevant to the facts of the crime.” Obviously, it was quite relevant because Steele proved a crime by unconstitutional means. Yet, Steele seems entirely unwilling to acknowledge his errors and declared that
“My hope is that this decision will not dampen the reporting of sexual assaults by victims. Prosecutors in my office will continue to follow the evidence wherever and to whomever it leads. We still believe that no one is above the law — including those who are rich, famous and powerful.”
The statement is breathtaking. Of course it could undermine such reports since Steele engineered an unconstitutional verdict that led to Cosby prevailing. Moreover, Steele is right, “no one is above the law” including prosecutors who are not allowed to pursue convictions at any cost in popular high-profile cases.
Judge Steven T. O’Neill (who the defense sought to force off the case for bias) also has much to answer for in this wrongful conviction. O’Neill at trial seemed hellbent to try the case. He virtually mocked the defense arguments on the nonprosecution agreement: O’Neill, rejected that claim, saying, “There’s no other witness to the promise. The rabbit is in the hat and you want me at this point to assume: ‘Hey, the promise was made, judge. Accept that.’”
I didn't see that. Rough week. But we'll include it and add it into this snapshot before it gets reposted elsewhere. As I've noted here before, I agree with Jonathan about 95% of the time -- a huge number for me -- and I think he has one of the best legal minds in the US -- why isn't he on the Supreme Court? Thank you to Billie, Sabina, Ahmed and Lewis for pointing out Turley's opinion on the Cosby case.
While I'm adding, let's also add Katie Halper addressing the press treatment of Rumsfeld versus the way they treater the late Senator Mike Gravel.
That's from Krystal and Saagar's BREAKING POINTS which aired earlier today -- and is already up as an individual entry.]
"Unlike the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans, and so many others killed in the wars he launched and in the torture cells he oversaw, Donald Rumsfeld died peacefully," Phyllis Bennis observes at THE NATION and from that basic truth she stumbles and falls flat on her fat ass. By the time she's noting deaths and using what we now know is a US government backed website (Iraq Body Count) for her numbers, she's just an embarrassment. Do we need Elaine to publicly shame her again to get her to use THE LANCET? Bitch, I don't have time for your s**t and, quite honestly, the world can't afford it.
Phyllis just needs to shut her damn mouth and keep it shut on Iraq. In the summer of 2006, the last day KNIGHT RIDDER existed, before it officially became MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, Nancy A. Youssef published an important article about how the US government was, in fact, keeping track of Iraqi deaths despite their denials and repeatedly insisting that they didn't "do" body counts. Weeks later, Phyllis goes on FAIR's COUNTERSPIN to bemaon the fact that there are no body counts being kept on the Iraqis being killed. This was when Phyl was the Iraq expert and pretended she actually followed the subject and topic.
And Elaine had to publicly slap the bitch for pimping undercounts of the dead in Iraq when many solid counts -- non US government counts -- existed. Phyl was part of the fake ass United for Peace and Justice (aka the turnout the vote auxiliary of the Democratic Party) so she couldn't take the embarrassment and upped her count but now she's back and she's pimping IBC. Because she's a liar? Because she's a coward?
I have no idea. She's a useless bitch and she's made that her life's role, take it up with her. We can't afford her or her garbage. She tells you no one wanted the war more than Donald Rumsfeld.
Bully Boy Bush is still alive but let's continue to give him a pass, right, Phyllis? And I'm not sure Donald wanted it more than members of press that worked overtime to pimp and promote the war -- and to keep it going once it got started -- while shaming and bullying anyone who spoke out or questioned.
I'm not seeing any acknowledgement in Phyliss' garbage that the press turned Donald Rumsfeld and others into media heroes. VANITY FAIR can act as woke as it wishes it were -- I don't really thingk that sexual harassment there is buried but, I'm sure Conde Naste hopes it is -- but the reality will always be that they did a glossy spread on Bully Boy Bush and his administration and Annie Leibovitz can lie all she wants but she didn't use that opportunity and her camera to serve up Diane Arbus type type portraits of the War Criminals for that issue but instead became the Leni Riefenstahl of still photography.
Phyllis, the 'expert' on Iraq, offers a lot of words that do very little. She never addresses the press in any real detail. The name "Thomas Friedman" is but one of many that fails to appear, for example. Or the hideous Tim Russert or . . . And, again, step out of line and be shamed and bullied -- or worse. If you were outside the US, there was much worse.
Journalists’ organizations have demanded investigations into two incidents in which US military forces killed three journalists in Baghdad on April 8, including Al-Jazeera correspondent Tariq Ayoub, and seriously wounded several others. The attacks came amid broadcasts showing some of the mounting slaughter being conducted by US troops throughout the Iraqi capital.
Ayoub, a 34-year-old Palestinian Jordanian, was killed in a direct missile strike on Al-Jazeera’s Baghdad offices. Surviving Al-Jazeera staff sought shelter in the nearby offices of rival satellite station Abu Dhabi TV, which then also came under US attack.
At one point, Abu Dhabi TV correspondent Shaker Hamed issued an emergency on-air call for help, saying “Twenty-five journalists and technicians belonging to Abu Dhabi television and Qatari satellite television channel Al-Jazeera are surrounded in the offices of Abu Dhabi TV in Baghdad.”
Hamed called on the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Organization of Journalists, Reporters Sans Frontieres and the Arab Journalists Union “to intervene quickly to pull us out of this zone where missiles and shells are striking in an unbelievable way.”
Shortly after the Al-Jazeera strike, two cameramen died when a US tank fired on Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel, which houses more than 200 international correspondents—nearly all of the “non-embedded” journalists left in the besieged city. The victims were Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk, 35, a Ukrainian national, and Jose Couso, 37, who worked for the private Spanish television station Telecinco. Another three members of the media were injured.
The strike on Al-Jazeera’s broadcasting facilities was undoubtedly deliberate. Al-Jazeera had written to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on February 23 giving the precise location of its office so as to avoid being targeted.
Both Ayoub and a cameraman, Zuheir Iraqi, who was wounded with shrapnel to his neck, were standing on the station’s roof in preparation for a live broadcast when the missiles hit the building, leaving Al-Jazeera’s bureau in ruins.
BBC reporter Rageh Omaar, who is stationed in the nearby Palestine Hotel, described the bombing as “suspect.” He said, “We were watching and filming the bombardment and it’s quite clearly a direct strike on the Al-Jazeera office. This was not just a stray round. It just seemed too specific.”
Where's that in your 'analysis' or 'commentary' or just vomitary of words? It's no where to be found, Phyllis.
Here's a few examples of much better analysis than Phyllis offered.
Elaine's "POLITO lies again" went up a few minutes ago and the following sites also updated: