They closed up shop on ABC with two episodes. The first one found Jules and Grayson heading off to wine country to elope. Then Jules decided she could not do that because (among other reasons) Grayson's daughter was not there.
So I was really happy because I thought, "Yea! TBS will get the wedding!" Wrong. The wedding took place in the second episode. I really am sad that the wedding was wasted on ABC, a network that never appreciated the show and really screwed it over this year.
So what else happened?
Jules got her beach wedding, with her father presiding. I was honestly offended when he declared them "man and wife." All those years ago, in the sixties, I refused to have that said at my wedding. It was "husband and wife." And I was kind of shocked that Jules would have it at her wedding.
I guess Grayson can do whatever he wants because he entered the ceremony a man and was then pronounced one. Jules entered a woman (though called a "girl") and left a "wife."
Bobby was dependable throughout in that he was always funny. Even when Penny Can died thanks to Travis.
I was not sure what to feel for Andy? Ellie was flirting with guest star (David Arquette -- very good in his role) and I felt like I sometimes do about Tom -- that it went too far.
They really went too far with Tom this time. If you do not know, Jules lives in a cul de sac. Across the streeet was neighbor Grayson (he is selling his house and had already moved in with Jules). Next door was Jules' best friend Ellie and Ellie's husband Andy. Also in the cul de sac was Tom, this person they all make fun of and treat badly who just wants to be their friends. This season, we learned Tom was a doctor and a chief surgeon. We learned that when Travis got hurt and Tom took care of him. (Travis is Jules and Bobby's son.) This time, the jokes on Tom continued.
Ellie can get away with almost anything because that is her character. So if she was dogging on Tom, that would be one thing. But she was not the one. And when Tom is falling off a ladder and in pain and you are not going outside to help him, it really does not strike me as funny.
If it were Seinfeld and Newman, okay. Because the two are enemies. But Tom wants to be their friend and Jules will let him think he is when she and the others can use him. It is not really that funny.
What else?
Travis got drunk (first time -- at least on wine), stripped naked and told Lori he loved her while Jules looked uncomfortable. I did not understand that. A) He now loved wine (as she wanted). B) I thought she was over her Lori issues. C) Based on past incidents, Travis nude should have had Jules making embarrassing comments about how cute he was or how he has grown or baths she gave him.
I also did not understand her need to constantly reference looking like Alice Cooper. It made no sense if you watched this season. It was only a few weeks ago that Ellie's mother trashed Jules' appearance and compared her make up to Alice Cooper's leading Jules to ask Ellie who that was and for Ellie to lie to her. So when did Jules learn Alice Cooper was a man?
There was also a reference to Groundhog Day (Grayson's favorite movie), Lori, Ellie and Jules watching it, and then when they wanted to teach Jules to be sensitive, everyone pulled a groundhog day on her. I did not understand why the show had to use a knock-off of "I've Got You Babe." (In the film, it is the Sonny & Cher number one classic. On the TV show, I have no idea who was singing that but it did not even sound like a duet.)
I really think that the wedding should have waited for TBS. Other than that and the Tom treatment, it was a nice wrap up.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Wednesday,
May 30, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, empire gets discussed,
Marcy Winograd has an announcement, Talabani doesn't want Nouri to face a
vote of no confidence, Tareq al-Hashemi feels the continued drama
surrounding him is about to wrap up, I offer my thoughs of (and support
for) Chris Hayes, and more.
The
Honorable Jonathan Sumption is not only a judge (Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom), he's also a historian. Earlier this
month, he delivered a [PDF format warning] speech to the London School of Economics' Department of Government
The
extreme case is of course the choice between peace and war. In
reviewing the military interventions of the English government, the
courts have arrived at a position practically indistinguisable from the
old non-justiciability rule, although justified on a different basis.
The legality of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was, to put
it mildly, a matter of some controversy everywhere outside the United
States. The great majority of international lawyers of repute
considered it to be contrary to international law, in the absence of the
United Nations authority and did not accept that any of the relevant
resolutions conferred that authority. The United States was inclined to
respond to this difficulty in the way that the British had done at the
time of the Suez crisis of 1956, by simply ignoring it. In 1956, the
Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller and the
Solicitor-General Sir Harry Hilton-Foster, both supported the invasion
politically although both believed and told the Prime Minister that it
was illegal. The Chief of Imperial General Staff, Sir Gerald Templer,
issued the deployment orders without troubling himself with the legal
issue. These are attitudes characteristic of an imperial power, and we
should not be particularly surprised to find them adopted by the United
States. It is a sign of how far the climate of British opinion had
changed by 2003 that the Chiefs of Staff required an assurance from the
Attorney-General that operations in Iraq were lawful. They famously
received one that had been prepared on a basis not wholly consistent
with his previously expressed views and supported by reasoning which
provoked the resignation of one of the Foreign Office legal advisers and
was rejected by every serious authority on international law.
And on empires, we'll move to the latest broadcast of David Swanson's Talk Nation Radio which features Marcy Winograd. Excerpt.
David
Swanson: You have left the fold of the Democratic Party and gone to the
Green Party and after having been a candidate for Congress in
Democratic primaries and done remarkably well against a well funded
incumbent as a peace candidate. Why the -- Why the decision to go to
the Green Party?
Marcy
Winograd: David, it wasn't an easy decision and it was one I wrestled
with for probably quite some time. But at the end of the day, the short
answer is that I really didn't want to be aligned with a War Party any
longer. Even if you're an insurgent in that war party, you're still in
it. And as an insurgent, I challenged Jane Harman she was a big Hawk,
supporter of the military industrial complex, I was on the floor of the
Democratic Party convention in California introducing resolutions to
end the war, the assault on Iraq. I was shut down, quoroms were called,
quorom called, I introduced resolutions to censure senators like Dianne
Feinstein when she waffled on whether water boarding was torture. There
are many struggles to engage in as an insurgent within a party and I'm
not saying that they're not worthy and that they're not of great
value but at this point in my life, I really want to live inside my
skin. I want to be authentic. And I also want to look towards the
future. Face it, the American Empire is declining. This is it. We are
collpasing. And we are watching the collapse of the US Empire. How
long did it take other countries? Well ou know for some it took a
century. For others it took just a few years. Look at the Soviet
Union. Two years for the Soviet Union to collapse. A year for
Portugal, 8 years for France. 17 years for Great Britain. There are
historians. I interviewed one on [KPFK] Connect the Dots, Dr. Alfred McCoy who wrote in The Nation
magazine who predicts that by 2025 it's over. Just 15 years from now,
the empire will be over. So given that, the US Empire, with its military
bases in 3/4 of the countries in the world is just not sustainable.
It's imperative that we look to our future and embrace something
positive. We know what we don't want. What do we want? And that's what
attracted me to the Green Party.
David
Swanson: Well clearly the US Empire could end in a variety of ways --
some softer and easier than others. Do you think that the Democratic
Party and, in particular, President Obama are better or worse or about
the same in relationship to the Republican Party and George W. Bush in
terms of the manner in which the empire is over-extending itself and
moving towards its collapse? In other words, would we be better off in
these final years of empire to have the Democrats doing it or the
Republicans?
Marcy
Winograd: That's a very tough question, isn't it? I know that I will
not be voting for Barack Obama for president. And I did support him when
he ran previously. But this time I am going to be voting for the Green
Party nominee because I really do want a different vision for our
country and now's the time for us to speak out and say this is the
alternative vision: a party of non-violence, a party that opposes
weapon sales to other countries, a party that wants to build
sustainable communities and invest in our communities, not extract
wealth and send jobs to other countries. I think, at the end of the day,
that it's very dangerous to have somebody in the White House who people
don't necessarily who people don't necessarily know or understand and
who may project an image of concilation and partnership but in reality
is escalating what began under former President George Bush. I'm
talking about this "war on terror." Right after Obama took office, he
escalated the drone attacks on Pakistan. We now have an increase
in Joint-Special Operations Command Forces in other countries -- from 60
countries under Bush to 75 countries. We have codified indefiniate
detention, extraordinary rendetion and targeted assassination. We have
moved beyond what was considered under the Bush administration as an
order for hot pursuit. In other words, if somebody attacked us or an
ally, we could cross a border in hot pursuit. Now the whole world is a
war theater under Barack Obama. So I'm afraid that under the Democratic
leadership -- both in Congress and in the White House -- we are not
seeing what we think we want to see or what we think we are seeing.
Instead, we're seeing increased militarism. So I think it's very
dangerous to think that this is an alternative path. In fact, I think
under President Obama, we've seen the Democrats able to advance a
Republican agenda, at least on the foreign policy side, at least better
than the Republicans could.
"Download or get embed code from Archive.org or AudioPort or LetsTryDemocracy or RadioProject."
I really am surprised by Marcy's news and will assume others are as
well. Who's running in the Green Party for the presidential
nomination? A press release from the Green Party of Michigan answers that question:
For Immediate Release:
Green Party of Michigan Presidential Nominating Convention Saturday
Mt.
Pleasant) - This Saturday marks the beginning of the Green Party's
nominating convention at the university's campus in Mt. Pleasant which
will last through Sunday afternoon. Excitement for the event has been
building for months as the presidential candidates have been
particularly exciting among members this year.
Dr. Jill Stein of Massachusetts has been travelling throughout the country to stand in
solidarity
with Occupy movements, to speak at Green conventions and events and has
most recently walked with those protesting the PGA in Benton Harbor. A
long-time activist and dedicated member of the Green Party, Dr. Stein is
currently the forerunner in the nomination pool.
Comedienne and activist Roseanne Barr of California has likewise been a long-time
supporter of grassroots movements. Her rallies in California have drawn hundreds of
supporters. Although she was the last candidate to announce her running, she has made a
strong showing in state polls.
Dr. Kent Mesplay of California was the first to announce his candidacy and has
remained a strong contender as a long-time Green. Having also vied for the presidential
nomination
in 2008, he is the candidate with the most experience. As the son of
missionaries, he grew up alongside native peoples in a nature-centered
environment. This has shaped the focus of his message.
The three contenders for the presidential nomination will be speaking remotely at the
convention on Saturday afternoon. Candidates for state and some local offices will also be
nominated this weekend. The straw poll for the presidential nomination will take place on
Saturday
with the results being announced on Sunday. The decision of the straw
poll will guide the choice the delegates will make at the National
Convention in Baltimore, MD on July 12-15.
Highlights of the convention will also include entertainment Saturday evening by musical
acts Stephen Colarelli, a singer/songwriter, Rope and the Rulers, and Poor Player.
The Members of the Green Party of Michigan have been active in petition drives to have
several
critical issues placed on the November ballot including the Emergency
Manager repeal which was thrown out on a questionable technical
objection and the current ban on fracking petition gaining strength and
support throughout the state.
If you are interested in becoming a member of the Green Party or want to learn more
about our key values, see our webpage: www.migreens.org.
###
For more information, please contact
Convention organizer and Green Party Co-chair Fred Vitale: freddetroit@sbcglobal.net
or Green Party Elections Coordinator John A La Pietra: jalp@triton.net
Your
vote is your vote. Use it as you want. Like Marcy, I cannot vote for
Barack Obama. I don't reward War Hawks. As I've stated before, I think
I'll just sit out the voting for that office. That's what I'm doing,
you do what you want, if you're voting you're an adult so you should be
able to figure out who speaks to you (if anyone does) and vote (or vote
by not voting) accordingly. (And for more on the Green Party race, you
can refer to this post by Ian Wilder at On The Wilder Side.)
Today the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) released "Report on Human Rights in Iraq: 2011." As with the Iraq section of the US State Dept's 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices released last week, UNAMI's findings weren't pretty.
But
it's difficult to tell who's the bigger joke: Nouri al-Maliki or the
UN. Martin Kolber is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Envoy
to Iraq. Having sat through Martin Kobler's presentation to the UN Security Council April 10th
and seeing the single sentence that couldn't use the term "gay" but
hinted that the targeting of Emo and LGBT youth (and those perceived as
such) would be addressed in the report (the one released today), this
report's an embarrassment. That section is the smallest section of
today's report, it's buried deep.
10. Attacks on persons for reason of their sexual orientation
The
topic of homosexuality is largely taboo in Iraq. Members of the
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community usually keep
their sexual orientation secret and live in constant fear of
discrimination, rejection by family members, social exclusion,
intimidation and violence. While the Iraqi penal code does not
expressly prohibit homosexual relations between consenting adults, a
variety of less specific, flexible provisions in the penal code leave
room for active discrimination and prosecution of LGBT persons and feeds
societal intolerance.
During the reporting
period, UNAMI continued to receive reports of attacks against
individuals based on their perceived or actual sexual orientation. In
one case, a 17 year old boy was relocated with assistance from an NGO
after his family tried to kill him on the basis of the boy's perceived
homosexuality. The Government takes no action to protect people from
violence or discrimination based on sexual orientation, and there are
few social services available.
And that's it.
That's it?
As we noted April 11th:
Of course, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared last month, "To
those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, let me say -- you
are not alone. Your struggle for an end to violence and discrimination
is a shared struggle. Any attack on you is an attack on the universal
values the United Nations and I have sworn to uphold."
What
pretty words. What a shame his Special Envoy to Iraq spits on those
words, betrays Iraq's LGBT community, stays silent as they're targeted
and killed, ignores the persecution.
As we noted yesterday, the
Special Envoy Martin Kobler appeared Tuesday before the United Nations
Security Council where he yammered away for approximately 20 minutes and
also handed in a written report/statement which was 17 pages long.
Though he was supposedly concerned about violence and targeted groups
and though he made his focus the first three months of the year, he
couldn't bring himself to mention the targeting of Iraq's LGBT
community. He could talk about the so-called 'honor' killings but not
in relation to gay men or lesbians. Ban Ki-moon assured the world's
LGBT community just last month that they were not alone. Just
yesterday, his Special Envoy to Iraq, made clear that, in fact, Iraq's
LGBTs are very much alone. Martin Kobler made very clear that the
United Nations, as represented by him in Iraq, will gladly and always
look the other way while thugs go on killing sprees. One of the slogan
of the United Nations is, "It's your world." But apparently that doesn't
apply for LGBTs. Someone with the UN to address whether Ban Ki-moon
was lying or if Martin Kobler just doesn't understand how offensive what
he did yesterday was?
Excuse
me, I though Ban Ki-moon was saying LGBT rights were human rights. But
that's not what I got from Kobler's presentation or from this report
released today. Either UNAMI intends to seriously address the targeting
or it intends not to.
For those who missed
it, Emo and LGBT were lumped together. LGBT is, of course, a sexual
orientation. Emo is more of a social scene. In Iraq, the two were
lumped together and worse. Worse? The Iraqi youth were supposedly also
practicing witchcraft and also they were vampires as evidenced by the
fact that they drank blood.
Did they drink blood?
Years
and years ago, have I told this story, there was a presenation on gangs
to a group of concerned lawmakers (state lawmakers). A friend who
works with gangs couldn't make it and asked if I'd fill in. That's not
my area but I was adequate if not good. But what stood out to me was
the guy who had never spoken to a teen in a gang but 'knew' everything.
It was that "Calvin Kline" who was making people gang members because
it helped sell his clothes. It gets better (or at least more humorous),
rap artists "like Cindy Lauper" (Cyndi Lauper) were also glamorizing
gangs. This man was completely serious. He thought he had studied and
arrived at logical conclusions. (Calvin Klein was pushing underwear and
baggy jeans at that time, if he was pushing anything. Cyndi Lauper is
not now and never has been a rap artist.) This man was so uninformed
that he made my adequate presentation seem like an informed lecture.
And
the point here is two-fold. First, this isn't ha-ha, we're so much
smarter than the Iraqis. No. Humanity's all basically on the same page
with some people in every area reading just a little bit ahead of the
others. Second, a lot of people (in every country all over the world)
hear a topic mentioned and think they're an expert. Emos have been
demonized around the world, not just in the MidEast, in Mexico as well.
And that panic mind set allows some really stupid things to be said by
supposed experts.
In the case of Iraq, it was
the Ministry of Interior that went into the schools and demonized Emos
(who again are also wrongly said to be gay -- you can be Emo and gay,
you can also be Emo and straight). Let's drop back to March 9th:
Meanwhile Kitabat notes
that the Interior Ministry is declaring there have been no deaths and
this is all a media creation. That would be the same Ministry of
Interior that, please note, was declaring earlier this week that Emo was
the number one threat to Iraq. Guess someone got the message about how
badly this was making Iraq look to the rest of the world? Now the still
headless ministry (Nouri never appointed a minister to head it) wants to
insist that it is only a small number of Iraqi youth who are even into
Emo. The ministry insists that the only truth on the subject of Emo is
that which the government tells. But the Parliament's Security and
Defense Commission also spoke to the media on Thursday and they spoke of
the discovery of 15 corpses of young Iraqis -- Emos or thought to be
-- discovered in one Baghdad neighborhood. Activist Hanaa Edwar also
speaks of the large number of Iraqi Emo youths being targeted. Al Mada notes the Parliament committee stated that the security forces have failed to protect the Emo youth. Dar Addustour reports
that activists Mohammed al-Kazimi has pointed out that the constitution
of Iraq guarantees Iraqis the right to freedom of expression and that
Emo youth are not unconstitutional.
When
this was going on, Iraqi youth were pretty much on their own. Iraqi
groups and activists did speak out but internationally you had a lot of
silence. (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were not
silent.) And the US State Dept refused to speak of it but was kind
enough to leak an e-mail when pressure was coming to bear on the
administration. If that e-mail had not been treated like something
amazing (it wasn't) by the LGBT press in America, the administration
might have been forced to make a public statement. And as silent as the
State Dept was the United Nations.
Iraqi
youths were being killed. To be really clear, if you are a gay Iraqi
youth, that doesn't mean you can be killed. That's not acceptable.
That's not something the world should ever look the other way on. But
damned if they didn't try, these supposed groups and governmental
agencies there to help.
There are things in the report that will be noticing this week.
But
here, I called out Martin Kobler repeatedly for his silence at the UN
briefing. And I heard from UN friends about how it's 'referred' to in
the written report. No, it's noted that this issue will be dealt with
in an upcoming report. That report was the one released today. Two
pathetic paragraphs is not dealing with it. Failure to even use the
term "Emo" is pretty sad. Failure to note the Ministry of the Interior
went into schools and asked for names is shameful.
I
took Kobler to task several days in a row here and only stopped when UN
friends swore the report would go into what was taking place. The
report's out today and yet again, YET AGAIN, the United Nations has
failed the LGBT in Iraq (as well as those perceived to be). In failing
them, it failed every LGBT. Because it sent the message that though the
UN will give lip service and pretend that they give a damn about LGBT
rights, the reality is they'll only mention it in a report if they're
forced to and, even then, they'll rush through it and ignore most facts
and events.
What I've written isn't all that
damning (though I'll get phone calls for it). What's really damning is
that the United Nations is supposed to help those in need, those in
crisis but, read their report, the only one who got helped was a
17-year-old who was helped not by the UN but by an NGO. That pretty
much says everything that needs to be said about where the United
Nations stands today on LGBT issues.
Alsumaria reports Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi states he will return to Iraq soon and that the targeting of Baghdad provincial council member Laith al-Dulaimi (arrested on Nouri's orders by Nouri's forces who tortured him) confirms much of what al-Hashemi has stated about being targeted. Specifically, al-Hashemi states it confirms what he has stated about human rights, about the lack of justice, about the judiciary being politicized and about torture being a key characteristic of Iraqi imprisonment. In protest of the proceedings, al-Hashemi's attorneys walked out May 20th on the trial against him. Like Laith al-Dulaimi, the Vice President is accused of terrorism. Like Laith al-Dulaimi, the Vice President is a member of Iraqiya.
Iraqiya's big 'crime' appears to be coming in first in the March 7, 2010 elections. For months before the election, Nouri al-Maliki attempted to demonize them, had them arrested, had them kicked out of the race and someone -- Nouri? -- was also having the assassinated in the lead-up to the elections. Nouri 'promised' -- the media swore to us -- that there would be no third term. But as we have repeatedly noted, that line has been walked back and walked back. And, no, we didn't fall for the claim when he made it. We questioned it even then pointing out that in the original assertion, he'd left himself wiggle room.
Among the current issues that various blocs can agree upon is that Nouri should have no third term. The one that can't agree with that is Nouri.
If you'll think back to the lead-up to the 2010 elections, you'll remember Nouri was convinced his State of Law would win overwhelmingly. But the reality was they didn't even win by a hair. It's possible that the attacks currently are part of his attempts for the next round of parlimentary elections (which are now supposed to take place in 2014) or even to influence the provincial elections (scheduled for next year currently). Nouri does have problems with the provinces. He's got a war going on with Ethyl al-Nujaifi who is the brother of Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi. Ehtyl is also the Governor of Nineveh Province and Nouri -- who is so shocked that people are calling for him to step down -- has twice called for al-Nujaifi to step down as governor.
Al Rafidayn notes the real purpose of Nouri's holding the Council of Ministers meeting in Mosul (as opposed to Baghdad) yesterday: He met with tribal leaders in Nineveh in an attempt to shore up support for him as moves are made to push for a no-confidence vote which would, if succeessful, remove him from the post of prime minister. Nouri also again launched an attack on Osama al-Nujaifi. Which really doesn't seem smart in the province that elected his brother governor. But Nouri's not know for his wisdom.
To distract from the push for a no-confidence vote in him, Nouri and flunkies recently announced there was a push for a no-confidence vote in Osama al-Nujaifi. However, the National Alliance (a Shi'ite grouping of political parties which includes Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc, Ibraham al-Jaafari's group, Nouri's State of Law and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq among others) publicly dismissed that. They noted that the National Alliance was not calling for a move against al-Nujaifi. They noted that State of Law had not even made a proposal to the National Alliance about such a move. And the press kindly let the matter die instead of pointing out that Nouri had been caught in yet another lie.
Today a new reason for the ongoing political crisis is given: Jalal Talabani. Alsumaria reports
that State of Law states Osama al-Nujaifi attempted to call for a
no-confidence vote but Talabani stopped it. If true, that conditional
is always needed when speaking of State of Law, it's time for Jalal to
go. Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) also reports that Jalal Talabani rejected the call for a no-confidence vote and cites Kurdish MP Mahmud Othman as the source.
Press TV reported
Saturday that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani was calling for a national
conference again. He's been calling for that since December 21st. How
long he'll continue to call, who knows?
His
son, of course, just spent over a million dollars on a DC home (the six
bedroom and six bath house -- not all six baths are full bathrooms --
is on Daniel Road in Chevy Chase, Maryland and they closed on it January
27th agreeing to the price of $1,155,000). I guess if I were a child
of Talabani's and I was seeing exactly how ineffective he had become, I
think I'd probably decide to spend money on a home in another country as
well. It is interesting that a public servant like Talabani can afford
to purchase a home in that neighborhood. You wouldn't assume that
being the KRG lobbyist in the US would pay enough to warrant a
million-dollar home.
I think someone should ask Talabani why his son purchased a home in the US -- you can lease in that area -- and how large of a salary his son draws?
He's swearing to Kurds that he's going to stand with them but even PUK (the political party he heads) doubts that. They're starting to point out the obvious: Is Jalal really in a position to demand that Nouri not seek a third term? If he takes up that position, doesn't that mean that Talabani can't seek a third term as president of Iraq?
Without that position, he's just the aged head of political party he's led to lower and lower turnout. The PUK needs new leadership.
Talabani
is just Nouri in a ceremonial post. Why did Iraq have elections? To
get a new speaker of Parliament? That's really all that changed despite
the results.
In news of violence, Alsumaria reports that a roadside bombing today in Ramadi claimed 1 life and left two other people injured. In addition, Al Rafidayn notes that a bridge connecting Anbar Province and Salah ad-Din Province was blown up today. In addition, Alsumaria notes 1 person was shot dead as he left his southern Baghdad home yesterday.
Lastly, I'm offering my opinion on Chris Hayes.
The short version is, he didn't do anything wrong. He's apologized for
what he stated and I believe that was sincere, he's generally a sincere
person. But what he said before his apology? If that was a shock to
you, you don't really know a wide cross-section of people who've lost a
loved one to war. You may know many, but you apparently only know one
grouping. Chris Hayes' comments weren't at all shocking to me. I
speak to pro and anti and in-between veterans groups and there's a wide
range of opinions out there. I'll assume that those who objected online
to what Chris said on his MSNBC program were being sincere. But I
think they would have been better served -- and our national dialogue
would have been -- if they'd grasped that their opinion isn't the only
one out there. I'm not the voice of veterans, I don't present myself
as such.
Would I have said what he did?
No. I wouldn't have ventured an opinion on the topic and don't believe I
ever have. I'm more interested in hearing what people think than
sharing my own opinions (and I don't have an opinion on everything or
rush to form one). I'm mainly weighing in today on Chris because a
writer slammed me in an series of e-mails today on how I hadn't come to
his (the writer's) defense. And my reaction to that is, "I don't know
your soap opera. I don't have time to research your last three years
and all the people you've pissed off. But I do know that woman at the New York Times
that won't take your calls anymore? Your rage frightens her. And
she's not the only one." But being read ___'s attacks over the phone by
Martha (who got the 'joy' of being the one to open
those foul e-mails -- thank you, Martha for all you do) with their f-you
and the rest attacking me for not coming to his defense (over
problems I wasn't even aware of -- I didn't even know he was lying about
me -- which he also admits in his e-mails -- in 2011 online until
today), I thought finally, "You're on your own." And that made me
think, the people who really do care and really don't try to hurt
people, those are the ones who deserve support. And that's the type of
person Chris Hayes is.
There are a lot of
people who don't care. They go on TV and they really don't care. It's a
party and a game, they say their piece and they go home and don't even
think about it again. (For those who take that as a slam on the right --
I know many people on TV on the left and in the center. I can't speak
to the right-wing TV pundits and wouldn't presume to being unfamiliar
with them and their lives.) Whether you agree with Chris or not, he
does give a great deal of thought to not only events but to how he
impacts them and whether or not he said the right thing or communicated
correctly. He does not set out to be controversial or to hurt anyone.
He's not trying to 'play with the format.' He's honestly attempting to
communicate. He meant no harm and he was speaking -- whether he knew it
or not -- for a group of people around the country who were mourning
the fallen and whose feelings about their loved one are just as valid
as those who disagreed with Chris.
If you were
honestly bothered by Chris' opinion -- which he identified as such --
he's offered a sincere apology and if the attacks on him continue, I'll
assume you're not sincere but working some political angle or trying
to. He's done everything he can and then some at this point so if
you've got a problem, it's beyond Chris and on you. There are a lot of
people I wouldn't vouch for. When I was making a list of that as Martha
read the series of e-mails from ____, I immediately thought of Chris
Hayes and how he's someone who is worth vouching for.
