Ruth's Report: Media

Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Lorie Smith's Special Rights."

Good for MSNBC's Alex Wagner for pushing back ("Those are very powerful statements you have made and I want to reiterate that is a hypothesis by you and you alone") but that is why you do not bring on former FBI and CIA agents. Tracy Walder is both. She thought she could just make any claim in the world. (In this case, that former-President Donald Trump took documents to sell them to foreign countries.) She should not be invited back on. There is a reason that people do not trust the media. Those like Ms. Walder who think they can just spew any lie and get away with it are the problem.

Again, good for Ms. Wagner for pushing back.

Someone needs to push back against Sophia McClennen who writes garbage for SALON. She wants you to know that the media is wrong about the mid-term results and that Michael Moore is right. Goodness, she insists, he was right in 2016. Michael Moore was not right in 2016. He said Mr. Trump would win and gave five 'reasons.' Four (Bernie Sanders supporters) and five were not reasons. They were unfocused gripes.

Ava and C.I. said at the start of August 2016 that Donald Trump was going to win and explained why. Moore made a prediction and offered the sort of psycho-babble he is so fond of -- remember when he used it to explain why we should vote Bill Cosby for president?

He is doing that again with his 'look at this city council election!' as though that has any real bearing on the mid-terms. He cherry picks races and pretends that they reveal something but they do not. You have to be a real dunce at this point to see Michael Moore as anything but a hustler and con artist.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:

Monday, October 10, 2022. A year later, the UN suddenly frets over Iraq -- and let's get honest about ourselves with regards to our lack of support for Will Lehman and the film BROS.

Last week, Tom O'Conner (NEWSWEEK) reported:

As U.S. officials roundly condemn the ongoing series of Iranian strikes against Kurdish rivals in northern Iraq, Washington has also expressed concern over a separate Turkish campaign against Kurdish forces in the same region.

[. . .]

"We have repeatedly expressed our concerns regarding Turkish operations in Iraq," a State Department spokesperson told Newsweek, "urging that the government of Turkey coordinate more closely with Iraqi authorities on cross-border military operations against terrorist targets."

Concerns. Concerns? Yeah.

According to RUDAW, the government of Turkey is admitting to the murder:

The Turkish ambassador to Iraq said Sunday that members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and associates of the group are Ankara’s targets in response to the recent assassination of a women’s rights activist in the city of Sulaimani.

Rights activist Nagihan Akarsel, who had ideological ties to the PKK, was shot multiple times and killed in Sulaimani on Tuesday by assailants in the city’s Bakhtiyari neighborhood. Her ties to the Kurdish armed group quickly led droves of people on social media to blame Turkey for her death.

“Those who are affiliated with the PKK are indeed our targets,” Turkish Ambassador Ali Riza Guney said in response to a question from Rudaw’s Payam Sarbast during a press conference in the Kurdistan Region’s capital of Erbil.

It can't be used to promote war (the way a death in Iran has been), so Nagihan's murder doesn't get US press attention. NEWS.AM notes:

Hakan Fidan, head of Turkey's National Intelligence Agency (MİT), met with the Iraqi Turkmen Front earlier this week, raising questions from Iraqi opposition politicians over his visit in mid-September, Ahval writes.

Fidan's visit to the capital of Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region, Erbil, on Oct. 4 coincided with the killing of Kurdish figure Nagihan Akarsel in a shootout in Sulaymaniyah province, the Kurdish website Medya News reported.

The Iraqi coordination structure, an opposition body made up of Shiite parties, has called for an investigation, and a member of the structure, Turki Sedan, said the visit was organized without notifying Iraq's central government.

Meanwhile, today is October 10th. A year ago, Iraq went to the polls and voted. Still no prime minister, still no president, still no cabinet of ministers.

Speaking to the United Nations last week, the US Deputy Rep to the UN, Ambassador Richard Mills, noted that climate change was one of the challenges Iraq is facing, "Complicated challenges face the next government -- including passing a budget, developing oil and gas legislation that is acceptable to the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government, improving the provision of electricity, combatting climate change, promoting private sector development and job growth, and increasing women’s participation in the workforce."

The next government? A year after the elections and they're still hoping it pull together to form a government.

If they paid attention, they wouldn't be surprised by how this all went down. Dropping back to the October 11, 2022 snapshot (the day after the election):

Starting with this from the BBC.

He opens with The October Revolution -- the protesters who are part of a movement that began in the fall of 2019.

Murad Shishani: They presented, sort of, a package of demands, as they told me. This package included an early election but the government, the authorities, they just only this one condition. They asked for fighting corruption. They asked for disarming the militias. They asked for political reform, more engagement for youth. Therefore, as the government, they didn't meet all these demands from the protesters, then the boycotting campaigns have been becoming more stronger, they are today in Iraq. And this is what we've noticed in a city like Mosul which has been liberated four years ago from the so-called Islamic State. But that devastation is still there so people were reluctant to go to the polling stations today.

It's interesting, isn't it? How he noted the protesters and their demands -- unmet -- that might lower voter turnout but, while noting them, never notes that the government response to them -- the physical response -- also depressed turnout because the physical response included attacking the protesters, kidnapping the protesters, disappearing the protesters and killing the protesters. AP notes it in most of their reports. For example, "Although authorities gave in and called the early elections, the death toll and the heavy-handed crackdown -- as well as a string of targeted assassinations -- prompted many who took part in the protests to later call for a boycott of the vote."

[. . .]

John Davidson and Ahmed Rasheed (REUTERS) report, "Iraq's parliamentary election on Sunday drew one of the smallest turnouts for years, electoral officials indicated, with the low participation suggesting dwindling trust in political leaders and the democratic system brought in by the 2003 U.S.-led invasion." The political leadership has been corrupt. With the billions in oil revenues that the government of Iraq takes in yearly, there is no reason why poverty should exist in Iraq. But not only does it exist, it is actually increasing. The corrupt leaders have taken public monies. That money, for example, has bought multiple sports cars and homes in Europe for Ahmed al-Maliki, son of forever thug and former prime minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki whose (mis)leadership and paranoia helped create ISIS and led to its seizure of Mosul and other areas in 2014. The corruption has continued and worsened. Long cited by Transparency International as one of the five most corrupt nations in the world, Iraq's governmental corruption is now so bad that President Saleh, addressing the United Nations last month, called it one of the greatest security threats to the country.

ALJAZEERA notes, "Two electoral commission officials said the nationwide turnout of eligible voters was 19 percent by midday. Turnout was 44.5 percent in the last election in 2018." Since 2018? The October Revolution. That movement of mainly Shi'ite protesters began in 2019 protesting the corruption, the lack of jobs, the lack of dependable public services (such as electricity and potable water). Louisa Loveluck and Mustafa Salim (WASHINGTON POST) observe:

In effect, Sunday’s election was a referendum on that system, and most Iraqis chose to stay home.

Despite a months-long campaign and millions of dollars spent by foreign governments including the United States to boost trust in the voting process, Iraq’s electoral commission said turnout by midday was only around 20 percent and that it had risen only slowly through the afternoon.

Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi came to office last year vowing early elections after mass protests ousted his predecessor, Adel Abdul Mahdi, in 2019. On Sunday, voters trickled to the polls through some of the streets where security forces had fired live ammunition into crowds and killed 600 during the months-long protests.

Realities were briefly noted by the bulk of the press in the immediate aftermath of the election and then they got to whoring. It was never a legitimate election but goodness how they whored cult leader Moqtada al-Sadr and pretended that he had some sort of mandate -- despite the very low turnout, despite the fact that his coalition achieved less than they had the previous election cycle.

They whored and whored some more.

The other parties and coalitions didn't have to go along with Moqtada because there were press claims but what trumped those claims was reality and Moqtada never had reality on his side. Were it not for the press whoring -- so-called reporting that read like slavish devotion to Moqtada -- I'm talking western press here -- maybe he would have realized sooner that not only was not a kingmaker (a term the press couldn't stop pimping) but that he wasn't even competent.

As the political stalemate continued and Moqtada's frustrations mounted, he began throwing tantrums.

One of the most infamous? If they didn't do what he wanted, he was pulling every member of his coalition out of Parliament! They would resign in mass!

The response was a yawn.

Idiot Moqtada then forced the resignations.

All that happened were the second place in those elections then got sworn in.

Moqtada had a bigger fit then -- he'd shut himself out of the process.

And efforts to get the courts to overturn this didn't work. Nor did his efforts to get the courts to dissolve the Parliament. He never should have believed his press. Through non-stop use of the term, they'd convinced him he was a "kingmaker."

He was -- and remains -- a pathetic nothing and he's been humored more than long enough. A brutal thug responsible for the deaths of many -- Iraqis and Americans -- got paid off by the US State Dept in August of 2021 to drop his opposition to the elections and urge his cult to show up and vote.

The whole thing's sickening -- including the US government treating him as someone worthy of US tax dollars.

It's a year later and there's no government.

AFP notes today, "A year since Iraq's last elections, it remains without not only a new government but a budget too, obstructing much-needed reforms and infrastructure projects in the oil-rich but war-ravaged country." Daniel Stewart (360 NEWS) runs with:

The United Nations warned Monday that "Iraq is running out of time" in the face of the serious political crisis rocking the country and called on all parties to "dialogue without preconditions" to form a government, one year after the holding of early parliamentary elections.

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) has recalled that "one year ago, Iraqis went to the polls in the hope of charting a new future for the country" and stressed that the elections were called "under public pressure through nationwide protests in which hundreds of young Iraqis lost their lives and thousands were injured".

"Unfortunately, this reaffirmation of democracy was followed by a policy of division, generating bitter disillusionment among the population," the mission said in its communiqué, in which it stressed that "this long crisis is generating more instability".

"The latest developments are proof. Moreover, it threatens the livelihood of the people," it has warned, before stressing that "the approval of the Budgets for 2023 are imperative" and regretting that the "tireless efforts" to move towards stability have not borne fruit.

To which the world should respond, "Oh, shut up." It's been a year. Now you're worried? You've been a pathetic and useless presence in Iraq. And that's long before we factor in all the stroking of Moqtada, all the humoring of him.

You've disgraced yourselves. No one needs you to now hop on your pony, ride in circles and scream crisis.

The elections were a joke a year ago. Instead of admitting that reality, you pimped Moqtada as an answer. The only thing Moqtada is ever an answer to is the riddle: What won't flush down the toilet?

Various outlets are quoting UNAMI issuing this nonsense "The protracted crisis is breeding further instability, and recent events are a testament to that." And noting UNAMI now declares Iraq to be "running out of time."

Now. A year later.

The UN, like the police, always comes late if they come at all?

A year later and now the United Nations wants to play the hysteric.

It abandoned the people for 12 months now. Let's not pretend that they in anyway helped. They abandoned the people with their hopes that a government -- a bad one -- would be formed and they could return to ignoring the abuses that the Iraqi people live with daily. UNAMI has not helped the Iraqi people. It exist solely to provide cover for whatever monstrosity gets cobbled together and then they issue "We call on . . ." statements. They've done for the Iraqi people and today they stand exposed as the do-nothing that they are.

Now I've got a problem. Just found something in the spam folder. I don't mind putting it in here but it actually goes to a larger issue.

Brothers and sisters,

On October 17, in less than two weeks, ballots will begin going out for the first-ever direct elections of the leadership of the United Auto Workers. If you are a UAW member, I urge you to make sure your local has your current mailing address by tomorrow (Friday, October 7) so that you can receive your ballot as early as possible.

This is a historic opportunity for rank-and-file workers to express our opposition to the entire bureaucracy, which has sold us out for decades, rammed through contracts we opposed and defied the will of the membership.

For this reason, the UAW apparatus has done everything it can to keep workers in the dark about the election and the positions of the candidates. I have spoken to many workers who do not even know that an election is being held.

A week and a half ago, I participated in a debate among the candidates for UAW president. But the UAW apparatus has done virtually nothing to inform workers that there was a debate, and only about 1.5 percent of UAW workers and retirees have watched the video. The UAW doesn’t want anyone to watch the debate because it so thoroughly exposed incumbent President Ray Curry and Co. as pro-corporate enemies of the working class, who have as little connection to rank-and-file workers as the man on the moon.

My campaign is about establishing a new base of power through the building of rank-and-file committees of workers in every plant and workplace to fight for what we need, not what the UAW bureaucracy and the companies say is acceptable. We must assert our will and our interests. We must unite all workers in the UAW with workers throughout the country and around the world who are confronting the same issues and face the same enemies.

The election itself is a critical stage in this battle. The bureaucrats in the UAW want as little participation in this election by rank-and-file workers as possible. They opposed the referendum for direct elections because they know that the apparatus is universally despised by the rank and file.

The situation will not change unless we act. As workers, we have tremendous strength, but nobody is going to fight for what we need but ourselves. This is the purpose of my campaign, but I am not a miracle worker. You must make the decision to take up this fight.

This is why I am calling on you to form a rank-and-file election committee in your workplace.

These committees will accomplish the following:

Distribute information throughout your workplace on how to participate in the election, including what workers must do to ensure that they get a ballot and when they have to send it in. You can view and share frequently asked questions about the UAW elections on my website at willforuawpresident.org/uawelections.
Make sure that all workers watch the presidential candidates’ debate, which I have posted on my website here.
Organize meetings of workers in your plant or workplace to discuss the issues in the election and what demands we must fight for to secure our interests.
Set up informational pickets outside your workplace to distribute information and promote my rank-and-file campaign for UAW president.
Lay the foundation for the rank-and-file networks that are necessary to continue to fight for what we need once the election is over.
I am asking you today: write to my campaign at willforuawpresident@gmail.com or text (267) 225-6633 for assistance in setting up an election committee. Tell me where you work and what you think we must fight for in this election and beyond. I will do everything I can to assist you in setting up a committee at your workplace and to link your committee to similar committees that are being set up across the country.

Fellow rank-and-file workers: If we are going to fight for what we need, we cannot allow the initiative to remain in the hands of the apparatus. We must organize ourselves! Contact my campaign and build a rank-and-file election committee today!

Thank you,
Will Lehman

P.S. I want to do everything I can to make sure workers are informed—about the elections, about my campaign, and about the strikes and other struggles workers are launching. But to do that, I need your financial support. If you agree with what I’m fighting for, then donate as much as you can to my campaign today.

Donate

Okay, when are we ever going to work together? Here in the US, when are we going to drop the s**t and work together? In the abstract, a Socialist in charge of the UAW is something we on the left are supposed to be able to get on board with. So why the hell aren't we?

Seems like this campaign should be getting support.

And I was planning on not mentioning it today but you know I'm going there now: BROS.

Straight-allies, that's what we're supposed to be. But we're so pathetic we couldn't even buy a ticket to a hilarious comedy. That was beyond our politics. Beyond our abilities.

The best thing for the UAW would be to have a Socialist president at this point. But there's no push for him online from so-called left allies. And there was no real push with regards to BROS.

Yeah, I saw a few times, you might have seen it as well.

But there was no real push.

I think back, to ahead of DOBBS, when the LGBTQ community was supporting ROE V WADE. It didn't apply to most of them. As Ava and I noted when that awful NETFLIX special aired, unless someone got raped, they probably weren't going to need an abortion -- someone in the LGBTQ community. We thought the support from the community was great but we also thought that LGBTQ comedians should also be focusing on the issues impacting their community. I stand by that call because I'm not seeing a push by feminist leaders or by Planned Parenthood or anyone else to be an ally to the LGBTQ community right now.

I am seeing vicious hate online. I am seeing smears and attacks on gay people -- including Billy Eichner who's only 'crime' is making a wonderful film.

We want allies. We want support. But apparently, we can't give it. Rude, nasty things are being said about LGBTQs and conclusions are being drawn regarding BROS. We didn't support the movie and now right wingers are running with that because the message is straight allies aren't going to push back.

That's outrageous and we should be ashamed of ourselves. We've been pathetic and disgusting.

Most Americans -- even in this economy -- can afford to buy a ticket to a movie as a political act.

The failure of straight allies to support BROS is fueling a backlash.

And again, it's the same with Will Lehman. He's a Socialist. We should be on board. Yeah, put him in charge of the UAW, let's see if he can get something done.

That should be our attitude.

But when it's our turn to be allies, we tend to have other things to do. All you people -- and I'm referring to drive-byes more than the TCI community -- who claim to be left and then vote centrist politicians, this is where you could make a difference without doing that much at all -- you could support Will. Wouldn't have to stop praising Hillary or pretending that Nancy Pelosi was the height of left action. You could continue in your delusions and still support Will.

But you won't.

Just like you didn't support Billy and now want to pretend like the hideous being said online have nothing to do with you. They have everything to do with you and it is now time for you to figure out if you're life has any meaning or you just want to tick off the rest of your days being a useless piece of crap.

And on that happy note, the following sites updated:

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, October 7, 2022. BROS, Iraq, Julian Assange and much more.

On BROS, I made the points I wanted to make in the last two snapshots (here and here) and thought we were not going to cover it today. Then came the online push claiming that FIRE ISLAND does what BROS did not.

No, it doesn't.

You have no understanding of film if you believe that. First off, FIRE ISLAND did not become a conversation. Second, it wasn't a strong film. The first act is slow and weak. Ava and I covered it when it came out:

Jane shouldn't do stand up. Stand up comedian Joel Kim Booster shouldn't try to write screenplays. He wrote the script for FIRE ISLAND -- an update on Jane Austen's PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. The first forty minutes are excruciating. Once we get into Joel's character and the film's Mr. Darcy, it begins to work. You actually care about those two.

Otherwise?

Too many movies -- and TV shows (think NAOMI) -- are just spitting out characters and confusing audiences.

The reason films used "types" -- Thelma Ritter and others for character roles -- was to help the audience follow. It's also why famous and semi-famous people are often cast in roles. Outside of Margaret Cho, most of the cast is unfamiliar to movie goers. Joel' screenplay starts with too many characters and they really needed to cast recognizable faces or at least distinct ones. CLUELESS, another update of Jane Austen, worked because it established characters and used 'types' -- the skateboarder, the preppie, etc.

There is also the fact that it's a celibate film. Did no one notice that? Honestly, a number of gay people on Twitter are pimping this as better than BROS but it's a chaste little film for the female/male lead. If you don't get it, it's PRIDE AND PREJUDICE by Jane Austen. It's an adaptation. Joel Kim Booster makes a lovely Elizabeth Bennett, but not much of a gay man living in 2022.

The film has many things going for it. But it's akin to an independent film like IT'S MY PARTY in terms of look and feel. It wasn't an advance and considering Joel's remarks in his NETFLIX special -- his angry screeds -- I'm surprised anyone's pimping this. Ava and I also noted that, "His persona may just be saying things for humor. If that's the case, keep it up. But if he's serious about getting complaints from gay people about his jokes, he might try grasping that he's not The Voice for Gay America."

I'm glad that PRIDE AND PREJUDICE still resonates. But FIRE ISLAND reminds me of the play a famous blowhard wrote in college. It was his life story. He made himself front and center in the play. And every other character existed to tell him how great he was. They really weren't characters in their own right. After he started writing films (and, later, bad TV), he just knew his play would connect with me. (I'd passed on his previous projects.) I was ambushed while having lunch (a friend tipped him off). I was still a smoker then, thank goodness because I couldn't have made it through his play without a vice. Indulgent was the kindest term.

I told him it was as though Jules (Demi Moore's character in ST. ELMO'S FIRE) had written her own story. There was no understanding of the world around her (I'm not talking politics or anything other than her immediate world) and that the other characters were all props for the main character (him). There was no arc of growth. It was just one indulgent scene after another.

I know screenplays, I've read a number, I've acted a number and I'm also good at plot points and finding where the beat should be (those last two are with regards to films I'm not a part of but that friends who are directors seek my opinion on).

There are many reasons you can like a film. It can be a hideous mess like 1987's ANNA but you can love it for Sally Kirkland's outstanding performance. Jane Fonda elevated KLUTE to film classic with her performance -- the finest performance by any actor or actress in a film that was released in the second half of the 20th century. You can love a film because the character reminds you of someone you love -- or of yourself. A film can be a significant piece of art all around -- SOME LIKE IT HOT, for example -- and you love it for that reason.

And there are aspects to applaud with regards to FIRE ISLAND. But, no, it's not on the level of BROS. It's screenplay dithers at the start. It's casting is way off. It feels like a Greg Berlanti project and, no, that's not a compliment. Greg wasn't the unnamed blow hard I was referring to above. That blowhard is straight.

It may reflect your life onscreen and that's great if it does. But by any critical measure it's just an okay film/TV movie.

It's not revolutionary or brave -- I think Doris Day got more action in PILLOW TALK than Joel Kim Booster did in FIRE ISLAND.

And to be clear, FIRE ISLAND isn't a bad film. It's a weak film. AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS is a bad film.

The idiot at WE GOT THIS COVERED insists:

Fire Island came out with a bang as not only was it released during pride month, but according to Mashable, it was the sixth most streamed film during the week of its release, outperforming Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Meanwhile, Bros was unable to outgross the Avatar re-release and is currently being vastly outperformed by the new horror film, Smile.

May 24th is when SONIC 2 came out on streaming. That means it was in its fourth week of streaming release when FIRE ISLAND 'beat it.' JURRASIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM is a 2017 movie. And that week that is highlighted? FIRE ISLAND is not the number one streaming film -- not even number one of rom-coms. No, Sandra Bullock's LOST CITY is number three -- and it came out on streaming May 10th -- and weeks and weeks later it still beat FIRE ISLAND. I don't know how you see that as a win but most people aren't stupid enough to scan Crapapedia and then write a report. You can call it cribbing but let's be honest, it's plagiarism -- and plagiarism of a very bad source.

BROS came in number five last weekend. It's harder to sell tickets -- a pandemic, Hurricane Ian, fears of harm over buying a ticket to a movie with a storyline about gay people, etc -- so don't compare the two -- but if the metrics were exact, BROS still did better. Yet WE GOT THIS COVERED starts out their (mis)report insisting BROS bombed. (BROS sold 1.5 million in tickets -- that's Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday -- Thursdays numbers will be released later today. People are continuing to see the film.)

Another thing, stop writing about the movie if you didn't see it. And I'm not really sure what you can understand about a film and its response in the United States when you're writing from Australia -- in other words, maybe butt the hell out. It's interesting that BROS is said to be "less gay" than FIRE ISLAND. That's not accurate. Again, maybe don't comment on the movie you didn't see. Aaron (Luke MacFarlane) is a "BRO" singular. And Bobby (Billy) thinks Aaron only likes BROS. But Aaron is the only BRO in the film. (Some men in the club may or may not be BROS -- they don't have dialogue and we don't know.) I'm sorry that idiots on Twitter who haven't seen the film have influenced an idiot at WE GOT THIS COVERED to write about something that's completely inaccurate. There are tons of characters in the films -- gay, lesbian, bi, trans, etc -- Aaron's the only BRO. We assume that his old friend from high school is probably a BRO. (Bobby makes that assumption when he's worried that Aaron doesn't find him attractive.) But Aaron spent his life assuming that his hockey team buddy was straight. And he's not acting very BRO when he's in bed with Aaron, Bobby and Steven.

Jamyl Dobson's character may strike some as a BRO but a BRO wouldn't have a Barbra Streisand poster up on their wall. Again, it helps, when critiquing a film, to have actually seen it.

There are a multitude of characters in BROS -- they are not all the same.

And that's what screenwriter Joel Kim Booster doesn't grasp -- not everyone is alike, not everyone is the same. Actors in FIRE ISLAND can only do so much with a weak script.

The idiot at WE GOT THIS COVERED is repeating a false charge and that is why you really need to see a movie to comment on it. The exception is commenting that you have no interest in seeing the film. I'm fine with that. I have always been fine with that. But if you don't see the film you really shouldn't be talking about what it is or what it isn't because you honestly don't know.

I loved WORLD CAN'T WAIT and Debra Sweet (I know Debra). But when she started slamming a film and calling for it to be censored -- when she hadn't seen it? We dropped WORLD CAN'T WAIT.

I'm an artist first and foremost. And I'm not ever going to support cries of censorship to begin with. But when you start attacking a work that you haven't seen?

Go find another person to plug your activities because it won't be me.

You failed to do the basics before jumping into this conversation. You're an idiot, Erielle Sudario for writing the article. And it reveals how vested you are in attacking Billy and what he has done that you rush your ill thought out words into print. They couldn't pass a fact check. Don't they teach journalism in Australia?

Equally true, since I'm now writing on the topic again, let me plug my friend Luke who is better looking than anyone in FIRE ISLAND. He has true charisma. Not just chemistry with Bobby, but true charisma. And he looks hot as hell in the film.

We need to point out the sexism involved in Twitter segment that WE GOT THIS COVERED elected to amplify. A small group of gays are saying FIRE ISLAND is better because it's their life (they wish) and they're worried about representation.

Really?

Or are you just self-involved jerks?

Because I only saw Margaret Cho playing a lesbian in FIRE ISLAND.

14 people in the main cast and only one's a woman -- and this is representative?

If that truly reflects your life, what a sad life you live.

(There are 21 characters in the main cast of BROS. I am counting Debra Messing who plays herself -- and is hilarious -- as a character because she's in more than one scene. I am not counting Kenan Thompson, Ben Stiller, Amy Schumer, Seth Meyers or Kristin Chenoweth as characters -- they do cameos. Explain to me also which FIRE ISLAND characters were bi, trans or non-binary? Again, a small group of Twitter trolls are playing 'woke' but just sporting their hatred of women and anyone who isn't like them.)

The unruly Twitter children are out of their minds as they drool over their own mirrored reflections. It's why they rush to celebrate FIRE ISLAND -- a bunch of young, gay men -- and say BROS -- whose characters truly are LGBTQ and straight -- isn't 'representative.'

COFFEE AND TEQUILA has offered two strong pieces covering BROS this week. We've already noted the first one in a snapshot but let's put it in this snapshot too.

And now here's the more recent one.

Let's note one more time that today is October 7th. Why? Monday will be October 10th. It's very unlikely that, over the weekend, Iraq's politicians are going to pull their act together. October 10, 2021 was when Iraq held elections. Still waiting on the formation of the new government. No new prime minister. No new cabinet of ministers. No new president.

It will be one full year on Monday. And there's no end in sight. Blame it on a Biden? Iraq's always struggled some but the last time it took this long? Joe Biden was in charge of Iraq. Then-President Barack Obama had put Joe in charge. It was 2010. It took 289 days for the government to be formed -- 289 days after the election.

In that instance, the incumbent -- former prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki -- refused to honor the results and step down. So Joe oversaw The Erbil Agreement -- a contract signed by Iraq's political leaders which tossed the votes aside and gave Nouri a second term.

This go round, Joe's been notoriously absent from the scene of the crime. Despite repeating urging from the Congress, he's done nothing. Well, sometimes doing nothing is sending a message. Noted failure Mustafa al-Kahdimi is the 'caretaker' prime minister at present since the Parliament still can't name one. And Mustafa and Joe are not, to put it mildly, close.

Joe doesn't go to Iraq. They don't talk.

Now Mustafa did visit the US last month. He and Joe were both at the United Nations. But Joe ignored him and didn't visit with him. He met with many -- including the Prime Minister of Japan -- a man whose name the White House struggled with repeatedly in press releases announcing the visit. They sent out a written message on each meet up.

There was no meet up with Mustafa and, as a friend with the State Dept stated to me, "That was the message."

Indeed.

Sadly, some didn't get the memo.

Khairallah Khairallah (ARAB WEEKLY) gushes:

Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi's visit to Erbil looks like a courageous step in the current delicate circumstances that Iraq, one of the most important countries in the region, is going through.

This step proves that Kadhimi, although he leads an outgoing government, wants to be the prime minister of all of Iraq and of all Iraqis.

Let's translate that whoring into reality. This is what Khairallah's really saying:

My buddy Mustafa and I remain close and I don't disclose it anymore than various press outlets Mustafa used to work for ever disclose that Mustafa was their employee before he became prime minister. That's why we pimp him as some great leader when he's an inept failure who has accomplished nothing despite being handed the post of prime minister. The US Ambassador has told Mustafa that now is not the time for oil disputes -- not with Opec's recent moves and inflation -- and, Iraqi court verdict or not -- Mustafa was told to get his ass to the KRG and try to make some sort of peace between the KRG and Baghdad and do so quickly because the US government is really tired of Mustafa.

You can pin a lot of the blame on the press that covered for Mustafa and pretended he wasn't the problem. He didn't fix anything. Things got even worse under his 'leadership.'

And that's before we get to the continued armed struggle in southern Iraq. Daniel Stewart (360 NEWS) 'reports:'

Prominent Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered armed groups under his control to suspend their activities in almost the entire country in order not to increase tensions after weeks of heavy clashes in Basra province between the cleric's forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a coalition of pro-Iranian militias.

No, Danny, not "all." MEMO explains:

Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr today announced the freezing of all his armed factions across Iraq, except the northern province of Saladin.

Saleh Mohamed Al-Iraqi, a leader of the Sadr's movement, said the influential cleric also "banned the use of weapons in all provinces except Saladin and Samarra city."

It was not yet clear why Saladin province was not included in the ban.

RUDAW explains:

Salih Mohammed al-Iraqi, a close associate of Sadr, said in a statement on behalf of the Shiite leader that they were freezing all armed factions, including the Saraya al-Salam, and banning the use of weapons in all Iraqi provinces except for Salahaddin to “avoid sedition” in Basra, adding “otherwise, we will take other measures later.”

Iraqi also called on the commander-in-chief of the armed forces Kadhimi to control the “disrespectful” militias of Qais al-Khazali, secretary-general of AAH, as they “know nothing but terror and money and power.”

AAH? Danny gets that part right "the League of the Righteous (Asaib Ahl al Haq or AAH) militia."

January 10, 2020, the US State Dept designated Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq as a terrorist organization. Prior to that, it was most infamous for killing US troops in Iraq. You'd never know that from the sobbing some in the US gave when one of its leaders was killed. Long before that happened, it was a terrorist group and Barack Obama was happy to make deals with the group.

For those unfamiliar with the League of Righteous, among other things, they kidnapped 5 British citizens in Baghdad and, when Barack Obama's administration entered into negotiations with them, released 3 corpses and 1 hostage alive (Peter Moore was the one alive) after their leaders were released from prison and, much later, released the corpse of the fifth British citizen. The four turned over dead were Jason Swindlehurst, Jason Creswell, Alec MacLachlan and (turned over much later) Alan McMenemy The Obama administration's decision to enter into talks with the group was shocking considering the group also brags of their attack on a US military base in Iraq in which five American soldiers were killed.

Dropping back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:

This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

They never did answer for it. People treated it as normal that a leader responsible for the deaths of five Americans was released from American custody. Barack should have been called out.

Well he was.

In the Arabic media, the League of Righteous called him out, mocked and made fund of him, bragged about delaying the release of Alan McMenemy to show Barack who was running things.

But he should have been called out in the US media. The news of it registered with military families but otherwise it was just a headline quickly forgotten.

As Joni Mitchell observes in "Dog Eat Dog:"

Land of snap decisions
Land of short attention spans
Nothing is savored
Long enough to really understand
In every culture in decline
The watchful ones among the slaves
Know all that is genuine will be
Scorned and conned and cast away

Dog eat dog
People looking seeing nothing
Dog eat dog
People listening hearing nothing
Dog eat dog
People lusting loving nothing
Dog eat dog
People stroking touching nothing
Dog eat dog
Knowing nothing
Dog eat dog

Land of short attention spans.

US President Joe Biden continues to persecute Julian Assange for the 'crime' of exposing War Crimes carried out by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's again note this Kevin Gosztola report on a British television discussion of Julian.

Oscar Grenfell (WSWS) also covers it:

A segment on Piers Morgan’s “Uncensored Program” yesterday provided its mass audience with a rare and unvarnished demonstration of the two sides in the case of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, who is imprisoned in Britain and faces extradition to the United States for exposing American war crimes.

On the one hand, Assange’s wife Stella Moris outlined the dire precedent that the US is seeking to establish by prosecuting a journalist for publishing true information. She spoke eloquently in defence of the democratic rights of Assange and the population at large, as well as on the importance of upholding international legal norms.

On the other hand, John Bolton, a lifelong Republican politician and state apparatchik, ranted and raved as he asserted the “right” of the American government to ruin the life of anyone who gets in the way of its “national interests.”

The program was broadcast on British television’s TalkTV station, and has already been watched hundreds of thousands of times on social media.

The response demonstrates the true public opinion of Assange, which is generally buried by the official media. Moris has received widespread praise for her thoughtful and principled comments, including her statements on Bolton’s own relationship to war crimes. Bolton’s remarks have been condemned as dangerous and frightening.

Morgan began by noting that Assange has been locked up in Britain’s Belmarsh Prison, a “very high security” and “grim” facility, for almost four years, following seven years of arbitrary detention at Ecuador’s British embassy. Where did Moris think the case would go, and what did she hope to achieve, he asked.

Moris, who is herself a widely-respected human rights lawyer, explained: “Julian faces a potential sentence in the United States of 175 years for doing journalistic work. For receiving information from a source and publishing it, and it was in the public interest. It was about US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he revealed tens of thousands of civilian deaths that had not been acknowledged before.”

Morgan said that he would play “devil’s advocate,” repeating the oft-repeated claim that while the Guardian and the New York Times had redacted the material from whistleblower Chelsea Manning, WikiLeaks had dumped it online, placing individuals at risk.

Asked if she accepted this argument, Moris replied forcefully: “I don’t accept it, because it’s not true. WikiLeaks did actually redact all of those documents that Manning gave to WikiLeaks, and in fact it was in cooperation with those newspapers.”

WikiLeaks, Moris noted, had withheld 15,000 documents from the US army’s Afghan war logs, and had been criticised by some for extensive redactions of the Iraq war logs. The publication of 250,000 leaked diplomatic cables, in full, had not been the doing of WikiLeaks. Instead it was the outcome of Guardian journalists recklessly publishing the password to the tranche in a book.

While the US government persecutes Julian Assange, it meets-and-greets and celebrate nazis. Jacob Crosse (WSWS) reports:

Last month leading members of both US political parties met with high-ranking soldiers of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion at the Capitol in Washington D.C.

The week-long meetings in Washington by the fascist delegations, who were warmly greeted by Republican and Democratic politicians alike, have gone virtually unreported in the press.

In their posts first exposing the visit, journalist Moss Robeson revealed that one of the Azov soldiers that visited the Capitol was Giorgi Kuparashvili. Robeson wrote that Kupraashvili is a “a co-founder of the Azov Regiment and the leader of its Yevhen Konovalets Military School, named for the founder of the fascistic Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.”

The Azov Battalion was founded in 2014 by white supremacist Andriy Biletsky. The organization is teeming with fascists and racists who idolize Stepan Bandera, a fascist who as a member of the OUN-B collaborated with the Waffen SS during World War II in carrying out the Holocaust in Ukraine.

The embrace of neo-Nazis in the Capitol by both big-business parties obliterates any pretense that the US government is fighting for “democracy” or “human rights” in Ukraine, or anywhere else.

In publicly available Telegram posts, the Association of Families of Azovstal Defenders, an organization comprised of family members of Azov soldiers, boasted that Kateryna Prokopenko, Yuliya Fedosyuk and Alla Somilenko joined Azov soldiers, Kupraashvili, Vladyslav Zhaivoronka and Artur Lypka in holding face-to-face meetings with Democratic and Republican legislators alike.

The following sites updated:

Ruth's Report

Monday, October 10, 2022

Media

About Me

Blog Archive

Ruth's Report