As Batwoman, she ended up with him and he hates Batwoman. He hates Batman too. Batwoman asked him why he hates Batman and he admitted that he hated Batman because otherwise he'd have to hate himself for not looking longer for his daughter Beth.
Mouse is jealous of Beth's relationship with her sister Kate. He thinks Kate needs to be killed and that Beth is going soft. Kate calls about Mouse and gets Beth to say that she's not planning to kill her. And then, still on the phone, Mouse walks around the corner. It was him. (Remember he can mimic voices.) Beth is furious. She can't believe Mouse tricked her.
She and Mouse will eventually make up.
The other big news?
Sophia knows that Kate is Batwoman -- which we knew. What we didn't know is that she's planning to tell Jacob that Kate is Batwoman.
This episode was a little slow for me. I don't mind character enrichment but this one could have used a little more action.
That's a minor criticism. Batwoman is my favorite show of 2019.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, November 11, 2019.
In the US, the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues. Norman Solomon (COMMON DREAMS) observes:
The extremely rich Americans who are now frantically trying to figure out how to intervene in the Democratic presidential campaign make me wonder how different they are from the animated character who loved frolicking in money and kissing dollar bills while counting them. If Uncle Scrooge existed as a billionaire in human form today, it’s easy to picture him aligned with fellow plutocrats against the “threat” of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
The exceedingly wealthy are usually content to stay in the shadows while their combined financial leverage and media power keep top government officials more or less in line. But the grassroots strengths of the Warren and Sanders campaigns have jolted some key oligarchs into overt action.
“At least 16 billionaires have in recent months spoken out against what they regard as the danger posed by the populist Democrats, particularly over their proposals to enact a ‘wealth tax’ on vast fortunes,” the Washington Post reported over the weekend. Many of those billionaires are “expressing concern” that the populist Democrats “will blow the election to Trump by veering too far left.”
But are those billionaires more worried about a wealth tax that will curtail vast fortunes, or about Trump winning re-election? Are we supposed to believe the far-fetched notion that voters will opt for Trump over the Democratic nominee because they don’t want billionaires to pay higher taxes?
The biggest fear among the billionaire class is not that a progressive Democratic nominee will lose against Trump. The biggest fear is that such a nominee will win -- thus gaining presidential muscle to implement measures like a wealth tax that would adversely affect the outsized fortunes of the 0.1 percent.
Such fears are causing a step-up of attacks on Sanders and Warren, and even some early indications of trauma. “Piling on against the wealth tax have been corporate celebrities from Silicon Valley and Wall Street,” the Post reported on Saturday. Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg “suggested Sanders’s call to abolish billionaires could hurt philanthropies and scientific research by giving the government too much decision-making power. . . . Appearing on CNBC, billionaire investor Leon Cooperman choked up while discussing the impact a wealth tax could have on his family.”
Sanders often points to the fact that just three individuals -- Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett -- own as much wealth as the entire bottom half of the U.S. population. Gates has publicly denounced Warren’s proposal for a wealth tax. It shouldn’t surprise us now to learn that earlier this year Bezos urged Bloomberg to run for president. We might call it ruling-class unity -- which is a point that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez quickly made while campaigning alongside Sanders in Iowa when the news broke.
As we've already pointed out last week, 2020 is the one election where you can go left. Barring Donald Trump announcing he won't seek re-election, no move to the center is necessary. It may never be necessary but it certainly wouldn't be in 2020 and that's got a number of fat cats very nervous.
The never-Trump Republicans aren't suddenly going to vote for him. They may vote for a third party candidate -- splitting the GOP vote between Trump and, say, a Libertarian.
This is a time for bold action and bold moves. A timid Joe Biden isn't going to be the answer.
Let's stay with Bernie for a moment. I'm not being fair to Bernie, an e-mail to the public account, informs me. Naomi Klein endorsed him and I didn't make a big deal out of it.
I didn't. I made a point not to include those Tweets. If something's a known lie, I don't put it here.
Here's the Tweet:
In the US, the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues. Norman Solomon (COMMON DREAMS) observes:
The extremely rich Americans who are now frantically trying to figure out how to intervene in the Democratic presidential campaign make me wonder how different they are from the animated character who loved frolicking in money and kissing dollar bills while counting them. If Uncle Scrooge existed as a billionaire in human form today, it’s easy to picture him aligned with fellow plutocrats against the “threat” of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
The exceedingly wealthy are usually content to stay in the shadows while their combined financial leverage and media power keep top government officials more or less in line. But the grassroots strengths of the Warren and Sanders campaigns have jolted some key oligarchs into overt action.
“At least 16 billionaires have in recent months spoken out against what they regard as the danger posed by the populist Democrats, particularly over their proposals to enact a ‘wealth tax’ on vast fortunes,” the Washington Post reported over the weekend. Many of those billionaires are “expressing concern” that the populist Democrats “will blow the election to Trump by veering too far left.”
But are those billionaires more worried about a wealth tax that will curtail vast fortunes, or about Trump winning re-election? Are we supposed to believe the far-fetched notion that voters will opt for Trump over the Democratic nominee because they don’t want billionaires to pay higher taxes?
The biggest fear among the billionaire class is not that a progressive Democratic nominee will lose against Trump. The biggest fear is that such a nominee will win -- thus gaining presidential muscle to implement measures like a wealth tax that would adversely affect the outsized fortunes of the 0.1 percent.
Such fears are causing a step-up of attacks on Sanders and Warren, and even some early indications of trauma. “Piling on against the wealth tax have been corporate celebrities from Silicon Valley and Wall Street,” the Post reported on Saturday. Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg “suggested Sanders’s call to abolish billionaires could hurt philanthropies and scientific research by giving the government too much decision-making power. . . . Appearing on CNBC, billionaire investor Leon Cooperman choked up while discussing the impact a wealth tax could have on his family.”
Sanders often points to the fact that just three individuals -- Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett -- own as much wealth as the entire bottom half of the U.S. population. Gates has publicly denounced Warren’s proposal for a wealth tax. It shouldn’t surprise us now to learn that earlier this year Bezos urged Bloomberg to run for president. We might call it ruling-class unity -- which is a point that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez quickly made while campaigning alongside Sanders in Iowa when the news broke.
As we've already pointed out last week, 2020 is the one election where you can go left. Barring Donald Trump announcing he won't seek re-election, no move to the center is necessary. It may never be necessary but it certainly wouldn't be in 2020 and that's got a number of fat cats very nervous.
The never-Trump Republicans aren't suddenly going to vote for him. They may vote for a third party candidate -- splitting the GOP vote between Trump and, say, a Libertarian.
This is a time for bold action and bold moves. A timid Joe Biden isn't going to be the answer.
Let's stay with Bernie for a moment. I'm not being fair to Bernie, an e-mail to the public account, informs me. Naomi Klein endorsed him and I didn't make a big deal out of it.
I didn't. I made a point not to include those Tweets. If something's a known lie, I don't put it here.
Here's the Tweet:
I’ve written about my preferences but I have never formally endorsed a candidate for President in my life - never mind spoken at a campaign rally.
That ends today in #Iowa.
The world is on fire and our most credible hope of beating the arsonists is #Bernie2020 #NotMeUs
Naomi said in her Tweet that this was the first time. No, it's not. She endorsed Barack Obama in 2008. She shouldn't have and we'll get to that. But she was promoting her book at a book signing event and she endorsed him. I heard about within ten minutes of her endorsement.
So, no, I'm not going to put something that I know is a lie up here. Bernie is not her first endorsement.
Second, I don't think she should be endorsing. Not just because she's supposed to be an independent voice but also because she doesn't live in the United States.
I have no problem with what Naomi's father did. Elaine and I knew him and knew many others who went to Canada instead of taking part in the assault on Vietnam. She's an American by way of her parents. Her parents live in Canada and made a home in Canada.
I don't think she needs to be making endorsements for a country that isn't her home.
She was born in Canada, she's made it her home. She really doesn't need to be endorsing in a US election. It's not really her place.
That's not a new position on my part and I've called out others for similar reasons. I've called out John R. MacArthur for voting in France's elections and the US' elections. I don't think you should do that. I know he has dual citizenship. I also know that any election pivots on numerous issues and I don't believe anyone is able to closely follow all the issues in two countries. I think most of us struggle to keep up with one country.
The war in Iraq continues . . .
The protests continue in Iraq as well. The US government is now calling for elections to be held early to address the protesters concerns.
Human Rights Watch notes:
Today the UN Human Rights Council will hold a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) session to examine Iraq’s human rights records. The rash of killings of protestors by Iraqi security forces over the past month should at the front of diplomats’ minds as they shape their recommendations.
At least 147 protesters were killed by security forces in protests in Baghdad and Iraq’s southern cities in early October; more than 100 have been killed in a second wave since October 25.
In the second wave, Baghdad security forces have fired teargas cartridges not just to disperse crowds, but in some cases directly at protesters, a brutal form of lethal force. The UN Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI) documented 16 protesters killed by teargas cartridges striking their heads or chests. Amnesty International has identified that some of the teargas cartridges Iraqi forces are using to kill protesters were made in Iran.
Some security forces have continued to use live ammunition in Baghdad and other cities. UNAMI said 97 people were killed from October 25 to November 4, with news reports of more shot dead since then. Authorities have arbitrarily detained protesters and released them later without charge, and others have gone missing. Human Rights Watch has received reports that security forces are threatening and even shooting at medics treating protesters.
The government has tried to prevent Iraqis and the world from seeing the extent of its deadly response. First, the government repeatedly throttled the internet to prevent people from uploading and sharing photos and videos of the protests, and blocked messaging apps. Then it imposed a nighttime internet curfew. As of November 5, mToday the UN Human Rights Council will hold a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) session to examine Iraq’s human rights records. The rash of killings of protestors by Iraqi security forces over the past month should at the front of diplomats’ minds as they shape their recommendations.
At least 147 protesters were killed by security forces in protests in Baghdad and Iraq’s southern cities in early October; more than 100 have been killed in a second wave since October 25.
In the second wave, Baghdad security forces have fired teargas cartridges not just to disperse crowds, but in some cases directly at protesters, a brutal form of lethal force. The UN Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI) documented 16 protesters killed by teargas cartridges striking their heads or chests. Amnesty International has identified that some of the teargas cartridges Iraqi forces are using to kill protesters were made in Iran.
Some security forces have continued to use live ammunition in Baghdad and other cities. UNAMI said 97 people were killed from October 25 to November 4, with news reports of more shot dead since then. Authorities have arbitrarily detained protesters and released them later without charge, and others have gone missing. Human Rights Watch has received reports that security forces are threatening and even shooting at medics treating protesters.
The government has tried to prevent Iraqis and the world from seeing the extent of its deadly response. First, the government repeatedly throttled the internet to prevent people from uploading and sharing photos and videos of the protests, and blocked messaging apps. Then it imposed a nighttime internet curfew. As of November 5, most internet access has been blocked. “The disruptions in Iraq now rank amongst the most severe NetBlocks has observed in any country in 2019,” said NetBlocks, an independent international non-partisan group monitoring internet access.
Beyond the protests, security forces have arrested some Iraqis simply for expressing support for the movement with Facebook messages. This marks a new low in a country that, despite a very troubled past, has valued a level of free speech over the last decade.
While the UN, United States, and European Union have issued multiple statements condemning the excessive use of force, Iran and other allies of Iraq have remained silent. Today, Iran and every other UN member owes it to every dead protester to persuade Iraq to protect, rather than suppress, its citizens’ rights to free expression.ost internet access has been blocked. “The disruptions in Iraq now rank amongst the most severe NetBlocks has observed in any country in 2019,” said NetBlocks, an independent international non-partisan group monitoring internet access.
Beyond the protests, security forces have arrested some Iraqis simply for expressing support for the movement with Facebook messages. This marks a new low in a country that, despite a very troubled past, has valued a level of free speech over the last decade.
While the UN, United States, and European Union have issued multiple statements condemning the excessive use of force, Iran and other allies of Iraq have remained silent. Today, Iran and every other UN member owes it to every dead protester to persuade Iraq to protect, rather than suppress, its citizens’ rights to free expression.
Let's deal with another e-mail to the public account. If Cindy Sheehan can go on TV, why oh why can't Khizr Khan!!!! I never said he couldn't go on TV, I did call what he was doing pointless and, yes, for this country, wrong. When Cindy Sheehan asked to meet with Bully Boy Bush again, he said no. This is what led to Camp Casey. If Cindy had been Khan, it would have made sense. Khan has nothing new to say or offer. Cindy, on the other hand, was calling for an end to the war. She wasn't going to meet up to rehash the same statements she'd made before. That's all Khan does. And if you lived through the Vietnam era and all the divisions is created in this country, you're not going to applaud conservative Khan pimping all that crap again. He has nothing to offer.
He did not serve.
There are more than enough veterans in this country who have served. They could be put on air to talk about what they saw. They could be put on air also to talk about any number of issues facing veterans. I don't need Mommy Khizr on MSNBC repeating the same stuff he does every time -- remarks that inflame only to inflame.
He's a joke, a sad joke. A pro-war, scardy cat who couldn't serve himself but is for every war in the world and is a knee-jerk conservative and is now regularly attacking Donald Trump who is not the person who sent his dead son into war. Bully Boy Bush. That's the name Mommy Khizr never utters.
This is about veterans, it's not about service. It's just a grudge f**k against Donald Trump. It detract from real issues. They could have had an IAVA member talking about suicides or the need to do an increase in the post-9/11 GI Bill. They could have addresses, seriously, the issue of homeless veterans. Instead, they gave the microphone to a man whose son died 15 years ago -- and they gave it to him because they knew he would trash Donald Trump.
That's not news and if it's someone's idea of entertainment, we should all pray.
Not a Tammy Duckworth fan, but this is the sort of sentiment we should be noting on Veterans Day:
Today on #VeteransDay, I'm taking a moment to pause and honor Veterans like my buddies who refused to leave me behind on that battlefield in Iraq. Every day — but especially today — I think about what I can do to repay them.
Another pertinent example.
After losing both arms in the Iraq War, retired Army Sergeant & guest artist Pete Damon was inspired to pursue a career in art. He painted today's #VeteransDay #GoogleDoodle to honor all those who have served in the U.S. armed forces. 
See more → goo.gle/2kUmbMM
See more → goo.gle/2kUmbMM
The following sites updated:
-
-
Heat Check: Lived-In R&B, Rap And Ragga1 hour ago
-
Monday Reads2 hours ago
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment