Will Smith doesn't deserve an Oscar. He's a bad actor and he's a worse person. I am so glad Ava and C.I. wrote "TV: REACHER, IN FROM THE COLD, PEACEMAKER and AMEND: THE FIGHT FOR AMERICA" and so glad, in particular, for this section:
So is PEACEMAKER, as we told you last month. We bring it up now because much was made of the latest episode confirming what was already known -- or should have been -- that the lead character played by John Cena is bisexual. Did everyone miss the 'smiley face' in the first episode? The object Vigilante commented on, laying out visible in the middle of Chris' living room, but didn't know what it was? It's a fleshlight or flashjack. Once known as pocket p**sies, these devices, even back when they were known as pocket-ps, have been used primarily by gay men and numerous gay porn stars promote them (and numerous gay porn videos feature them). A bisexual male on a DC series finally and he's a lead. Probably helped that Greg Berlanti wasn't involved in this DC show. He's over so many of the others, after all: TITANS, SUPERMAN AND LOIS, LEGENDS OF TOMORROW, THE FLASH and the now-ended ARROW. He could -- and has -- employed many gay actors, he just ran from putting gay male characters onscreen. You have to wonder about the fear and self-hatred there.
Self-hatred's long been used to overlook the homophobia of some actors -- Will Smith, rumors insist, is gay. We really don't care if he's gay or straight or bi, we just think he owes everyone a public apology.
ZOOM and the pandemic have meant that we do our various conversations over the internet. No more are we able to go onto campuses or into union halls or whatever. We miss the face to face, honestly. But what we have on the plus side, the up -- as Mike would say, is that we've been able to expand the groups we speak to since we aren't traveling. And one of the groups we've added a lot more of is LGBTQ groups.
Things are better for young LGBTQs than they were for previous generations but things are still not where they should be. As we've enlarged the scope of our groups, a friend who is a therapist asked if we'd mind speaking with her group. They were nine gay men, in their forties, who basically did not feel listened by society or represented in the media. Would we speak to them? Being told that, we were dying to speak to them. And we were not disappointed.
There's a story that's not really told and they brought it to the forefront (as have other gay male groups we've spoken to since). We thank them for that. Like them, we marvel over how this part of the story really isn't told.
Being gay is easier than it used to be. 20 years ago, or even just ten in some places, there was so much harassment. We have honestly advised men who've shared their experiences to consider filing lawsuits. And we're not joking and we're not litigious people.
Films and TV shows thought they were being 'sympathetic' and true telling of the gay kid in school who got picked on by some bully. That's the story we've heard rejected over and over for the last five months from many different groups of gay men.
No, what we've heard is about how the whole school system was after you. That was the bully, yes. And there was usually a coach -- at least one -- and a principal egging them on. Adults were around and they not only were not protecting these children, they were actively participating in harassing them.
And it was accepted back then. It was 'normal.' That's in part due to a point we've made here forever: the socialization of males by this society is one of bullying. Toughen up, don't cry. You can see it, as we've often noted, in two films from the 80s. In both, two characters join the military and are treated horribly. In the one about the male, AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN, Richard Gere is harassed by his drill sergeant (Louis Gossett Jr.) and, instead of rejecting that harassment, we are supposed to applaud it and feel all warm inside. In the other, PRIVATE BENJAMIN, Goldie Hawn and her team get their revenge on the harasser (Eileen Brennan). The male socialization is bullying in this society. That's not acceptable (even with the well known existence of 'mean girls') when it comes to females.
So sometimes, a gay man will offer that maybe the principal was trying to help him by bullying him, by mocking him in front of other students, by sneering at him and calling him a "fairy" and worse in front of the whole school assembly.
We say f**k that. We say sue those assholes. And what about statute of limitations? Who cares. File the paperwork, have it thrown of court as a result of being beyond some time limit. But in between the those two moments, let that elderly abuser know that the world knows what he or she did. And let them sweat it and let them be haunted by it.
They have made no effort to find these former children and apologize to them. So f**k them. To lead a school into targeting a young boy because he's gay? You were an adult. There's no excuse for what you did. And if the court of law can't put you on notice, the court of public opinion certainly can.
NETFLIX is offering AMEND: THE FIGHT FOR AMERICA -- a documentary series. Episode five is "Love." Yes, what the world needs now. Professor Martha S. Jones talks about the impact of LOVING V VIRGINIA -- a breakthrough case that especially impacted her life because her mixed race parents married years before the verdict in LOVING.
This landmark case gets far less attention than it deserves. We've noted it many times such as in 2008:
Loving v. Virginia was a breakthrough, a legal landmark, for
the United States. In a debate, Barack Obama was asked, "Senator Obama,
the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States were ruled
unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on
interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?" Obama mouthed a lot of
nonsense about 'equality' and then went on to state it's a decision for
different denominations to make. There should have been a gasp heard
round the country.
Barack is a lawyer, a trained legal mind. Though we find it difficult to believe he's never studied Loving v. Viriginia (as difficult to believe as Clarence Thomas' Senate testimony that he'd never thought about Roe v. Wade),
we'll allow that maybe it fell into some gap in his education. But as a
trained legal mind, he does grasp court billing. "v. Virginia" means
versus state. Not versus a denomination.
In that historic case,
the Supreme Court of the United States found the laws of the state of
Virginia to be unconstitutional and illegal. That finding meant that all
states could no longer refuse to issue marriage certificates to couples
of different races. Obama's weak-ass response should have been
considered weak ass. (John Edwards also embarrassed himself in that
debate noting he was against "gay marriage" and "I do not" support it
leading us to shout back at the screen, "Gee, John, we weren't aware you
were being inundated with proposals!") But it was also dishonest. A law
student, forget the former president of the Harvard Law Review, grasps
that Loving v. Virginia was not about whether "denominations"
could make a decision, it was about what the government could do. To
provide perspective, imagine the issue was illegal search and seizure on
the part of the government (forbidden by the Constitution) and Obama
had responded, "I think it's up to denominations." The government was
discriminating and the Supreme Court stood up for the rights of all. A
trained legal mind should grasp that. If Obama didn't, he's either not
much of a student or he's a really bad liar.
It's good that the episode starts off with LOVING because that is at the root of equality. And other cases are cited including LAWRENCE v TEXAS and the appalling BOWERS v HARDWICK. Episode five revolves around the importance of The Fourteenth Amendment and how its importance and relevance leads to the historic OBERGEFELL v HODGES.
We applaud much about the documentary but episode five, for all of its applause, also has to answer for something.
Will Smith produced the series. And probably should have stayed off camera. Why doesn't Will have an Oscar. Well, Jada, it's partly because he's not really an actor -- don't confuse stardom with acting ability -- but it's also because of his hateful past which includes a lot of homophobia and Academy voters just don't embrace hatred and intolerance.
In episode five, Will declares of Cincinnati in the 70s, "The message to its LGBTQ citizens is be quiet, stay hidden or get out." Will, could of course, admit that his message to the LGBTQ citizens has been be quiet, stay hidden, get out or be mocked and demonized.
That is what he has done.
Some try to argue that he's gay or bi in real life. He presents as straight. Take him at his word. But even if he were choking a cock every night, that doesn't justify the damage he has done.
Early on, he told MOVIELINE that the reason he wouldn't kiss Anthony Michael Hall in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION -- as required in the script and has had happened when it was a stage production without Will Smith -- was because Denzel Washington told him not to.
Did Denzel tell him that?
We have no idea. And the reason we have no idea is because Denzel, a movie star for decades, didn't go public. If he was against gay people or playing one or whatever, he had the brains not to say so publicly.
Will didn't. And this is throughout his career.
Is he homophobic, we wanna know.
How can we tell what's in his soul?
It's in his recordings: "All the filthy stinking nasty people be quiet. All the homeboys that
got AIDS be quiet. All the girls out there that don't like guys be
quiet." It's in his films -- such as HANCOCK, and BAD BOYS 2. It's in his red carpet encounters.**
Will gave interviews about how ''gross'' two men kissing were. He's done that since, 1991.
We can't tell what's in his soul, we can only register the meaning of his statements and his actions.
Now he just wants to act like it never happened? Like decades of homophobia from a one-time action-movie star didn't have an impact:?
His comments egged on others as much as any teacher or principal at a school.
He needs to publicly apologize. It's that simple.
He does need to apologize. Until he does, he can kiss my ass. What he did was so offensive and it wasn't one time. It went on throughout his career -- especially when he actually had fans and was a star. What he did was abuse. And he was cruel and people were harmed. He needs to own what he did in interviews, what he did in film and what he did in his recordings.
And f**k him if he thinks he can act like it didn't happen.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
The White House issued the following:
Statement by President Joe Biden
Last night at my direction, U.S. military forces in the northwest Syria successfully undertook a counterterrorism operation to protect the American people and our Allies, and make the world a safer place. Thanks to the skill and bravery of our Armed Forces, we have taken off the battlefield Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi—the leader of ISIS. All Americans have returned safely from the operation. I will deliver remarks to the American people later this morning. May God protect our troops.
###
Margaret Kimberley rightly Tweets:
This is BS. Poll numbers dropping, Ukraine hoax stalled, 2,000+ covid deaths per day. What to do? Easy. Find an Arab, claim he was an ISIS leader and kill him and his family. Later the story changed to say he blew himself up. Don't believe that either. #Bogus
This is how bad things have gotten for Joe Biden, he's aping Bully Boy Bush and hoping that somehow this helps him look good.
ISIS is not followers with one mighty leader. ISIS exists to be a headless snake. Is the White House not getting that reality or are they hoping the American people are too stupid to grasp it?
Quraishi was detained at the camp after US forces picked him up in Mosul, Iraq in January 2008, although details of the operation are scant.
In a press release at the time, US forces claimed to have captured “a wanted individual believed to be the deputy leader of al-Qaida in Iraq for the network operating in the city.”
It added that Quraishi — known by the alternative name Amir Muhammad Said Abd al-Rahman al-Mawla — had “previously served as a judge of an illegal court system involved in ordering and approving abductions and executions.”
During interrogations by US intelligence services he gave the names of some 88 individuals, some of whom he said were key figures in Isis. He gave the organisational positions of 64 of them, detailing their responsibilities in the legal, military security, media and administrative branches of the organisation.
In one document he appears to offer an affidavit, testifying against 20 named individuals and identifying illegal activities including kidnappings, assassinations and attacks on coalition forces.
He also gave information about the structure of the jihadist organisation completing “a line and block chart” showing the names and positions of 40 individuals. This information is believed to have led to 39 of them being killed by US forces.
It is clear that Quraishi was useful to the US. The level of detailed information he shared makes him a US asset, or at the very least an informant. The nature of the operation to take him out — which Turkey was not told about in advance — poses more questions than it answers.
Was he killed by US operatives as he had served his purpose or because of fears his role and links to Washington could be exposed?
Is it really conceivable that both he and his predecessor Baghdadi were simply released into the wilds and allowed to find their way to the very top position in Isis without being tracked or monitored by US intelligence services?
It seems highly unlikely.
Just as it stretches credibility to suggest that the attack on the prison in Hasakah province could have been planned and carried out in an area teeming with US soldiers and intelligence without Washington’s knowledge.
It would represent the biggest intelligence failure since the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon if this was also missed.
The court said in a statement that a decision by parliament to accept his presidential bid was incorrect as the 68-year-old Kurdish politician did not fulfill the conditions for nomination stipulated in the country's constitution. It also barred him from running for the post in the future, the official Iraq News Agency reported on Sunday.
“We were surprised by our exclusion from our right to nominate,” Zebari said in a news conference following the ruling.
“We respect the judiciary, but I have the right to say that there has been injustice and arbitrariness in the decision.”
The oint of Hoshyar was to claim the presidency. In the past, it has been held by a Kurd from the PUK party (the prty of the Talabanis). However, the October 10th election saw the continued eroision of the PUK. They are no longer a major political party. So why should they hold the post? The KDP thought Hoshyar would be the easiest way to defeat Barham Salih (PUK member and the current president of Iraq) because Zebari was not just a national figure, he was an international figure. They also assumed that, as a long standing member of Parliament, he would be a safe and popular choice to both Iraq and the international community. They underestimated Nouri al-Maliki.
Former prime miniser and forever thug Nouri is known for his paranoia. It's why Bully Boy Bush installed him as prime minister in 2006 -- the CIA assessment noted his high degree of paranoia and that this could be used to manipulate Nouri for US interests.
We have repeatedly noted the 2010 Erbil Agreement that gave Nouri his second term. The voters didn't want that and made it clear in March of 2010. But Nouri refused to step down. Eight months later, in November of 2010, the voters were tossed aside via the US overseen Erbil Agreement.
Nouri used the contract to get a second term and then he walked away from it claiming it was illegal. The other parties insisted otherwise. Well . . . most of them. The KDP was among those insisting that Nouri honor that contract or face a no-confidence vote in Parliament. Ayad Allawi, Moqtada al-Sadr, Amir al-Hakim and many others insisted the contract be honored. One political group didn't. The same group tha theld the presidency: the PUK. And when the others gathered the needed signatures to hold a no-confidence vote per the Constitituion, Jalal Talabani did what?
Well he didn't follow the Constitution. He created new poers for himself that included the right to toss the petition out. He didn't have that power. He only had the power to introdcue it (read it into the record). Then Jalal high talied it out of Iraq claiming emergency surgery. His life was at risk! It was electibe surgery on his knee. Liar. And karma bit him in his fat ass when six months later, as he had a very loud verbal argument with Nouri, he collapsed from a stroke that he would never recover from.
The PUK has sided with Nouri in the past. And they've sided with him again re: the October 10th elections. While Moatada has claimed victory -- with the press agreeing -- his wins are not enough to put together a government. As he's dithered, Nouri has built his own coaltiion. A war of attrition is how Nouri sees any political battle and he uses old techniques. The issues regarding Zebari? Not all that different from how Nouri tried to derail Saleh al-Mutlaq back in the '00s.
If you don't know (or remember) his playbook, the last months have probably been very confusing. If you do know them, you've seen Nouri launch one counter-measure after another and marveled over how out of it and ignorant Moqtada is.
The shine is off Moqtada, he's no longer a fresh rose. To those watching, he looks like a bumbling fool and that's one of the many points that Nouri's tryied to establish: Moqtada's not up for the power so many are rushing to gift him with. Moqtada, of course, hates Nouri from years back. Nouri was brought to power ty the US governmetn and had the arrest warrant for Moqtada that the US government sought. He repeatedly threatened Moqtada with it. When threatened, Moqtada would usually flee to Iran. In addition, in early 2008, Nouri declared all out war on Moqtada's cult/followers with two battles. (Yes, these battles were supposed to be a joint-US operation but, remember, Nouri jump-started them ahead of the US' planned start date.)
The two are and have been bitter rivals. If that's news to you, you've spent way too much time reading the US press in the last year.
Maybe you caught Jason Beausbien on NPR yesterday with his ridiculous claims:
MARTIN: You know, it's been four months since the elections, but there's still no agreement on a prime minister or a cabinet. Would you explain what's going on?
BEAUBIEN: This is still a young political system. Even today, the supreme court disqualified the leading candidate for the presidency, and that's just for a mainly ceremonial role. Iraq's parliament is divided. That no party got a majority in that last round of elections. The main winner, however, was the populous Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. His party got the largest bloc of votes of anyone. Many people might remember Sadr's militia. It was known for fighting fiercely against U.S. troops. But he's moderated to some degree now, and he's seen as sort of the counterbalance to a lot of the political forces here that are aligned with Iran. And he really looks like the kingmaker at the moment, but he's been driving a hard bargain over sharing power, over how to form a new government.
It's a young political system. Just stop whoring. Moqtada's "moderated"? Stop lying.
Two-bit whores belong on street coerners, not in front of microphones. NEWSWEEK carries a column by Shayan Talabany and Jemima Shelley:
On Feb. 13, 2020, Iraqi streets were awash with pink and purple. In response to influential Islamist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's allegations of "promiscuity" by protesters in popular country-wide protests, women's rights activists donned pink and purple items of clothing to demonstrate their right to be heard in Iraq's male-dominated political arena.
This was two years ago, but today the legacy of the Tishreen (October) movement that precipitated the women's march is as important than ever. It revitalized the history of women-led struggles in Iraq, largely overlooked by the West, and inspired a politically active new generation who are determined to change Iraq for the better.
Despite years of various anti-government protests around the country dating back to 2011, the Tishreen movement that erupted in 2020 was larger than any other protest movement Iraq had seen in recent history. This organic movement represented the sentiments of a large segment of Iraqi society opposed to Iraq's systemic corruption, and sectarian and paternalistic political system that has failed to meet political and economic demands. Iraqi women became integral to its success.
I don't know who the bigger bitch is: Moqtada or Jason?
Moqtada isn't moderate. And his attack on women in 2020 was not a minor thing. Some foolish people e-mail this site about those protesters and tell me that o'of course Sunnis don't like Moqtada.' I'm sorry your media system has failed you and taught you lies about Russia and nothing about Iraq. But The October Revolution had nothing to do with SUnnis. That was Shi'te youngsters. Sunnis weren't a part of it. That was Shi'ites calling out Moqtada. And when he tried to dismiss women, the protesters foguht back and they turned out with signs mocking him. It showed clearly the generational break with Moqtada.
Now the US media couldn't tell you that because they kept turning to Whore of Baghdad Jane Arraf and, as a result, they were ignoring women. In October of 2020, we were pointing out there tha the big story was the number of women at these protests and how the US press was ignoring them.
Moqtada didn't ignore them. He condemened the women for being there and he condemned the men for protesting wit them.
In a previous time, he might have gotten away with it.
But in 2020, he didn't.
And that was a big story . . . unless you were a US outlet.
They never know what's happening because they choose to stay ignorant.
On the presidency, ALJAZEERA adds:
In a separate decision the Federal Court said that President Barham Salih, who is also running for a second term, will continue in his position until a new president is elected.
The court decision is a blow to populist Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who was the biggest winner in the October parliamentary election. He had vowed to quickly push through a government that could exclude Iranian allies.
Sadr, along with the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) of which Zebari is a member, and an alliance of Sunni Muslim lawmakers had supported Zebari's bid for president.
Shelly Kittleson (AL-MONITOR) reports, "The deaths of several soldiers in the western Anbar desert and attacks further south in the same province have drawn attention to the vast expanses that were long a hideout for insurgents." ARAB NEWS notes, "The polls were marred by record-low turnout, post-election threats and violence, and a delay of several months until final results were confirmed." And THE NATIONAL points out, "Some members of the Coordination Framework, including MP Alia Nsayyif, who is allied to former prime minister Nouri Al Maliki, have warned that violence could break out if government formation did not reflect their claimed electoral gains."
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- TV: REACHER, IN FROM THE COLD, PEACEMAKER and AMEN...
- Mike picks the Idiot of the Week
- Trina serves up a recipe and covers inflation
- Betty cover science
- Marcia critiques an online erotic novel
- Elaine covers movies
- The Oscar nominations (Stan weighs in)
- Kat notes the hypocrite that is David Rovics
- Rebecca goes to the movies and sees a bad rom-com
- Ann examines the ugly on 'news' television
- Ruth provides a legal update regarding a con man
-
-
Blinken Foreign Policy7 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Best Director2 days ago
-
Idiot of the week2 days ago
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment