Wednesday, April 22, 2015

THIS JUST IN! THEY THINK THE DEAL IS BAD BUT THEY CAN'T SAY THAT CLEARLY!

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

AS MORE AND MORE REASONED VOICES STEP FORWARD TO QUESTION FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O'S ATTEMPTED DEAL WITH IRAN,  STEPHEN RADEMAKER STEPS FORWARD TO CALL IT A "FAUSTIAN DEAL."


AND THAT MIGHT MAKE MORE OF IMPRESSION IF MOST PEOPLE KNEW WHO RADEMAKER WAS OR IF THEY KNEW WHAT "FAUSTIAN" MEANT.

RADEMAKER IS THE FORMER HEAD OF THE BUREAU OF ARMS CONTROL AND THE FORMER HEAD OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND NONPROLIFERATION.  SO THAT TAKES CARE OF THIS MEMBER OF THE PODESTA GROUP.

FAUSTIAN?

NO, IT'S NOT A SUBURB OF BOSTON.

NOR IS IT A BRONY EQUIVALENT FOR MEN WHO LOVE JANE AUSTEN.

FAUSTIAN MEANS THE DEVIL.

HE'S CALLING IT A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL.

IF ONLY PEOPLE COULD SPEAK PLAINLY.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:




Hillary, married to Bill Clinton, has been First Lady of the United States.  In 2000, while in her final year as First Lady, she finally ran for elected office herself (in addition to being President of the United States, Bill had also been Governor of Arkansas) and she won a seat in the US Senate.  In 2006, she ran for re-election again.  Her last two years as a senator (2007 and 2008) were spent running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination (through June of 2008) and then in campaigning for Barack Obama to be President of the United States. Once he was sworn in as President, she slid into the Cabinet slot of Secretary of State and held that post for four years before stepping down.

How could someone support Hillary in 2008 and not support her in 2016?


That's a valid question.

And as I watch the various liars rush to support her today -- people who smeared her falsely as a racist in 2008 and insisted she was calling for Barack to be killed in the spring of 2008 -- I think asking them about their shift to embracing Hillary is also a valid question.


In 2008, there were many differences for me.

I did not support Hillary in 2007 and hadn't even thought of it.  I know Hillary, I knew everyone who was running on the Democratic Party side except for Barack.  (Elaine and I met Barack once and once was more than enough.  He's a War Hawk and in a very brief conversation with him at a fundraiser, that became clear.  We did not give money and we immediately left the fundraiser after this man running as anti-war for the US Senate insisted that the US was already in Iraq so that issue was already resolved.)


In 2008, Hillary did not have four years of Secretary of State dragging her down.

When someone belittles you (as Barack did Hillary in every manner possible -- including flipping the bird in one infamous moment), going to work in their administration does not make you look mature or reasonable.

It makes you look sad and pathetic.

It's insulting to you and it's very much insulting to the people who supported you.

Hillary always takes for granted the support she has.  I've known her for years but it only hit home when Hillary did what was best for her ambition.

Instead of rewarding her supporters, instead of using her position as a US senator to do some good, she became the lackey.

What is she most known for as Secretary of State besides photo ops and Benghazi?

Rushing to tell then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that her opposition to the surge was pure politics and she didn't mean it.  Now Barack said the same thing at the same encounter.  As usual The Cult of St. Barack covered for him and made it all about her.

But she's craven.

Was she telling the truth to Gates?

Who knows.

Her entire life is about saying and doing anything to advance herself.

Some of her supporters touched on this recently with her e-mail scandal.

Hillary, we were told, didn't do anything wrong.  We were supposed to take it on faith that she had not deleted anything that mattered, they insisted, and grasp that she did it to defend herself, that all the scandals she's suffered forced her to take extra measures.

Yes, they did.

And those measures are not acceptable in a president.

The best explanation of her e-mail scandal is that she felt she had the right to hide from the public that which they owned.  Her work product as Secretary of State -- every e-mail, every memo -- belonged to the US people.

She knows that.

Once upon a time, she would have lectured others on it.

Now she's so craven that she doesn't even respect it.

That's why she shouldn't have been Secretary of State.

She corrupted anything that was worthy of praise.

She also took a clear mistake -- supporting the Iraq War -- and turned one incident into an established pattern.

As Secretary of State, she tried to out hawk everyone.  War was her answer to everything.

And she sounded like a crazed serial killer in her attacks on Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden (among others).



Chelsea Manning acted on good faith and in an attempt to provide understanding and justice and to provoke a needed debate in this country.  Chelsea served in the US military as Bradley Manning.

Here is Logan Price detailing some of Hillary's attacks on Chelsea in 2011:
For those who don’t believe that Bradley’s alleged personal life and sexuality may be used against him, by either officials or media critics, this gem of information was presented in a recent Vanity Fair article about Hillary Clinton, while on tour in the Middle East:

Obama“Hillary told staff that she could not fathom how an army private, Bradley Manning, with psychological problems and a drag-queen boyfriend could single-handedly cause the United States unprecedented embarrassment just by labeling massive downloads as Lady Gaga songs.”
Were those comments verbatim, or just the ill-chosen words of the author? We may never know, but one thing is for sure, they were published in a major pop-culture outlet, and there is no taking them back.
Here is a good take-down of the allegation that Manning had “psychological problems.” As for Hillary’s comment about Bradley’s boyfriend, it is not only false, but inappropriate.
If Hillary did indeed say anything of the sort,  it is yet another reminder of the Obama administration’s willingness to disregard the fact that Bradley Manning has not yet been convicted of any crimes.
At a fundraiser in San Francisco in April,  Obama told me that Bradley Manning “broke the law,”  a legally irresponsible and inappropriate statement that could constitute an “unlawful command influence” over any military judge or jury that may preside over Bradley’s case.
Should the President and commander-in-chief,  or the Secretary of State for that matter, really be saying such things about a high profile prisoner like Bradley Manning who has not yet been to trial?
The release of the Diplomatic Cables may have been embarrassing for the Obama administration, but for Bradley, his life hangs in the balance.

This is an excerpt.  Read the full article here.




Chelsea is a whistle-blower.  She remains in a military prison.  Today, her Tweets included the following:



































Hillary should have to answer about the treatments of whistle-blowers.  She should also be forced to clarify her remarks attacking Chelsea as a person, not simply attacking Chelsea's actions (which exposed a corrupt and vile State Dept -- among other things).



Hillary  became more and more vile with every year she served and the moment she will most be remembered for screeching "At this point, what difference does it make!" when asked about an attack that killed four Americans (at least four, from other remarks she's made since, the death toll was eventually higher) and wounded many more.

That's Hillary in 2016.

That wasn't Hillary in 2008.

She made clear in those four years that she was craven, that she was a War Hawk, that she was not to be trusted and that she didn't believe in accountability.

That's far different from 2008 where you had her up against a liar posing as an anti-war candidate (Barack) and one who would use every bit of sexism possible to advance himself.

Barack has nothing to point to with pride in the seven years he's so far served as president.

And that the 2008 sexism can't take place today was Hillary's accomplishment.

Had she not gone into the administration, his sexism (which, yes, does include those work-bonding moments of all male basketball and all male golf) would have been addressed by the press.

But it will be addressed by history.

Allowing a man who drunkenly mocked Hillary by groping her cut out to be your speech writer as president?

The future will not look kindly on Barack Obama.

A failure as a president, a failure as a human being.

And a smart Hillary would have sat out his administration.

She could have never run again and been seen as something of a hero for surviving the sexism and staying in the 2008 race.

And a real hero would have done that.

But she's not about heroism, she's about advancing herself.

So she spat on her supporters and went to work for the man who degraded and insulted her (and degraded and insulted her supporters).

She has nothing to point to with pride.

And she's become more touchy and more entitled and more of terror.

Just last year, there was Terry Gross (NPR's Fresh Air) delicately attempting to get Hillary to walk through her transition (sudden transition) to supporting marriage equality and she snapped and lost it repeatedly.

Queen Hillary must never be doubted or questioned.

Knowing that right now, how can anyone think this out of control, crazed person belongs in the Oval Office?

She is Richard Nixon waiting to happen.

If you doubt it, go back to the e-mail scandal.

You can tell yourself nothing untoward happened.  I don't believe that, but you can tell yourself that.

But can you also pretend this scandal is anyone else's fault?

She knew she wanted to run for president.  She knew she probably would run for president.

But in between two runs, she takes the post of Secretary of State and uses her own e-mail.  That may be the standard to be Secretary of Ag but it's not the standard for someone wanting to be president.

She then goes on to destroy the e-mails and to lie about it (contrary to her initial public remarks, she did not use only one portable device to do e-mails).

This is Richard Nixon behavior.

And it's present and public before she's ever president.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"IAVA Statement Prior to NYC Veterans Advisory Boar..."
"Isakson Statement on Passing of Longtime Georgia V..."
"Ramadi refugees"
"Some are a little slower"
"The day is coming"
"Ben Affleck and Henry Gates"
"Where are the grown ups?"
"Another Daredevil"
"Dueling bios?"
"oh, sherri shepherd"
"A hustler hangs with other hustlers"
"As they attacked MLK . . ."
"Oh that cheap liar Michael Eric Dyson"
"Hillary favors limited disclosure"
"THIS JUST IN! CRANKY, DISCLOSURE WOULD BE A START!"




Posted by at

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY, DISCLOSURE WOULD BE A START!

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


CRANKY CLINTON TODAY DECLARED, "DISCLOSURE IS NOT ENOUGH."

SHE WAS SPEAKING OF BIG MONEY CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.

BUT THESE REPORTERS, HAVING HEARD THE RUMBLES THAT BIG DONATIONS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION LED THEN SECRETARY OF STATE CRANKY TO SHAPE POLICY TO BENEFIT YOU, ASKED HER IF SHE WOULD BE DISCLOSING ALL DONORS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION.

GRIMACING, CRANKY REPEATED, "DISCLOSURE IS NOT ENOUGH."

AND HOW ABOUT THOSE MISSING E-MAILS?

"DISCLOSURE IS NOT ENOUGH."

NO, IT IS NOT.

BUT IT IS A START.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:




You lie about your personal life, I really don't care.  In fact, I've often argued that the lies people tell themselves as they create a personal narrative are sometimes revealing truth ever would be.


A lie about what our elected government has or has not done?

I really don't tolerate those.

A lot of people whose 'thought process' can fit on a bumper sticker have wrongly declared that there have been more Congressional attention to the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack (that left Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and US Ambassador Chris Stevens dead) than to the Iraq War.


That is wrong.

But the idiots that usually Tweet that crap don't strike me as liars, just misinformed.

So we let it slide.

Past tense.

A US Senator should damn well know better.

Kyle Balluck (The Hill) reports:



 Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) on Sunday said the congressional investigation into the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, has “turned into a political exercise.”
“Benghazi has had more hearings, more documents produced, more investigative effort than the entire Iraq War,” the senator added on ABC’s “This Week.”

Now we know Claire's worthless.  When she betrayed women who serve, that was not minor.  We also know she's a liar.

And she demonstrates with that nonsense.

Granted Claire didn't get into Congress until January 2007 -- two months shy of four years after the Iraq War started.  So, since she is an idiot, she might not know, for example, that John Conyers held a hearing on the Downing Street Memo.

And she might not realize that there were Armed Services Committee hearings on Iraq in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.  Hearings in the House and in the Senate.  She might be too stupid to know that the House Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on Iraq during this time or that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did.


And there was the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan which held hearings and offered testimony to Congress -- and Claire does know about that, just pretends not to in order to lie to the American public.  Shame on her.

And let's drop back to the November 6, ,2009 snapshot:

Rick Lamberth and L. Russell Keith were two of the four witnesses appearing before the Democratic Policy Committee today, for a hearing into burn pits led by Committee Chair Byron Dorgan.  Also appearing as witnesses were Lt Col Darrin Curtis and Dr. Anthony Szema.  At the start of the hearing, Chair Dorgan explained, "This is the twenty-first in a long series of hearings that we have held in the Policy Committee to examine contracting waste and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of these hearings have focused on substantial abuse which have put out troops lives in danger.  Some focused just on waste and some on fraud. Today we're going to have a discussion and have a hearing on how, as early as 2002, US military installations in Iraq and Afghanistan began relying on open-air burn pits -- disposing of waste materials in a very dangerous manner. And those burn pits included materials such as hazardous waste, medical waste, virtually all of the waste without segregation of the waste, put in burn pits. We'll hear how there were dire health warnings by Air Force officials about the dangers of burn pit smoke, the toxicity of that smoke, the danger for human health.  We'll hear how the Department of Defense regulations in place said that burn pits should be used only in short-term emergency situations -- regulations that have now been codified. And we will hear how, despite all the warnings and all the regulations, the Army and the contractor in charge of this waste disposal, Kellogg Brown & Root, made frequent and unnecessary use of these burn pits and exposed thousands of US troops to toxic smoke." 



That's from Chair Dorgan's opening remarks and you can [PDF format hearing warning] click here to read his prepared remarks (the above is what was stated which differs slightly from the prepared remarks).  You can also visit the Democratic Policy Committee's home page for more information and streaming video of today's hearing should be up there as well. (If it's not up already, it will be up by Monday.)


Today, the Democratic Policy Committee is a joke.

It doesn't exist to help the people but to be a press organ for the Democratic Party in an attempt to sway elections.

But while Senators who actually gave a damn -- Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh among them -- were a part of the DPC, it held real hearings on Iraq.

The burn pit issue was dismissed as a joke, not to be believed.

It was the hearings and investigations by the DPC that made DC and the media sit up and take the illnesses and injuries related to the burn pits seriously.

Claire's as worthless as the DPC today.

None of that matters to her.

The work that so many did doesn't matter to her.

Her own colleagues on both sides of the aisles and she'll stab them in the back in an attempt to sway elections.

When the Democratic Party was in the minority, US House Rep John Conyers did not roll over on the Iraq War.  In June of 2005, he held a public hearing on the Downing Street Memo.  No Republicans would join him.  In fact, not a lot of Democrats in the House supported his hearing either.

But Conyers stood strong and held the hearing.

John Conyers deserves credit for that.

When Claire erases him, Dorgan, Patty Murray and all the many others who asked important questions -- Lloyd Dogget, to be sure -- when all of these are erased, she still doesn't come off smart.

Because her lie is: Republicans have had more Congressional investigations of Benghazi than there were of the Iraq War.

If that were true (it's not) that doesn't really put Republicans (who largely supported the Iraq War) in a bad light.

Saying that Republicans investigate and dig and that Democrats don't isn't really a winning slogan.

Claire's an idiot.  Claire's a liar.

US House Rep John Hall only served two terms in Congress, in the House, but he did more with those four years than Claire's done with eight.

Should Congress have done more on Iraq?

Absolutely.

But blame the leaders of the Democratic Party.

It was Nancy Pelosi who vilely and disgustingly threatened John Conyers.  Not with physical harm, no.  But with loss of Committee assignments and loss of backing for future elections.

Nancy Peolosi was a bully to John Conyers.

Someday he may tell the story there.

But many of us already know it.

And we know she pretends to be many things but she's really just an ugly bully who didn't give a damn about the American people or that they were lied to.

Here's Claire's direct quote and then we're moving on because she lied all around this sentence and I'm just not in the mood to fact check an old and ugly whore like Claire on every lie that flies out of her ugly mouth that sits above those chin warts, "Benghazi has had more hearings, more documents produced, more investigative effort than the entire Iraq War."


Again: A lie.

And Claire lies and whores for elections.  Afterwards?  She's not doing a damn thing but trying to scare up votes for the next election cycle.  That's why her work has been so unimportant in Congress but someone like John Hall, a truly brave person, could and did do more in four years than Claire's managed in eight.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Francis A. Boyle's "Ode to Harold Killer Koh""
"Haider al-Abadi and his empty words"
"Oh, it's proof, is it?"
"The Simpsons"
"Whose making these programming decisions?"
"New laptops"
"Mistresses"
"Oh, Toni Morrison, you're so oblivious"
"Glad the trash is leaving Comedy Central"
"That awful Jane The Virgin"
"is revenge canceled?"
"CIA contractor Juan Cole"
"Cranky shocks the nation"
"THIS JUST IN! MORE SCANDALS!"







Posted by at

Monday, April 20, 2015

THIS JUST IN! MORE SCANDALS!

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


CRANKY CLINTON ENTERED THE RING AND THE LAUGHS NEVER STOP.

DID SHE REALLY TRADE FAVORS AS SECRETARY OF STATE TO ENRICH HER OWN POCKETS?

REACHED FOR COMMENTS BY THESE REPORTERS, CRANKY CHUCKLED AND SAID, "A GIRL'S GOT TO DO WHAT A GIRL'S GOT TO DO."

WAS SHE CONFESSING?

WE REALIZED WE DIDN'T KNOW.

WE'D BEEN SILENCED -- LEFT IN SHOCK THAT SHE STILL CALLS HERSELF A "GIRL" AFTER ALL THESE MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


 Haider was in rare form, wishing publicly, he stated this at the event, we've already reported it unlike the lazy whores, that he hopes to have the power to curb the press (foreign press -- he's already curbed much of the Iraqi press) the way the US government did with the embed program.

He made jokes, he belittled Ned Paker.

Ned Parker is a serious journalist and he's the one who exposed Nouri al-Maliki's torture sites.

Ned Parker doesn't flinch at empty words.  He's covered Iraq for over a decade.

He covered Iraq when Nouri was attacking the press -- and suing the Guardian -- and he didn't flee Iraq or sacrifice journalistic ethics to be safe.

How dare anyone belittle him or any other journalist in a War Zone who is actually trying to tell the truth?

There were two reasons Ned left Iraq: his own safety and the safety of others working for Reuters.

And to pretend otherwise, is shameful.

To attack him or belittle him for this is shameful.

To pretend that Haider is a friend of the press?

I love BRussells Tribunal but they're a little cultish about Haider.

The reality is, he's already Nouri al-Maliki.

He's Nouri's friend (though that won't stop Nouri from trying to unseat him) and he carries out the same programs.

He's a change!

People need to wake the hell up.

He's done nothing.

He's flapped his gums and made pretty statements that are supposedly so important.

But if you declare, on September 13th, for example, that you are going to stop the Iraqi military bombings of occupied homes in Falluja, then that means you have to stop it.

Haider declared he had.

But September 14th, the bombings continued.

And have ever since.

And these are War Crimes.

Legally defined War Crimes.

I'm not the BRussells Tribunal.

I'm not going to gouge at my own eyes so I can be blind and have hope.

Haider's a thug and a bully.

Pretending otherwise?

Oh, that worked out great with Nouri, didn't?

The world humored thug Nouri and he attacked women, and he attacked gays and lesbians, and he attack religious minorities, and he attacked peaceful protesters, and he attacked Sunni politicians, and he attacked ...

We don't have room to list all he attacked.

But we don't have to.

We paid attention in real time -- check the archives.

We documented the slide to chaos as it happened.

We predicted the rise of the Islamic State years before it happened.

Because I'm a psychic?

No, because I studied revolutions, rebellions and uprisings in grad school.

What was going on in Iraq?

It was obvious where it would lead.

And we noted that here.

We noted it when Barack Obama overturned the votes of the Iraqi people.

They were now disenfranchised.

We noted it when the politicians attempted to use Constitutional measures to address Nouri's crimes --- Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds banding together -- and the US (via Jalal Talabani) stripped them of that right.

We noted it when the people took to the street and Nouri began physically assaulting these peaceful protesters.

I don't have to be a psychic to grasp that when you strip people of their vote, when you take power from their political leaders and when you assault peaceful protesters, you've left them with nothing.

There are no more non-violent tools.

This is not an earth shattering insight.

This is basic political science.

It's also basic that ignoring a corrupt leader never makes a situation better.

If they are not pressed to make improvements, they don't make them.

The US government loved Saddam Hussein.

He terrorized the Shi'ites and they were okay with that.  He attacked the Kurds and they were okay with that.

True, he wanted to go off the dollar system and that did cause concern, but almost everything else the US government repeatedly and consistently looked the other way on.

They did the same for Nouri until his actions brought the country to the brink.

And now we're all supposed to trust that somehow, some way, with Haider, this do nothing approach will work?

First off, there should be no F-16s delivered to Iraq.

Haider has attacked the Iraqi people.  Per US law, the White House is not authorized to arm or fund Haider.

Samantha Power is a blow hard and a War Hawk.  But it would be a public service if at least one member of the press could get her to comment on Iraq at length.

Her 'never again' stance wrongly led idiots (Davey D, you're on that list -- so is Jeremey Scahill) to think she was a woman of peace.

She was not.

She is not.

Libya should have settled that for all the idiots who chose to ignore Edward S. Herman's repeated  analysis of Power.

But Power will again present herself as for human rights -- she's not.

And her refusal to call out the use of Shi'ite militias in Iraq goes to that.

There will never be peace in Iraq with Shi'ite militias terrorizing the people.

And this raises other issues.

Samantha Power was clearly not a person of peace but she was applauded as such by many 'left' journalists (Scahill was practically her love slave) and by many activists.

So maybe the reality is we don't want peace?

Maybe the reality is we want credit for working towards a peace that will never come.

I'm not talking about the US government.

Clearly, the US government doesn't want peace in Iraq.

If you identify the need for a political solution and then fail to work on that all these months later (Barack said it was the only answer back in June), then clearly you don't want peace.  You want chaos and instability because they allow you to control the country and its resources, the region and its stability.

When Henry Kissinger told the Kurds to fight back, he didn't want the Kurds to actually win and once a signal had been sent to Saddam, Henry and the Nixon White House wrote off the Kurds.

This is not speculation.

This is documented in the Pike Report Congress wrote.

Rebecca just noted how the Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Martin Dempsey, declared this week that it didn't matter if Ramadi fell.  Stan noted how, since August, the White House has spent over $2 billion on fighting (with combat, not with diplomacy) the Islamic State.

And there is no political solution.

The US government is putting no effort into working towards a political solution.

$2 billion down the drain in the time since Haider became prime minister -- not even a year -- and the only 'answer' the White House is more of the same.

Clearly, peace is not the goal.

You don't waste that kind of money and that kind of time, don't insist publicly that it doesn't mater if Ramadi falls if peace is your goal.

That's the White House, that's the government.

But I'm talking the US peace movement.

Or what passes for it.

I've yet to see Medea Benjamin or any of the other self-appointed leaders do a damn thing that was for peace.

I see them pull stunts that get press attention.

I see them brag about these stunts.

I just don't see them working for peace.

I see them working very hard to pretend that they're better than other people.

I just don't see them working for peace.


At the Thursday morning event, Haider insisted, "We must not only win the war – we must also win the peace. Together, we must take action against the political, economic and social problems that give rise to violent extremism, so that terrorism on the scale of Daesh will never re-emerge to threaten our nation and our neighbors again.[. . .] Let me be as clear as I can be: Our government’s highest priority is reducing ethnic sectarian tensions and divisions in Iraq. And we have nurtured close working relationships with parliament and Iraq’s community leaders and religious institutions to ensure an outcome that is favorable to all our people."

Yeah, well when do you plan to get to work on that?


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Isakson, Blumenthal Call for Investigation of Outr..."
"NPR's Selected Shorts now featuring the Iraq ficti..."


  • Truest statement of the week
  • Truest statement of the week II
  • Truest statement of the week III
  • A note to our readers
  • Editorial: The shameful and the praise worthy
  • TV: When Messengers Disappoint
  • No wonder the military has so many problems with h...
  • Jim's World: Hulu, puh-leeze
  • The Haider Al-Abadi Report
  • This edition's playlist
  • Billie Holiday cover albums forecast a new storm
  • Isakson, Blumenthal Call for Investigation of Outr...
  • NYC Vets Unite at City Hall to Demand Action from ...

    • "Idiot of the week "
    "community 'basic e-mail secuirty'"
    "Arrow (Is Thea dead?)"
    "Naomi Klein: The Fraud we've been waiting for"
    "Fake ass Bernie"
    "Andrew Levine is an idiot"
    "Garry Trudeau attacks free speech (and flaunts his artistic ignorance)"
    "The opposition to the non-deal"
    "Michelle's Let's Move recipes"
    "CounterPunch is the new Mad magazine"
    "Jon Stewart can't leave soon enough"
    "Does Cranky have a little secret?"
    "THIS JUST IN! DOES SHE TUCK?"



     
    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)