Oh Boy It Never Ends: September 2024

Monday, September 30, 2024

Weekend box office

Weekend box office via THENUMBERS.COM.

1	N	The Wild Robot	Universal	$35,790,150		3,962		$9,033	$35,790,150	1
2	(1)	Beetlejuice Beetlejuice	Warner Bros.	$16,222,116	-37%	3,804	-368	$4,264	$250,315,014	4
3	(2)	Transformers One	Paramount Pi…	$9,157,901	-63%	3,970	-8	$2,307	$39,022,359	2
4	N	Devara Part 1	Prathyangira…	$5,600,000		1,040		$5,385	$5,600,000	1
5	(3)	Speak No Evil	Universal	$4,257,310	-27%	2,671	-704	$1,594	$28,097,430	3
6	N	Megalopolis	Lionsgate	$4,007,797		1,854		$2,162	$4,007,797	1
7	(5)	Deadpool & Wolverine	Walt Disney	$2,787,258	-27%	1,975	-475	$1,411	$631,387,367	10
8	(4)	Never Let Go	Lionsgate	$2,243,768	-50%	2,667	n/c	$841	$8,296,291	2
9	(-)	My Old Ass	Amazon MGM S…	$2,175,682	+688%	1,390	+1,357	$1,565	$2,802,997	3
10	(-)	Howl's Moving Castle	Walt Disney	$2,109,935		1,592		$1,325	$7,095,145	1,008

First up, the turd that is Dennis Quaid's career finally fell in the toilet: REAGAN is out of the top ten. Ha ha. No one needed that crap ass film. No one needs any film from Dennis Quaid. He's 70-years-old and never been believable in anything except 2002's FAR FROM HEAVEN where he convincingly played a closeted gay man whose wife catches on too late. He was 100% believable in that. They say act what you know, right?

THE WILD ROBOT was number one. It's going to be difficult for it make $100 million because that opening wasn't enough. It also won't be number one next week. That's pretty much expected to belong to the latest Joker when it comes out Friday.

Francis Ford Coppola's MEGALOPOLIS crashed and burned. It's not his first flop but it will go down as his biggest flop. Shooting budget alone was $120 million.

No film he's made has ever brought in even $100 million in ticket sales domestically during its original run. (If you allow the many film theater revivals of the original GODFATHER, that film has made over $100 million but it took over ten years after its initial release for that to take place. Nothing else has. And his last box office hit was DRACULA which brought in a little over $80 million and starred Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves.)

It's a bomb. And it's a mess. We saw it and Adam Driver is miscast and making it clear that he lacks screen presence. He should play a robot in an ALIEN film. That's what he has the charisma for. He looks ugly, dead eyes and he can't act like a human being. Why does he keep getting roles?

Now for Ellen. Her special is a joke and getting lousy reviews -- both for not being funny and for the lies she tells. Greg Owen (LGBTQ NATION) reports:

Former employees at The Ellen DeGeneres Show say the comedian’s new stand-up special on Netflix is a case study in evasion and self-deception.

From the beginning of the show, which opens with a montage of DeGeneres’ comedy history, the former talk show host is delusional, they say.

The one-time sitcom star, who pulled the plug on her daytime chat show in 2020 after allegations of staff abuse, has said repeatedly — including at the top of her Netflix special — that she was “kicked out of show business” twice: once for coming out as gay on her primetime ABC show, and once for being mean.

Former talk show staffers told Rolling Stone the claim is ironic.

“She made millions of dollars doing a Netflix special talking about how she got canceled, but by nature of making millions of dollars to do a Netflix special, you were not silenced,” one former staffer says. “You were not kicked out of Hollywood. Most people can’t get Netflix specials.”

One former employee went on to say they admired DeGeneres for years before working for her, which is why witnessing her behavior behind the scenes was so disappointing. Ellen displayed the same kind of self-justifying deception at work as she did on stage in the special, they said.

While DeGeneres may have a point that Hollywood was cruel and discriminatory to her, they said, she still fostered an unwelcoming environment behind the scenes of her show. Both things can be true at once, the former staffer said.

Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, September 30, 2024. Kamala delivers a major speech in Las Vegas, we review journalism and reporting and releasing information which are not all the same thing, COMMON DREAMS and THE PROGRESSIVE don't like Black women, and much more.

Democratic Party presidential candidate Kamala Harris continued campaigning over the weekend culminating in her Las Vegas stop that found her addressing a huge crowd in person starting around 10:45 pm EST.

In addition the huge crowd that turned out to hear her speak, online where over 521,000 streamers turned out during the live speech which, again, started at 10:45 pm EST last night. Now there was probably way more than that that. We only checked the following during the speech: Kamala's campaign site (which had two streams), LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL, Roland S. Martin's YOUTUBE channel, NEWS 3 LAS VEGAS, FOX "NEWS" and DEMOCRATS.ORG. Usually, PBS and AP -- among others -- are also streaming the speech. Ava and I were writing "The death of corporate media has been widely misreported" so that's all we had time to check during the speech.

Pay attention to this next part.

Democratic Party presidential candidate Kamala Harris: And right now a serious housing shortage is part of what's driving up costs. So we will cut the red tape and work with the private sector to build three million new homes. And provide first time home buyers with $25,000 down payment assistance so you can get your foot in the door. You'll do the rest. And we must lower the cost of living because, while our economy is doing well by many measures, prices for every day things like groceries are still too high. You know it and I know it. So I have a plan that includes lowering costs on everything from healthcare to groceries -- including, I will take on the corporate price gouging that we know has resulted in jacking prices up -- often around tragedies and emergencies. We will give a tax cut to a hundred million more Americans including $6,000 during the first year of a child's life knowing that the vast majority of our young parents have a natural desire to parent their child well but not always the resources to do it. And that six thousand dollars in extending and expanding the child tax will help buying a crib,, buying a car seat, doing the thins that are so critical in that first phase of life.

That's my transcription. Pretend it's not though. Pretend I just copied and pasted the transcript the campaign sent out (I was told that transcript will be sent out later today). If all I did was copy and paste and stopped right there?

That's really not journalism. I'm trying to walk a few through what Ava and I covered last night.

So the Association of Home Builders estimates building a new house to require 22 subcontractors. Are you grasping the number of jobs that are being created with Kamala's proposal? Do you know that home construction has fallen in the US and we are not matching population growth currently when it comes to building homes? Or that there's been a national decrease in the number of homes built -- 44% decrease -- since 2006.

That information provided? That falls under the category of reporting.

Last week, journalist Ken Klippenstein published at his SUBSTACK the research that the Trump campaign did as part of the vetting of JD Vance to be on the ticket with Donald Trump.

It's not all the vetting that was done or that was written as anyone who's worked higher on a campaign knows. This is the most basic vetting that can be done, a review of public sources.

Publishing it is not reporting. Here's what Ava and I wrote:

Like Matt Taibbi's TWITTER FILES 'reports,' there's no reporting being done here. We called Matt's work "The Twitter Dumps" and that's what Ken has done.

Reporting is not releasing documents. Releasing documents is releasing documents.

We applaud the releasing of documents -- The Pentagon Papers, WIKILEAKS' work, etc.

But we don't confuse that with journalism.

That Ken does makes him appear more than a little out of touch.

271. That's the amount of pages -- that's how long the leaked report is. In what world do most Americans have time to wade through 271 pages. We did. It meant losing sleep time.

Reporting could have been done on the 271-pages.

We'd argue that what emerges is that JD Vance is an angry, little boy who's never grown up and feels he'll never become a man because of Daddy issues related to his father abandoning him. He goes around looking for a Daddy and he has no scope or prism by which to examine any issue beyond his own limited personal view. He can't relate to others or understand them unless they share his grievances and immaturity. He clearly needs help.

We say that as two who trudged through every page -- including the page where his September 1, 2006 speeding ticket is reproduced. The ticket, of course, wasn't issued to "JD Vance." It wasn't issued under his birth name James Donald Bowman. It was issued under his first legal name change name James D. Hall. He would have another name change in 2013 -- around the age of 29 -- when he became JD Vance.

Who changes their legal name twice? Once, okay, but going to court to get a third name? That really goes to his inability to be consistent. His name, like his political positions, are all over the map.

As debate prep for Tim Walz, publishing the 271 pages might have some value. They demonstrate how hollow Vance is and how he'll do or say anything America doesn't know JD Vance.

That is the take way from the 271 pages -- and JD Vance doesn't know JD Vance. He's forever changing and remaking himself, forever looking for a daddy figure to guide him.

He's forty-years-old and, if Donald's elected, he could be president because Donald's so old and so very fat that he could easily die in the next two years from a massive heart attack.

Tim might wonder in Tuesday's debate whether, for example, he was standing onstage with the JD that supported the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-se marriage or he was standing on stage with the 2020 JD that had a hissy fit over basic workplace protections that prevented someone from being fired for being gay?

Corporate media refused to release the report or cover it because, some claim, it might have been hacked and it might have been from Iran (the hack might have been done by an Iranian citizen acting alone or by the Iranian government).

While that may indeed be a reason given, we'd argue the larger issue is that they take the position that they've already covered it.

Vetting Vance, for any who don't know, is research that the campaign did on JD. They vetted others as well. Marco Rubio, for example, was vetted as well. (His file has not leaked at present.) But, at that Mother Tucker Carlson's urging, Donald went with JD. Whack job Tucker insisted that the 'deep state' would assassinate Trump if he picked Rubio because they'd want Marco to be president.

Remember, kids, when you need the polling on the deep-state go to Mother Tucker, he's the inside man.

We'll come back to Tucker.

How can the media claim that they've already reported on the 271 pages? Because it's largely their reporting. It's statements that Vance made to the media, it's statements from pieces that Vance wrote for the media. It's also his traffic record (public information), his basic school records (public information), etc

If Ken were to do journalism on the 271 pages, he could pick any issue and report on the changing positions that Vance has held in his 20 or so adult years. He could do that on any issue. He could do that on many issues. He hasn't done that though he has published that TWITTER deactivated his account and then he shared a communication informing him that this was permanent -- he was permanently banned from TWITTER. He's shared that FACEBOOK and GOOGLE have also banned links to the 271 page report but they have not banned Ken himself.

We repeatedly castigated Matt Taibbi for claiming Tweets were reporting. They are not. Nor is publishing a 271-page report. There's an argument that can be made insisting it was journalism and we wouldn't quibble with that. But publishing a 271-page report is, in and of itself, not reporting.

Should the 271-page now published report be banned? No. There's no reason to ban it or to ban Ken. The bulk of it is a collection of quotes from publications like THE WASHINGTON POST.

A number of e-mails are already coming into the public account -- and honestly feels like we just finished writing the piece for THIRD ten minutes ago -- horrified that we said it's not reporting. Sorry, but it's not. A journalist is not supposed to be a stenographer. CBS has already announced they won't be fact checking.

So why the hell are they pretending to be journalists. On Tuesday night's debate, they'll ask questions.

Who gives a f**k about their pompous and out of touch questions?

They're not needed for that. You can get questions from voters online. Or when Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda read questions like in the video below.

Stop pretending that you're doing reporting when you are not. And don't pretend that asking a question and then nodding along to whatever response is offered (no matter how big of a lie it is) passes for journalism.

Elisabeth Bumiller has her pros and cons -- many more pros -- but in the '00s many saw her as a stenographer for the Bully Boy Bush administration and not a reporter. That's in part due to journalistic ignorance. Every piece with her name signed to it in THE NEW YORK TIMES was not reporting "Memo From The White House," for example, was intended to be mini-commentary. She was a reporter (she's now an editor) and that was the paper's fault for not explaining what was going on and putting the "memo' in the news section. We called her out for her reporting many times and we called her out for her opinions in the "memo" pieces. She also wrote the most important Iraq War piece for the paper which was also the most underread.

I think Ken did the right thing and I think he shouldn't be banned. But what he did wasn't reporting. Reporting would have required him writing about what was in the 271 pages. We live in a climate where talk show hosts are mistaken for reporters.

The position we take on Ken is consistent with the positions we've taken repeatedly on these issues. Unlike Glenneth Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. Taibbi wanted to lie last week that this and the censoring of THE NEW YORK POST report on Hunter Biden's laptop were different because of what he calls government involvement. (As Mehdi Hassan noted in his interview with Matt over the Twitter Dump, Joe Biden was not in office. We could go more into that but I'm honestly bored with this topic already.) No, that's not accurate. Matt called out the censorship in real time. We did too. We did it more strongly and we addressed the legal issues that Glenneth couldn't with both of his hands.

But what did Matt do in 2023? Went around bragging about the importance of The Twitter Dump and how he revealed in it that the government was censoring.

So when Matt says, as he did last week, that he doesn't have to respond -- that was his attitude when people called him out on his silence -- because this isn't government censorship? He didn't call that out -- the laptop -- as government censorship in real time. That's why he preened and strutted in 2023 thinking he had proved something, remember?

Again, this is not a topic that I care to spend much time on. Ava and I had to read all of that 271 pages -- as well as a lot of pieces of yea Ken and boo Ken nature.

This is not an issue that voters are desperate to learn of. There are real issues out there.

Summary: Ken was right to publish it and shouldn't be banned for it.

Now we can get back to real issues that have to do with the election? Because voting's already started and will continue through election day which means there are 35 days left to vote.

I'm not going to be drinking today other than a few sips of water. Why? I'm non-stop throwing up. (Drinking any significant amount of water will mean throwing up throughout the day which won't happen on a dry and empty stomach.) As I dictate this, I have to keep stopping and go off to the side to throw up. (Dona note: C.I. didn't dictate the snapshot to me but to clarify, she works out while she dictates the snapshot. If she's not at home, like this morning, then she's outside running while she dictates so that what she means about having to go off to the side. To step off the track or park sidewalk or where ever it is that she's running this morning, step to the side to throw up and then go back to running and dictating. Saw that question in the e-mails and added this to answer it.) I could be at home now in my bed. Instead I'm out on the road and I'm getting damn tired of it as I watch these so-called left outlets that do nothing, not one damn thing.

When I speak about Kamala's home ownership plan, I do what I did above. I talk about the jobs it's going to create. I talk about the sinks and tubs and toilets it's going to sell. I talk about the impact this will have the economy -- it's going to boost the economy. And people are always say that they hadn't realized all that.

And they hadn't because most outlets aren't doing their damn job. Let's repost what I wrote last night in full.

THE WEATHER CHANNEL notes, "Millions of people across the Southeast remained without power Sunday in the aftermath of Helene. For many in the western Carolinas, rescues were still happening, as crews tried to reach communities isolated by flooding and landslides." At least sixty people lost their lives. At COMMON DREAMS, Jessica Corbett notes:

The youth-led Sunrise Movement said Sunday that "any reporting about Hurricane Helene needs to be clear—this is not normal. This is not just a tragedy. This is a crime. Fossil fuel companies have known this would happen for the last 50 years. They lied to the public and bought out our government just to make a profit. Make them pay."

Greenpeace USA similarly declared on social media Saturday that "#HURRICANEHELENE MUST BE A WAKE-UP CALL FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE!"

"We are heartbroken," the group said, noting the dozens of people killed. "Communities have been devastated. The corporations heating the climate must be held accountable."

Corbett goes on to misreport by next including a Tweet from the increasingly deranged Nina Turner who tries to paint a picture of this being a non-political issue.

Wrong. This is absolutely a political issue. Maybe Nina needs to find one topic -- at least one -- she can be an expert on. Maybe that would put an end to her non-stop tumbles and fumbles of recent years.

Her comments are pure stupidity. And its journalist malpractice for Jessica to even include them. It amounts to climate change denialism. That's what it is. Donald Trump does not give a damn about climate change. He didn't address it when he was previously in the White House and his plans for another four years include dismantling oversight. His supporters -- such as Elon Musk -- are fine with trashing the earth because they believe that they can colonize Mars. This is not minor.

Jessica and COMMON DREAMS are guilty of not just misreporting but of endangering the planet. There was no reason for Nina Turner's b.s. Tweet to be included. There was every reason to note that Donald is not going to protect the planet. There was every reason to note Joe Biden's efforts over the last four years which have not been enough but have been something. And there's every reason to note Kamala's plans and how a Kamala presidency would be more open to pressure.

It's interesting that Jessica includes Nina Turner's Tweet but not this Tweet from Antonia Juhasz:

Let me note some from Antonia. She reTweeted this:

And she Tweeted this:

Guess which one of the three above Tweets and one reTweet that Jessica notes in her article? That's right, the one that doesn't mention Kamala Harris.

It's amazing just how far COMMON DREAMS went to ignore Kamala. They are supposed to be a left outlet yet they repeatedly expose themselves as something other than that.

Our planet is at risk. Your choices are Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. For COMMON DREAMS, they're not really in the fight to save the earth. They make that clear with their selective coverage where even when they're quoting someone (their Tweet) about the topic, they ignore the support for Kamala.

Jessica ends her article with this:

Highlighting the connection between climate change and more intense hurricanes, Congressman Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) said Thursday that "the climate crisis is here. We must act to save lives."

And how are we going to do that Jessica? One way would be voting Kamala and then holding her feet to the fire on the climate issue. But apparently, even a little over a month away from the election, COMMON DREAMS refuses to entertain that idea. Even though that's the easiest action that anyone can take for climate justice.

Days before Jessica's dangerous typing went up, Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling (THE NEW REPUBLIC) explained:

Hurricane Helene has derailed the Republican presidential ticket’s campaign across the South, forcing Trump’s vice presidential pick, J.D. Vance, to cancel several stops in Georgia. But the 20-foot storm surge–inducing, tornado-spawning weather event hasn’t yet changed Trump’s stance on his plan to tear down the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, root and branch.

The climate agency, whose responsibilities include providing free weather forecasts as well as tracking and predicting hurricanes, would be completely gutted under Project 2025, the 920-page Christian nationalist manifesto that purports to be Trump’s second-term agenda. (Trump has haltingly and not particularly convincingly attempted to disavow Project 2025; a recently unearthed video features one of the project’s authors bragging that there will be “one-to-one mirroring” of the policies laid out in the document and Trump’s proposals.)

Are you getting it? Because it's sailing right over the heads of the people working for COMMON DREAMS.

You know what else is sailing over their heads? How Black women are especially noting their lack of support for Kamala Harris. Black women who turn out every election. The same Black women that learned in the '00s they'd be ripped apart at DAILY KOS and all the other Democratic Party sites. Because Black women weren't appreciated. And that's still true today as COMMON DREAMS makes clear. COMMON DREAMS went all in for John Kerry or have we forgotten? They went all in for Hillary. So forgive those of us who are noticing that the only different standard comes into play when it's a Black woman.

Then COMMON DREAMS wants to be reluctant about supporting the Democratic Party presidential candidate. And only then. Don't think we aren't noticing it.

JD Vance is completely unqualified to be president. In 2008, Sarah Palin was ripped apart by the press and that was done, we were told, because John McCain was so old he might die in office after being sworn in -- that would have been 2009. John McCain was 71-years-old. That's seven years younger than Donald Trump is now. For the record, McCain died ten years after the 2008 run at the age of 81. No one's a prophet (unless they're a crazy on stage with JD this past weekend). But contrast the way Sarah was examined with the way that JD is. Most people have no idea who he is. But the GOP put out the lie that people didn't know who Kamala was and the media ran with it.

No one knows that little weirdo JD Vance.

We -- Ava and I -- read the 271-page report. He has flipped on any issue and every issue. He has flipped on Trump. There is nothing there, no there there. He is hollow and has no core. In a better media environment, the corporate media would have run with that on their own.

Instead, they ran with the GOP line that Kamala was unknown. No, America knew their vice president before she became the presidential candidate. They do not know JD Vance. They do not know how he lies about everything. His personal life should back up the life that he is trying to now enforce on others but that's not the life he lives. He's a little henpecked male who never grew up and who has very serious issues that require therapy.

But we're less than forty days to the election and not only has the press failed to address the realities of JD Vance -- the mainstream press -- so has the so-called left media. Let's look at THE PROGRESSIVE. No one buys the print copy anymore -- they have more subscribers to the print copy than they sell at bookstores and on magazine racks. So all they've really got is online. They have a Ted Glick article about Harris is better for Palestinians -- they published that Friday. And Wednesday was a miracle day for THE PROGRESSIVE when they discovered JD Vance was lying about Haitian immigrants. You know, the topic most people were talking about by September 10th when Donald Trump repeated those lies in the debate with Kamala.

They certainly have a laid back attitude to the election, don't they?

I'm not Robert Redford so don't expect me to whore for that trash magazine the way he does.

What I will do is note their staff:

Publisher - Norman Stockwell

Web Editor - Delaney Nelson

Acting Managing Editor - David Boddiger

Associate Editor - Michaela Brant

Art Director - Susan Webb

Director of Advancement & Engagement - Daniel K. Libby

Digital Engagement Coordinator - Sheriffer Chisanga

Office Manager - Elizabeth Miller

Not very progressive, is it? See men all the important positions. I don't consider "office manager" an important position. And having seen the images THE PROGRESSIVE runs with, I don't consider an art director at THE PROGRESSIVE to be an important position either.

If you missed it, THE PROGRESSIVE is so unimportant now that it's had to drop to a bi-monthly magazine published only six times a year. If you want to be even more depressed, pick up the August-September issue and notice the bylines -- how few women, how few people of color. Yet they call themselves THE PROGRESSIVE? And do they really think Ruth Conniff's piece explaining "Despite what Donald Trump and his cult following claim, the former President is not an almighty, irresistible man of the people" is the hardest that they can hit?

I see they can't promote Kamala at all.

Maybe there's some hidden diversity there, in those bylines? Bite your tongue, I tell myself, don't out someone no matter how pathetic their closet case living is.

The following sites updated:

Saturday, September 28, 2024

Maggie Smith

Actress Maggie Smith passed away at the age of 89. She had a career that never ended. She won an Academy Award for Best Actress for 1969's THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE and a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for CALIFORNIA SUITE. The latter had her starring with Jane Fonda, Michael Caine, Richard Pryor, Elaine May, Walter Matthau, Bill Cosby and Alan Alda with a script by Neil Simon (based on his play). She played an actress nominated for an Oscar who travels to Los Angeles for the ceremony. She loses. But, thus far, it's the only time a performer playing an Oscar nominated character got Oscar nominated for their performance.

The first performance? I don't know when Maggie Smith showed up on my radar. I know what movie. It was MURDER BY DEATH. I was watching it with two of my uncles on TV. She played Dora and Peter Nivens played Dick -- they were a spoof of Nick and Nora of THE THIN MAN fame. The film was a comedy spoof of murder mysteries and it was written by Neil Simon. It was very funny. And my uncles kept watching me because I was laughing hard and they were surprised I got some of the jokes -- the physical stuff was obvious -- like when a ceiling's being lowered in a bedroom -- but they were surprised I got some of the verbal jokes. Again, don't know how old I was but it was before I started school. And after that, I saw other films with her and recognized her.

My top ten favorite films?

10) DEATH ON THE NILE

9) EVIL UNDER THE SUN

8) HOT MILLIONS

7) TEA WITH MUSSOLINI

6) A ROOM WITH A VIEW

5) MURDER BY DEATH

4) FIRST WIVES CLUB

3) GOSFORD PARK

2) CALIFORNIA SUITE

1) SISTER ACT

She also did TV. Her most famous TV appearance was probably on THE CAROL BURNETTE SHOW. Two skits I remember from the episode? In one Carol's asking her to teach her to speak. In the other, you've got Maggie as Bubba's teacher. Bubba is Eunice and Ed's son and Mama's grandson. Bubba has not been doing well in school. Mama's all about how they mind Gram-Gram and she fixes them some nice tuna salad sandwiches. Ed's only interested in how Bubba's doing in sports while Eunice makes it all about herself --"My hair does not look like that," she repeats over -- and storms out at one point only to slink back in.

She was hilarious in the skit and it's a hilarious skit. Mama later spins off into her own show MAMA'S FAMILY. TV work included much more but you have to note the four years of DOWNTON ABBEY (and she was also in the film). She found new audiences throughout her career. The SISTER ACT movies, for example, introduced her to a new audience in the 90s and the Harry Potter films introduced her to a new audience in the '00s.

Instead of the Oscars, the UK has the BAFTA awards and she won five of those (one supporting actress: TEA WITH MUSSULINI; four for Best Actress: THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE, A PRIVATE FUNCTION, A ROOM WITH A VIEW and THE LONELY PASSION OF JUDITH HEARNE). CNN notes:

Smith was born in 1934 in Ilford, then a middle-class east London suburb. Shortly before the start of World War II the family moved to Oxford, where her father worked as a pathologist at Oxford University.

On graduating from high school, Smith attended the Oxford Playhouse School from 1951 to 1953, making her stage debut in an Oxford University Dramatic Society production of William Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night.”

Leigh Blickley (HUFFINGTON POST) adds:

In 1956, she made her film and Broadway debuts, appearing as one of the party guests in the movie “Child in the House” and playing several roles in the review “New Faces of ’56” at the Ethel Barrymore Theatre in New York City.

“There was one very famous one, which was the one with Eartha Kitt. And I think everybody who was in it thought they were all going to be Eartha Kitt or be big stars,” Smith told NPR of starring in “New Faces.” “That didn’t happen, but it was a wake-up call to have one’s first professional job on Broadway, I must say.”

Throughout her over-60-year career, Smith starred in more than 80 films and TV series and appeared in dozens of plays, including four on Broadway.

TCM has really ticked me off of late. They don't seem to know what they're doing. A week or two ago, for example, they were airing THE JUNGLE BOOK -- a live action film from 1942 based on the same Rudyard Kipling source material as all the other JUNGLE BOOK films. It was three weeks ago. And I turn on the TV at midnight and that's what they're airing.

I know it's not just children that watch movies like that but it is primarily children and that's the kind of garbage that makes me not want to watch TCM -- that and all the war movies and cowboy movies that they seem to think we need (we don't -- there are whole channels that offer nothing but that nonsense). Still, I will say this from TCM. HOT MILLIONS is one of my favorite Maggie Smith films and I never saw it until about three years ago when I caught it on TCM. They air it pretty regularly. If you ever see that it's airing, make a point to check it out. It's funny and it's got a really great cast (including the late Bob Newhart).

Going out with C.I.'s "

Iraq snapshot

Friday, September 27, 2024. That silly news media and its continual rejection of facts.

Let's jump in with a question: If politics is show biz for ugly people, what does that make journalism?

THE GURADIAN and NEWSWEEK should have you wondering. Let's start with Benjamin Lee (GUARDIAN) who wrote a review of APARTMENT 7A without using his brains or an editor:

The contained brilliance of Polanski’s original, which starred Mia Farrow as a woman who starts to realise her unborn child is the spawn of the devil, made it tough for those trying to milk more. But its popularity (the film made over 10 times its budget and won a best supporting actress Oscar) meant that more came anyway, from a barely seen TV movie sequel to a loathed 1997 follow-up novel by Levin to a stretched Zoe Saldaña miniseries remake in 2014. There’s a similar sense of pointlessness to the John Krasinski-produced Apartment 7A, which focuses on a minor one-scene character from the original and tells us how she was once part of the same plan that ultimately ensnared Rosemary.

Anyone see the problem?

Ruth Gordon? Yes, Ruth won the Academy Award. Two words, he could have named her since she won the only Academy Award for the film and since he brought up the Oscars.

But I'm talking about "starred Mia Farrow as a woman who starts to realise her unborn child is the spawn of the devil." See the problem with that? If you've seen the movie, you should see the problem. Let me say "SPOILER" on a fifty-something year old film but Rosemary does not realize her unborn child is the spawn of the devil. When Mia's desperate to see Charles Grodin, she doesn't realize that. And that's when she's on the run because she has caught on to what they are. She is afraid that they will take the baby and do something to it -- based on the book Hutch had given her earlier in the film -- "All of them witches" -- remember and that and her use of the Scrabble game? And she goes back to the Dakota and thinks she's safe because she wrongly believes the known entrance to the apartment is the only entrance. It's not. That's why the woman who died in that apartment had blocked her closet. So they start entering and she sees them and she's screaming and going into labor. Then the baby's dead. But really 'dead.' They're pumping her breasts for milk, remember all this? She's suspicious and she puts her spoon in the pumped milk? She realizes there's another way and it's the closet. She goes in there and takes down the towels and shelves and, with her butcher kitchen knife, is now in Minnie's apartment. She's heard a baby crying and thought it might be there and it might be her baby.

With everyone at the year-one-Satan party glaring at her, she walks over with the butcher knife to look at her child and screams what have they done to the baby's eyes? He has his father's eyes! But, she says, Guy's eyes are normal. And that's when she's told that Satan is the baby's father.

She's no longer pregnant. She's given birth. She's now looking at her baby.

So, no, the film is not about "a woman who starts to realize her unborn child is the spawn of the devil." She only finds that out after the baby has been born. That's why Minnie had been testing her with questions once she found out Rosemary was Catholic.

Angela Dorian plays Terry Gionoffrio who Minnie had taken in, remember? Terry (who the news movie is about) met Rosemary in the basement of the Dakota when they're doing laundry (it's Terry's one scene in the movie). What happens to Terry? She leaps to her death. She couldn't handle the plan to give birth to the devil's child. From Terry's remarks (in that one scene), we're meant to see that she's far less traditional than Rosemary. So if Terry -- 'wild' and 'out there' -- couldn't handle it, Minnie and her husband Roman know Rosemary can't know because Rosemary gets offended at dinner when the others are making jokes about the Pope.

So, no, it's not a film about a pregnant woman who knows she's giving birth to the devil's child. During the pregnancy, Rosemary has no idea, she only learns this days after she gives birth.

Does it matter!

That's a direct quote from a friend who was an editor at NEWSWEEK. And, yeah, it does matter. I was griping over the phone about how they'd misrepresented the facts of a TV show and the reply was it's only a TV show.

So, you stop being a journalist when you're covering TV?

NEWSWEEK doesn't have to be factual or truthful then?

I didn't ask Benjamin Lee to write about the new film. I wouldn't have, he doesn't even see the point in it. Sorry, but Terry only has one scene in the 1968 film and her character leaves an impression. They've done a sequel for Rosemary and her son Adrian (TV movie that Patty Duke starred in). Terry's the next obvious choice and, honestly, I will watch the move -- even with Benjamin's bad review -- because I'm interested.

But Benjamin is supposed to be a journalist and his assignment was this film. So since it's a film, he gets to toss aside journalism. His error is not a minor error. It goes to did he even see the first film that he thinks was so amazing and so much better than this new one?

NEWSWEEK.

Ewan Palmer's a journalist. I know that because Ewan often does strong journalism. So how to explain this garbage that he wrote for Newsweek:

Students at the University of Notre Dame said they favor Donald Trump over Kamala Harris in the election, marking the first time they have backed a Republican presidential candidate in years.

A survey of 705 students conducted by The Irish Rover, a Catholic student newspaper serving the university in Indiana, showed Trump leading the vice president by 47.6 percent to 45.9 percent.

I'm tired of idiots writing about polling when they are qualified to. From tFrom the article Ewan's writing about:

The Irish Rover poll surveyed 705 likely student voters between September 15 and September 18. The survey was sent to a variety of student dorms, nonpartisan clubs, and distributed in classes. Results were weighted to ensure a representative sample of the Notre Dame student body. The poll has a margin of error of 3.8 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. Full results can be found here.

Ewan does include the facts in that paragraph near the end of his article -- and also manages to quote two students from the IRISH ROVER article -- he ignores the pro-Harris students and just quotes the pro-Trump. That's suspect.

But the entire article is.

He doesn't tell you that this isn't a student paper. It's a conservative student paper funded by conservatives (it started up in 2003).

In other words a campus version of FOX "NEWS" published an article about a poll that they did.

And none of that prompts Ewan to grasp that he needs to examine the poll?

Apparently not because if he examines the poll he loses the point of his article entitled "Notre Dame Students Flip to GOP For First Time in 12 Years as Trump Surges."

The poll does not demonstrate that the students flipped to the GOP.

There's a 3.8 margin of error. Does Ewan understand what that means?

Donald is ahead, in the poll, by 1.7% and the margin of error is 3.8%. So the polling demonstrates a statistical tie. Which defeats the take Ewan serves up in his article that's labeled as "reporting."

He did no research, he put no thought into what he wrote.

It's a statistical tie. That was what he should have written if he wanted to be accurate.

We could get into the polling breakdown (especially party i.d.s) but the reality is that this is a junk poll that NEWSWEEK elected to highlight and you have to wonder why because it was never what they and Ewan present it as, the poll is a statistical tie. They even quote the professor -- at the end -- comparing the results to the national results -- a close race -- but Ewan and NEWSWEEK missed that point they included as evidence by the title of their piece and by the angle they are presenting.

On journalism, I was asked to note this from Brett Wilkins' COMMON DREAMS piece:

X—the social media platform formerly known as Twitter—suspended Ken Klippenstein's account Thursday after the investigative journalist posted an article containing a link to a dossier on Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate JD Vance that allegedly came from an Iranian hack of former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign.

Klippenstein, who formerly worked at The Intercept, said on his paid Substack Thursday that his X account was suspended for violating the platform's ban on posting private information.

"I know that it is general practice to delete 'private' information from leaks and classified documents, but in this case, not only is Vance an elected official and vice presidential candidate, but the information is readily available for anyone to buy," he wrote. Vance is also the junior U.S. senator from Ohio.

Klippenstein continued:

We should be honest about so-called private information contained in the dossier and "private" information in general. It is readily available to anyone who can buy it. The campaign purchased this information from commercial information brokers. Those dealers make huge profits from selling this data. And the media knows it, because they buy the data for reporting purposes, just like the campaign. They don't like to mention that though.

According to Klippenstein, the corporate media has "been sitting on" the dossier since June, "declining to publish in fear of finding itself at odds with the government's campaign against 'foreign malign influence.'"

"If the document had been hacked by some 'Anonymous'-like hacker group, the news media would be all over it," he contended. "I'm just not a believer of the news media as an arm of the government, doing its work combatting foreign influence. Nor should it be a gatekeeper of what the public should know."

Klippenstein shared a general overview of the contents of the dossier, which he described as "a 271-page research paper the Trump campaign prepared to vet" Vance, pulling out select quotes from the document:

"Vance has been one of the chief obstructionists to U.S. efforts to providing [sic] assistance to Ukraine."
"Vance criticized public health experts and elected officials for supporting Black Lives Matter protests while condemning anti-lockdown [Covid] protests."
"Vance 'embraced non-interventionism."
"In 2020, Vance criticized President Trump's airstrike killing Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, worrying it would continue to bog down America in the Middle East to the advantage of China."
"Vance suggested that the country had been entangled in wars in the Middle East so 'financial elites' could profit from the rise of China."

"While the news media has paraphrased some of the contents of the dossier, what they haven't done is provide the American people with the underlying document, in the language in which it appeared, so they can decide for themselves what they think," Klippenstein said. "You decide for yourself."

An X spokesperson toldZeteo's Justin Baragona that "Ken Klippenstein was temporarily suspended for violating our rules on posting unredacted private personal information, specifically Sen. Vance's physical addresses and the majority of his Social Security number."

I'm expected to weigh in on it. I can't. I know nothing about it. I learned about it from a friend who asked me this morning to note it.

Most days, from an hour or so after this snapshot goes up until nine at night, I'm speaking to groups to get out the vote for Kamala. So I can't follow everything. I understand that the usual grifters and hypocrites are trying to spin this to defend Elon Musk and that's probably why I'm being asked to weigh in. According to Glynneth Greenwald supposedly -- I haven't seen his Tweets -- the hypocrites (of the left -- but that's always implied with Greenwald, right?) are outraged by this and didn't say a damn thing about THE NEW YORK POST article in 2020.

I did. And that's probably why I'm being asked to weigh in. I defended the right of THE POST to publish the article. Unlike Glenneth, I repeatedly stresses this was not stolen material because I knew the press was using that lie about the laptop to avoid covering it. I defended the right to publish the article and I defended them from the Twitter censorship that followed.

And I may do the same with the issue at hand now. But I'm going to have to brush up on it because I know nothing other than what we just quoted above. So we'll put that on my never ending to-do list and it'll be addressed here or at THIRD.

I'm too tired this morning -- and time's too limited -- to do the research required to weigh in so we're putting a pin in it for now.

Ginger e-mailed to state that Kamala's speech Wednesday was important (it was important, agreed) and she wished I had included the full speech. Good point. I would've and I had planned to but I wasn't sent the transcript. The little bit that popped up in yesterday's snapshot was my transcription and I didn't have time to do the full speech. But I do have the transcript now and Ginger's right so let's include it in full.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon. (Applause.) Hi.

Well, it’s good to be back in Pittsburgh. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.

Please have a seat. Please have a seat.

Andrea, thank you so very much for — for that beautiful introduction and for your leadership. It really is my honor to be with you today. Thank you.

And thank you to Risa and the Economic Club of Pittsburgh for hosting us today.

And I also want to thank Mayor Gainey for being here. (Applause.) Mayor, you greet me each time I come to Pittsburgh. I thank you so very much for that and — and your leadership. Thank you.

So, hello, friends. Let’s get started. (Applause.) Okay.

So, we gather at a moment of great consequence. In this election, I believe we have an extraordinary opportunity to make our middle class the engine of America’s prosperity, to build a stronger economy where everyone everywhere has a chance to pursue their dreams and aspirations, and to ensure that the United States of America continues to out-innovate and outcompete the world.

Over the past three and a half years, we have taken major steps forward to recover from the public health and economic crisis we inherited. Inflation has dropped faster here than the rest of the developed world. Unemployment is near record low levels. We have created almost 740,000 manufacturing jobs, including 650 at the batty- — battery manufacturing plant over in Turtle Creek. (Applause.) And we have supported another 15,000 jobs at Montgomery Locks. (Applause.)

So, these are local, great examples of the work that we have achieved thus far.

And last week, for the first time, of course, in four and a half years, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates, which will make it just a little easier for families to buy a home or a car or just pay down their credit card bill.

But let’s be clear. For all these positive steps, the cost of living in America is still just too high. You know it, and I know it. And that was true long before the pandemic hit.

Many Americans who aspire to own a home are unable to save enough for a down payment on a house and starting to think that maybe homeownership is just outside of their reach. Folks who live in factory towns and in rural communities who have lost jobs are wondering if those jobs will ever come back. Many Americans are worried about how they’ll afford the prescription medication they depend on.

All of this is happening at a time when many of the biggest corporations continue to make record profits, while wages have not kept up pace.

I understand the pressures of making ends meet. I grew up in a middle-class family, and while we were more fortunate than many, I still remember my mother sitting at that yellow Formica table late at night, cup of tea in hand, with a pile of bills in front of her, just trying to make sure that she paid them off by the end of the month, like so many Americans just trying to make it all work.

Every day, millions of Americans are sitting around their own kitchen tables and facing their own financial pressures because, over the past several decades, our economy has grown better and better for those at the very top and increasingly difficult for those trying to attain, build, and hold on to a middle-class life.

In many ways, this is what this election is all about. The American people face a choice between two fundamentally very different paths for our economy. I intend to chart a new way forward and grow America’s middle class. Donald Trump intends to take America backward to the failed policies of the past.

He has no intention to grow our middle class. He’s only interested in making life better for himself and people like himself: the wealthiest of Americans.

You can see it spelled out in his economic agenda, an agenda that gives trillions of dollars in tax cuts to billionaires and the biggest corporations while raising taxes on the middle class by almost $4,000 a year, slashing overtime pay, throwing tens of millions of Americans off of health care, and cutting Social Security and Medicare.

In sum, his agenda would weaken the economy and hurt working people and the middle class. You see, for Donald Trump, our economy works best if it works for those who own the big skyscrapers, not those who actually build them, not those who wire them, not those who mop the floors. (Applause.)

Well, I have a very different vision. I have a very different vision for our economy. I believe we need to grow our middle class and make sure our economy works for everyone, for people — (applause) — like the people in the neighborhood where I grew up and the hardworking Americans I meet every day across our nation.

So, I call my vision the “opportunity economy,” and it’s about making sure — (applause) — everyone can find a job and more — and more. Because, frankly, having a job, I believe, in our ambition and aspiration should be baseline, and we should aspire and have the ambition and plan to do more.

I want Americans and families to be able to not just get by but be able to get ahead — (applause) — to thrive — be able to thrive. I don’t want you to have to worry about making your monthly rent if your car breaks down. I want you to be able to save up for your child’s education, to take a nice vacation from time to time. I want you to be able to buy Christmas presents for your loved ones without feeling anxious when you’re looking at your bank statement. I want you to be able to build some wealth not just for yourself but also for your children and your grandchildren — intergenerational wealth. (Applause.)

And here’s the thing. Here’s the thing. Here’s the beauty of it all. We know how to build an economy like that. We do know how to unlock strong, shared economic growth for the American people. History has shown it time and again: When we invest in those things that strengthen the middle class — manufacturing, housing, health care, education, small businesses, and our communities — we grow our economy and catalyze the entire country to succeed.

I have pledged that building a strong middle class will be a defining goal of my presidency. And the reason — (applause) — but let me tell you, the reason is not about politics, and it’s not about ideology. From my perspective, it’s just common sense. (Applause.) It’s just common sense. It’s actually what works. When the middle class is strong, America is strong. And we can build a stronger middle class.

The American economy — we know this here — the American economy is the most powerful force for innovation and wealth creation in human history. We just need to move past the failed policies that we have proven don’t work, and like generations before us, let us be inspired by what is possible.

As president, I will be grounded in my fundamental values of fairness, dignity, and opportunity. And I promise you, I will be pragmatic in my approach. I will engage in what Franklin Roosevelt called “bold, persistent experimentation.” (Applause.) Because I believe we shouldn’t be constrained by ideology and, instead, should seek practical solutions to problems, realistic assessments of what is working and what is not, applying metrics to our analysis, applying facts to our analysis, and stay focused, then, not only on the crises at hand but on our big goals, on what’s best for America over the long term.

And part of being pragmatic means taking good ideas from wherever they come. Listen, you all know my career. Andrea shared it with you. I am a devout public servant. (Laughs.) I also know the limitations of government.

I’ve always been and will always be — and be clear about this — I’ve always been and will always be a strong supporter of workers and unions. (Applause.) And I — I also believe we need to engage those who create most of the jobs in America.

Look, I am a capitalist. I believe in free and fair markets. (Applause.) I believe in consistent and transparent rules of the road to create a stable business environment. And I know the power of American innovation.

I’ve been working with entrepreneurs and business owners my whole career, and I believe companies need to play by the rules — (applause) — respect the rights of workers and unions, and abide by fair competition. And if they don’t, I will hold them accountable.

And if anyone has a question about that, just look at my record as attorney general. (Applause.) Look at my record in California, taking on the big banks for predatory lending — (applause); taking on big health care companies for conspiring to jack up prices — (applause); taking on a big for-profit college for scamming veterans and students.

At the same time, I believe that most companies are working hard to do the right thing by their customers and the employees who depend on them, and we must work with them to grow our economy. I believe an active partnership between government and the private sector is one of the most effective ways to fully unlock economic opportunity. (Applause.)

And that is what I will do when I am president. I will target the major barriers to opportunity and remove them. We will identify commonsense solutions to help Americans buy a home, start a business, and build wealth, and we will adopt them.

So, let’s start, then, with the first pillar of an opportunity economy, which is lowering costs. So, I made that our top priority for obvious reasons, because if we want the middle class to be the growth engine of our economy, we need to restore basic economic security for middle-class families. To that end, the most practical thing we can do right now is to cut taxes for middle-class families and individuals. (Applause.) And that’s what we will do.

Under my plan, more than 100 million Americans will get a middle-class tax break that includes $6,000 for new parents during the first year of their child’s life — (applause) —

to help families cover everything from car seats to cribs. We’ll also cut the cost of childcare and eldercare — (applause) — and finally give all working people access to paid leave, which will help everyone caring for children, caring for aging parents, and that sandwich generation, which is caring for both. (Applause.)

So, I have a personal experience with caregiving. I remember being there for my mother when she was diagnosed with cancer — cooking meals for her, taking her to her appointments,

just trying to make her comfortable, figuring out which clothes were soft enough that they wouldn’t irritate her, and telling her stories to try and make her laugh. I know caregiving is about dignity. It really is.

And when we lower the costs and ease the burdens people face, we will not only make it then easier for them to meet their obligations as caregivers, we will also make it more possible for them to go to work and pursue their economic aspirations. And when that happens, our economy as a whole grows stronger.

Now, middle-class tax cuts are just the start of my plan. We will also go after the biggest drivers of cost for the middle class and work to bring them down. And one of those — some would argue, one of the biggest — is the cost of housing.

So, here’s what we will do. We will cut the red tape that stops homes from being built and take on, in addition, corporate landlords who are hiking rental prices. (Applause.) And we will work with builders and developers to construct 3 million new homes and rentals for the middle class because increasing the housing supply will help drive down the cost of housing. (Applause.)

We will also help first-time homebuyers just get their foot in the door with a $25,000 down payment assistance. (Applause.)

Because the goal is clear: Let’s help more Americans afford to buy a home, which we know is a critical step in their ability to grow their wealth and intergenerational wealth.

And we will work to reduce other big costs for middle-class families. We will take on bad actors who exploit emergencies and drive up grocery prices by enacting the first-ever federal ban on corporate price gouging. (Applause.) I had the experience of dealing with that when I was attorney general.

We will take on Big Pharma and cap the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans — (applause) — just like we did for our seniors.

Now, by contrast, Donald Trump has no intention of lowering costs for the middle class. In fact, his economic agenda would actually raise prices.

And, listen, that’s not just my opinion. A survey of top economists by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago found that by an overwhelming 70 to 3 percent margin, my plan would be better for keeping inflation low. (Applause.) Objective economists have been very clear.

The second pillar of an opportunity economy is investing in American innovation and entrepreneurship. So, for the last century, the United States of America has been a beacon around the world. And as your vice president now for almost four years, I’ve been traveling the world, meeting with world leaders, meeting with foreign leaders, meeting with business people in various countries with which we have partnership. And I will tell you, America remains a beacon for what it means to inspire and invest in innovation not only for our ability to come up with some of the most breakthrough ideas but also our ability to turn those ideas into — into some of the most consequential innovations the world has ever known.

I believe the source of our success is the ingenuity, the dynamism, and enterprising spirit of the American people. To paraphrase — (applause). Yes, it is. It’s our nature. It’s our nature.

To paraphrase Warren Buffett: Since the founding of our nation, there has been no incubator for unleashing human potential like America. And we need to guard that spirit. (Applause.) We have to guard that spirit. Let it always inspire us. Let it always be the source of our optimism, which is that spirit that is so uniquely American.

And let that then inspire us by helping us to be inspired to solve the problems that so many face, including our small-business owners.

So, as I travel the country, what I hear time and again from those who own small businesses and those who aspire to start them is that too often an entrepreneur has a great idea — not too often; that’s good — and they have the willingness to take the risk, but they don’t have access to the capital that they need to make it real.

And as Andrea said, not everybody was handed on a silver platter $400 million and then filed for bankruptcy six times. (Applause.) Oh, I said that. (Laughs.) Right? I sa- — I actually said that.

Well, we can make it easier. We can make it easier for our small businesses to access capital. On average, it costs about $40,000 to start a new business. But currently, the tax deduction for start-ups is only $5,000. So, currently for start-up costs, the tax deduction is $5,000.

Well, in 2024, it is almost impossible to start a business on $5,000, which is why, as president, I will make the start-up deduction 10 times richer and we will raise it from $5,000 to $50,000 — (applause) — tax deduction and provide low- and no-interest loans to small businesses that want to expand, all of which will help achieve our ambitious, some would say — but that’s okay; let’s be ambitious — our ambitious goal of 25 million new small-business applications by the end of my first term. (Applause.) I know this is very achievable.

And for anyone here who is a small-business owner, works for a small business, or has a small business in your life, you understand what I’m talking about in terms of when we build up our small businesses, what that does to entire communities to lift them up economically, civically, culturally, and in every way.

Small businesses, the point being, help drive our economy, and they create — (applause) — they create nearly 50 percent of private-sector jobs, and they strengthen our middle class.

And if we can harness the entrepreneurialism of the American people and unlock the full potential of aspiring founders and small-business owners, I am optimistic that no one will be able to outpace us. (Applause.)

By contrast, Donald Trump, when he was president, has been described by one of the nation’s leading experts on small businesses in a piece he published in a major paper as not being good for small business. In fact, the title — (laughs) — the title — wait, because I’m burying the lede right now. (Laughter.) One of the leading experts on small businesses published a piece in one of the major newspapers, and the title — I’m going to quote — “Does Donald Trump Hate Small Businesses?” (Laughter.) And their answer was yes. (Laughter.) Their answer was yes.

Because at the same time that Donald Trump was giving a tax cut to big corporations and billionaires, he tried to slash programs for small businesses and raise borrowing costs for them. Instead of making it easier, he actually made it more difficult for them to access capital. And that’s not surprising, because Donald Trump just does not prioritize small businesses. He does not seem to value, frankly, the essential role they play.

But, look, when I look at small-business owners, I see some of the heroes of our economy — not only entrepreneurs but, as I said, civic leaders, community leaders, part of the glue that holds communities together.

The third pillar of our opportunity economy is leading the world in the industries of the future and making sure America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century. (Applause.)

One of the recurring themes in American history is that when we make an intentional effort to invest in our industrial strength, it leads to extraordinary prosperity and security,

not only for years but for generations.

Think of Alexander Hamilton having the foresight to build the manufacturing capabilities of our new nation. Think of Lincoln and the transcontinental railroad. Think of Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway System; Kennedy committing America to win the space race and spurring innovation across our society.

From our earliest days, America’s economic strength has been tied to our industrial strength, and the same is true today.

So, I will recommit the nation to global leadership in the sectors that will define the next century. We will invest in biomanufacturing and aerospace; remain dominant in AI and quantum computing, blockchain and other emerging technologies; expand our lead in clean energy innovation and manufacturing — (applause) — so the next generation of breakthroughs from advanced batteries to geothermal to advanced nuclear are not just invented but built here in America by American workers. (Applause.)

And we will invest in the industries that, for example, made Pittsburgh the “Steel City” by offering — (applause) — tax credits for expanding good union jobs in steel and iron and manufacturing communities like here in Mon Valley. (Applause.)

And across all these industries of the future, we will prioritize investments for strengthening factory towns — this is so important — for strengthening factory towns; retooling existing factories; hiring locally and working with unions, because no one who grows up in America’s greatest industrial or agricultural centers should be abandoned.

And understand what that means for real people — people we know, people we care about. We don’t have to abandon a strength we’ve known to achieve a strength that we plan. (Applause.)

And here’s what else we will do when I am president. We will double the number of registered apprenticeships by the end of my first term. (Applause.) Because I almost made it — a goal of mine — I — I am — I think I am going to fall short, but trying to visit every IBEW Local in America — (laughter) — because I’m going to tell you, those apprenticeship programs, those are tough-duty, man — and women and everyone. (Laughter.) They’re tough-duty.

I mean, talk about the skills that are about engineering and science and math and just the most highly skilled folks who are in those apprenticeships and teaching there.

And so, one of the things we must do, understanding that and understanding the nature of that part of our educational system, is let’s eliminate degree requirements while increasing skills development. (Applause.) And let’s start with something I can do as president — was ensure that we do that for the half a million of federal jobs that are within our ability to make it so — (applause) — showing what is possible and then challenging the private sector to make a similar commitment to emphasizing skills and not just degrees. (Applause.)

And we will reform our tax laws to make it easier for businesses to let workers share in their company’s success. And I will challenge the private sector to do more to lift up workers through equity, profits, and benefits so more people can share in America’s success and prosperity. (Applause.)

And not only must we build the industries of the future in America, we must also build them faster. You know, there’s a time for patience, and there’s a time for impatience. That’s not in ~~Ecclesiastics~~ [Ecclesiastes], but — but — (laughter).

Just went off script for a minute, Mayor. (Laughter.)

But the simple truth is, in America, it takes too long and it costs too much to build. Whether it’s a new housing development, a new factory, or a new bridge, projects take too long to go from concept to reality. It happens in blue states, it happens in red states, and it’s a national problem.

And I will tell you this. China is not moving slowly. They’re not. And we can’t afford to, either. If we are to compete, we can’t afford to, either.

As president, if things are not moving quickly, I will demand to know why, and I will act. I will work with Congress, workers and businesses, cities and states, community groups and local leaders to reform permitting, to cut red tape, and get things moving faster. Because, look, as I said, patience may be a virtue but not when it comes to job creation or America’s competitiveness.

Many of you know — the Empire State Building, you know how long it took to build that? One year. The Pentagon, you know how long that took? Sixteen months.

No one can tell me we can’t build quickly in our country. (Applause.) I’ve got empirical evidence.

Now, look, my opponent, Donald Trump, well, he makes big promises on manufacturing. Just yesterday, he went out and promised to bring back manufacturing jobs. And if that sounds familiar, it should. In 2016, he went out and made that very same promise about the Carrier plant in Indianapolis. You’ll remember Carrier then offshored hundreds of jobs to Mexico under his watch.

And it wasn’t just there. On Trump’s watch, offshoring went up and manufacturing jobs went down across our country and across our economy. All told, almost 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost during his presidency, starting before the pandemic hit, making Trump one of the biggest losers ever on manufacturing. (Applause.)

Donald Trump also talked a big game on our trade deficit with China, but it is far lower under our watch than any year of his administration. While he constantly got played by China, I will never hesitate to take swift and strong measures when China undermines the rules of the road at the expense of our workers, our communities, and our companies, whether it’s flooding the market with steel, inferior or at all; unfairly subsidizing shipbuilding; or hurting our small businesses with counterfeits.

Recall Donald Trump actually shipped advanced semiconductor chips to China, which helps them upgrade their military. Understand the impact of these so-called policies that really are not about a plan for strengthening our prosperity or our security.

I will never sell out America to our competitors or adversaries. (Applause.) Never. Never.

And I will always make sure we have the strongest economy and the most lethal fighting force anywhere in the world. (Applause.)

So, at this pivotal moment, we have an extraordinary opportunity to chart a new way forward, one that positions the United States of America and all of us who are blessed to call this home for success and prosperity in the 21st century.

You know, there is an old saying that the best way to predict the future is to invent it. Well, that is the story of the Steel City. (Applause.) That is the story of the Steel City, the city that helped build the middle class, birth America’s labor movement, empower the rise of American manufacturing, and the city where Allen Newell and Herbert Simon launched the first AI research hub at Carnegie Mellon — (applause) — and created entirely new fields like machine learning. And Carnegie Mellon is now home to the largest university robotics center in America. (Applause.)

So, the proud heritage of Pittsburgh I so strongly believe reveals the character of our nation, a nation that harnesses the ambitions, the dreams, and the aspirations of our people; seizes the opportunities before us because we see them, because we believe in them; and then invents the future.

That is what we have always done, and that is what we must now do. And I know we will.

I thank you all for inviting me.

May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Thank you all. (Applause.)

ADDED:

E-mails asked what about Stevie Nicks? That's her new song "Lighthouse." Since we noted it last night ("Stevie Nicks - The Lighthouse (Official Music Video)") a few minutes after it was posted on YOUTUBE. And Saturday is music day here so it was going to be noted again then. But Martha and Shirley count over 100 e-mails from community members who wanted it in today's snapshot and expected it would be. So now it is. Stevie, of course, endorsed Kamala Harris for president a few weeks back.

Peter Burditt (AMERICAN SONGWRITER) notes:

Adding to the cryptic nature of the post, there is only one line of lyrics in the post’s recording. They are, I wanna teach you to fight. The lyrics come from a poem Nicks released back in 2022 titled “Get Back.” Which in essence was a politically motivated post urging Americans to vote in the upcoming mid-term elections at the time. Nicks wrote in the post, “At 74 years old, I can honestly say that I am worried about every one of you.”

Regarding Nicks’ political moves, earlier this month she again urged her followers to vote after Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris. Nicks stated in the post, “Your vote in this election may be one of the most important things you ever do.” Between these two posts and the lyrical similarities, it seems Nicks’ new single might be heavily political. This makes sense as America is only 40 days from the election and Nicks’ is known for her political advocacy.

Second, why wasn't Carly Simon's video in Thursday's snapshot? That refers to "Let The River Run."

Yesterday's snapshot included this:

Has anyone bothered to check out the Green Party's embarrassing gun policy? It's no stronger than the Democratic Party's and I thought the Greens were going to wake the nation, come the new Jerusalem.

'"Let The River Run" opens with:

Let the river run
Let all the dreamers wake the nation
Come, the New Jerusalem
Silver cities rise
The morning lights the streets that lead them
And sirens call them on with a song

The plan was to include the video of the song that Carly won an Academy Award for writing, and won a Golden Globe for writing and won a Grammy for writing.

I honestly don't know if an attempt was made to include it. I dictate the snapshots. Yesterday's snapshot reference a DEMOCRACY NOW! video that was put in but in posting not only did not show but also wiped out the transcript as well. Dona came on and fixed that around one o'clock EST when she saw it. Something similar may have happened with Carly's video. I don't know but the plan was to include it.

One more thing that the media failed to note on CAIR's poll? Not all Palestinians are Muslim. Most are but there are significant numbers who are Christian. Palestinians, however, are Arabs. Meaning put a little more faith in a poll of Arab-Americans if you're trying to figure out where Palestinian-Americans might stand on an issue. There's a whole thing we could go into here about holy wars and how categories can provide the wrong impressions but we'll save that for another day.

A number of e-mails thought I was going to address "holy wars" today.

No, that was never the plan.

There is something that I want to address regarding the Supreme Court but I'm still thinking it through. That was a possibility yesterday of a topic that might have made today's snapshot.

But there was no plan to address "holy wars" in today's snapshot.

The impression that it would be is from the last paragraph yesterday:

In the briefest way possible, let's explain that. It is not a religious war -- what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. A lot of people want it seen that way. Who benefits from that?

The Israeli government because, if it's a "holy war," then every attack on any area of Israel is an attack on the Jewish faith and, therefore, Jewish people around the world are being attacked and are under attack.

The Israeli government is led by a conservative War Criminal and that's the biggest problem right now. Those who want to make it about religion will need to make that argument without me. We have repeatedly noted that Israeli government as an actor in these attacks. I do not equate Judaism with the Israeli government. If you do, I hope you're on the side of the Israeli government because that's who it helps.

That ends the update to this snapshot.

The following sites updated: