The failure of the Academy voters to nominate any African American actors or directors for a second year in a row became a matter of controversy within hours on Thursday. In a statement, the NAACP commented, “With the announcement of the nominees for the 88th Academy Awards, the contributions of people of color to the movie industry…once again have been severely overlooked.”
On Twitter Thursday, professional charlatan Rev. Al Sharpton asserted that “Hollywood has a fraudulent image of progressive and liberal politics and policies. We must take direct action to correct this. Talk is cheap.”
There is nothing progressive about the actions of the NAACP, Sharpton and the rest of the so-called civil rights establishment. These are simply people looking for a larger share of the entertainment industry financial pie. Sharpton’s modus operandi in particular is to use the threat of “direct action” as a means of extracting concessions, jobs and cash. None of that flows to the general population.
The NAACP declares that it is not seeking to dictate “the artistic judgment of the Academy,” but, in fact, it is attempting to do precisely that. None of those complaining about the lack of “diversity” consider the possibility that the various performances by African American or Latino actors might possibly be unworthy of special recognition this year. There is simply an assertion that a certain percentage of the nominations, in a kind of quota system, should go to “people of color.” Again, there is nothing remotely progressive about this.
I'm not a Walsh fan but I basically agree.
If this was the year of Halle Berry in MONSTER'S BALL, okay, we've got a problem.
But it wasn't.
It's not like anyone can say, "This actor was robbed!"
I think CHI-RAQ should have gotten nominated multiple times including a Best Director nod for Spike Lee. I would argue Jennifer Hudson and Angela Bassett should have gotten nominations for their work in that film.
But that's really it.
Ann's "The best of 2015 DVDs and Streaming" and my "2015's best offeirngs for home video" looked at movies and we were so disappointed with the year that we couldn't even come up with ten films worth citing.
I think, White, Black, Latino, you name it, it was a lousy year for film.
Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Today, the US Defense Dept announced:
Strikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 16 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:
-- Near Kisik, four strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed three ISIL bunkers, an ISIL-used tunnel, eight ISIL assembly areas, an ISIL supply cache and six ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Mosul, seven strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units, an ISIL headquarters building, an ISIL weapons storage facility, an ISIL security headquarters building, and an ISIL-used bridge, and destroyed an ISIL command-and-control node and nine ISIL fighting positions and wounded an ISIL fighter.
-- Near Ramadi, four strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL bunker, an ISIL vehicle bomb, two ISIL heavy machine guns, an ISIL vehicle and denied ISIL access to terrain.
-- Near Sultan Abdallah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.
Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.
More military action from Barack Obama.
Did the US president miss Tuesday's House Armed Services Committee hearing?
How about when former CIA deputy director Mike Morell told US House Rep Tom MacArthur, "We really can't have military success without political solutions. That has to come first."
That has to come first.
But the White House isn't working on that.
Wally covered the hearing at Rebecca's site with "Bungler Obama:"
The main takeaway from yesterday's House Armed Services Committee hearing?
That there's no plan.
When it comes to addressing the Islamic State, there's no plan.
None at all.
"What is the real strategy?"
US House Rep. Loretta Sanchez asked that.
But no one has an answer.
Barack stated his 'plan' -- bombing -- in August of 2014.
There is no plan.
There is no strategy.
Forget that the emperor has no clothes on, he's not even breathing!!!!
US House Rep Loretta Sanchez was the Acting Ranking Member at the hearing and she did repeatedly ask where the plan was. She's been doing that publicly for some time.
And yet the White House still doesn't have any real plan or strategy.
This was clear today when Secretary of State John Kerry laid out the State Dept's 2016 priorities in a lengthy speech.
Like a stupid elderly fool who would have plastic surgery to look younger (which he did), he babbled on endlessly about military and territory and all the other crap that has nothing to do with the State Dept.
We get it, John, Secretary of State isn't good enough for you. You want to be Secretary of Defense.
How sad for the State Dept that they're headed by a moron who doesn't even value diplomacy.
First, Iraq. I visited Iraq a couple of months ago. It was my first time on the ground in five years. I was there in Iraq for five years with the American embassy and before that with the Coalition Provisional Authority. My sense is that, in Iraq, on the military side, there is progress. But there are too big challenges. Two big challenges. First, on the resource side, both the Iraqi government in Baghdad and the Kurdish regional government in Erbil -- both are heavily dependent on oil and oil sales. And low oil prices are really crunching their ability to mobilize resources against the fight against the Islamic State. It was very noticeable to me that the Kurdish leadership, who I have known since 2004, were generally concerned about their budget abilities to sustain the fight against the Islamic State. Some of the Peshmerga fighters had not been paid for three months. But even in Baghdad, the authorities were concerned about the resources. Second issue on Iraq, the politics of national reconciliation. Mike Vickers just mentioned the importance of devolution and decentralization. I certainly agree with that and I'm hopeful on that because the Sunni Arab leaders -- again, whom I have known since 2004 -- have really come around 180 degrees. They used to be in favor of a tight, strong central government. And now they are arguing for devolution of power. That is what the Shia and the Kurds always wanted ten years ago. For the first time, I have actually seen the Sunnis, the Shia and the Kurds in Iraq all talking about the same form of government. That's new and that's hopeful. But at the same time, as events in Diyala, northeast of Baghdad, yesterday showed, there is serious sectarian tension. The Islamic State yesterday exploded several car bombs in the weary city of Baquba and there was immediate concern among the local Sunni population that Shia -- irregular Shia militia -- would retaliate. There was actually fear that they would attack Sunni Arab mosques. In order to mobilize Sunni Arabs to contain the Islamic State there must be efforts at national reconciliation. And this is important because we don't want the Islamic State to be put down militarily and then revive as happened between 2011 and 2013. I really don't want to see an Islamic State version 2.0. It is important for the Americans to therefore maintain pressure on the Shia militia problem in Iraq. There are Iraqis such as prime minister [Haider al-] Abadi,Ayatollah [Ali al-] Sistani -- a superb religious leader in the Shia community -- people like, on the Sunni side, Speaker [of Parliament Salim al-] Jabbouri who are all working or national reconciliation. And so, in Iraq, we need to help mobilize resources for both the central authorities in Iraq, Baghdad, for the Kurdish regional government in Erbil. And we have to be engaged on the national reconciliation, working with the gentlemen I have pointed out.
No, that's not John Kerry. That's the former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford testifying at yesterday's hearing.
Never once in his long, long speech today did John Kerry note the issues that bred the Islamic State, the issues that let it take hold in Iraq.
Instead, he just made a fool of himself yet again and should go down in history as a very lousy Secretary of State.
When John was a US Senator, he believed in checks and balances and soft power and diplomacy and could go on and on about them.
These days, he's just a bully.
What John Kerry couldn't be bothered with, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter noted in a throwaway today, "It's the diplomats and development experts who are helping the Government of Iraq follow through on rebuilding and restoring opportunity to Sunni regions so the local people have a future worth fighting for themselves."
Carter delivered his speech at Fort Campbell. The main section of his remarks getting attention are these:
Throughout Iraq and Syria we are significantly constraining its ability either to defend or attack, and we are working with our partners to take advantage of every opportunity this presents. And the specialized expeditionary targeting force I announced in December is now in place and is preparing to work with the Iraqis to begin going after ISIL’s fighters and commanders, killing or capturing them wherever we find them, along with other key targets.
SPUTNIK notes that the number is supposed to be less than 100 and that "The announcement goes against the Obama administration’s pledge to not place any additional 'boots on the ground' in the Middle East, as well as his stated goal of withdrawing from Iraq."
Americans need to be asking what the strategy is?
They need to be asking what the end game is?
The world needs to know what it's going to take to finally get the US out of Iraq?
Or is it just that the US will never leave?
When will the perceptions of Sunnis be addressed?
In the US, the 2016 presidential race is underway.
Jeff Zeleny Tweets:
On the Democratic side, war monger Hillary Clinton wants the nomination. At REASON, Sheldon Richman explores Hillary's war mongering:
Many things in her career could impose this special disqualification. Her vote for George W. Bush's criminal and lie-based Iraq war, for example, would be more than enough to rule her out. That political ambition now prompts her to express regret for her vote should count for nothing, especially in light of what is to be discussed below. When she says she learned her lesson, she lies.
Likewise, her declaration of open-season on Syrian President Assad gave a boost to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda affiliates.
But if no other horrors were on her record, one should be enough to bar her from office: Libya. It would be hard to find a better example of how one person can wreak havoc on a society and create far-ranging catastrophes beyond.
In 2011 the U.S. government led a NATO air assault on Libya under doubly false pretenses. Falsehood number one was that Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi was threatening to wipe out hundreds of thousands of residents of Benghazi. As was noted at the time, including by the Defense Intelligence Agency, there was no evidence for this claim and much reason to disbelieve it. Falsehood number two was related to the first: that NATO's mission was to protect civilians, when in fact it was to help the rebel opposition overthrow Gaddafi's government, after which he was murdered extra-judicially by rebels.
The result of the Libya intervention is well-known. The country is in chaos, with al-Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated guerrillas running wild. With U.S. oversight, heavy arms from Gaddafi's arsenal flowed freely to rebels in Syria who either were bin Ladenites or alleged "moderates" eager to sell the arms to ISIS. Clinton brags that the intervention is a good example of "smart power," which speaks volumes about her.
As polling indicates that Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate in the Democratic race, Hillary has begun attacking him.
The attacks have apparently helped . . .
Bernie Sanders campaign raises $1.4 million in 24 hours since Clinton began awkward health care attacks https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-attacks-produce-windfall-of-campaign-cash-for-sanders/2016/01/13/d95b3d38-ba27-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html …
Clinton’s Attacks Backfire as Bernie Sanders Hauls in $1.4 Million in One Day http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-raises-1-4-million-after-clinton-attacks/ …