Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Can Trevor Noah please die, retire or just move back to Australia?



That's  Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Adele Borrows From Oasis." It's his latest comic and deals with Adele 'borrowing' from Oasis and their song "Wonderwall."

Meanwhile, THE DAILY SHOW remains an embarrassment.

I'm so sick of Trevor Noah and his pop eyes and his Stepen Fetchit. nonsense.

That may play in Australia but in the US, in 2022, it's just an embarassment.

They made a huge mistake when they thought he could replace Jon Stewart.  

I'd argue any non-American was going to be a problem.  That's because the show focuses so much on US politics.  A) It can be confusing (politics in this country0 and (B) there's only so much of a critique that we're going to feel comfortable coming from a foreigner.

He's just not funny and the show has just become a major embarrassment. 

It really is time for them to look for a new host.  I'd even take Samantha Bee as the shot at this point.

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

Tuesday, January 25, 2022.  Jen Psaki insists that Joe Biden respects the press -- this as he calls a reporter "a son of a bitch" for asking a question about inflation.

That's Stella Morris speaking of the court ruling that Julian Assange can appeal the previous finding that he can be extradicted to the United States.  Stella Morris is an attorney and the partner of Julian Assange.  They have two children together -- Max and Gabrial.  Julian?  He's the publisher of WIKILEAKS and he's being persecuted by US President Joe Biden for the 'crime' of journalism.  

The Australian citizen is responsible for releasing the truth about several War Crimes.  He's also 'guilty' of exposing corrupting at the top of the Democratic Party.  A point that arose at yesterday's White House press briefing.  Before we get to that, lets again note the statement from Reporters Without Borders:

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) welcomes the High Court’s decision to allow Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange to appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking review of his extradition case, but limited to one narrow ground. The Supreme Court will be asked to consider matters related to the US government’s provision of diplomatic assurances regarding Assange’s treatment if extradited.

On 24 January, the High Court granted Julian Assange the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision that could allow for his extradition to the US. Assange’s legal team now has 14 days to file an application with the Supreme Court, which could take several months to decide whether it will accept the case for review. 

If accepted, the Supreme Court would consider matters related to the US government’s provision of diplomatic assurances regarding Assange’s treatment, which were filed only prior to the appeal stage of proceedings, meaning the assurances were not scrutinised in the evidentiary portion of the extradition hearing. The High Court granted permission for Assange to file an application on this ground due to the lateness of the US government’s provision of these diplomatic assurances.

“We welcome the High Court’s decision to allow Julian Assange the right to appeal his extradition case to the Supreme Court. This case will have enormous implications for journalism and press freedom around the world, and could be hugely precedent-setting. It deserves consideration by the highest court in the land. We very much hope that the Supreme Court will indeed accept the case for review,” said RSF’s Director of International Campaigns Rebecca Vincent, who was present in court for the hearing.

This decision follows the High Court’s ruling of 10 December 2021 by the same judges, overturning the District Judge’s decision of 4 January 2021 barring extradition on mental health grounds. The High Court had ruled in favour of the US government’s appeal, on the basis of the diplomatic assurances provided regarding Assange’s treatment if extradited.

RSF believes that Assange has been targeted for his contributions to journalism, as Wikileaks’ publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked classified documents in 2010 informed extensive public interest reporting around the world, exposing war crimes and human rights violations that have never been prosecuted. If he faces trial in the US, Assange would not be able to argue a public interest defence, as the Espionage Act lacks such a provision. Assange’s prosecution would set a dangerous precedent that would have lasting implications for journalism and press freedom around the world.

RSF is also gravely concerned by the state of Assange’s mental and physical health, which remain at great risk in conditions of prolonged detention in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison – risks that would be severely exacerbated if the US succeeds in securing his extradition. In December it was revealed that he had suffered a mini-stroke in prison during the appellate hearing, and in January it was reported that Covid infections were again on the rise in Belmarsh prison.

The UK and US are respectively ranked 33rd and 44th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

Julian was a brief topic at yesterday's White House press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki.

Q    And then, quickly: A UK court is now allowing Julian Assange to appeal his extradition to the United States.  The Justice Department, as you know, isn’t commenting.  But what about the President?  He says press freedom is critical for democracy, so why is he continuing to pursue this case?  Is the reason that he’s pursuing this Trump-era case because Julian Assange embarrassed the Democratic Party in 2016?

MS. PSAKI:  Again, this is under the purview of the dem- — the Department of Justice, so I don’t have any comment from here.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  On the Palin-New York Times case — I know you can’t maybe speak specifically to the case, but does the White House have any concerns about threats to press freedoms, to press access, to the limits of the First Amendment protection?

MS. PSAKI:  I obviously can’t speak to the case, so I appreciate you saying that at the top. 

I will say that I think the President has shown that he respects the value of the freedom of the press.  He obviously took a step earlier this year to ensure there couldn’t be a replication of actions that had been taken over prior administrations, as it related to journalists.  So, I think that speaks to his commitment, but I don’t have any more comments on the case.

We've go to touch on the second question.  Freedom of the press?  There is no freedom to intentionally lie about osmeone -- that's why the press that's why there are laws against slander and liberl.  Palin is, of course, Sarah Palin and the edtiorial board of THE NEW YORK TIMES deliberately lied about her.  This is not a ;press freedom' case no matter how much some idiot at a White House press briefing might wish it were.

This is an accountability issue -- press accountability.  Libel and slander have been on the books for years.  This is not new territory.  We haven't noted the case so let's not Jonathan Turley who has analyzed it repeatedly and this is from his most recent analysis:

We previously discussed a major ruling restoring the defamation lawsuit of Sarah Palin against the New York Times over a false claim related to the shooting of former United States Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Now, the New York Times is trying to introduce footage of Palin on “The Masked Singer.” The effort to introduce the video would seem to have no probative value and clearly is meant to ridicule Palin.

The case concerns an editorial by the New York Times where it sought to paint Palin and other Republicans as inciting the earlier shooting. The editorial was on the shooting of GOP Rep. Steve Scalise and other members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, of Illinois, 66, a liberal activist and Sanders supporter.  The Times awkwardly sought to shift the focus back on conservatives. It stated that SarahPAC had posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot. It was false but it was enough for the intended spin: “Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”

The editorial was grossly unfair and falsely worded. Indeed, the earlier opinion began with a bang: “Gov. Palin brings this action to hold James Bennet and The Times accountable for defaming her by falsely asserting what they knew to be false: that Gov. Palin was clearly and directly responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011.”

That is not about press freedom, it is about accountability.  You can read on to see just how desperate NYT is over this case.  They should be, they are not on strong ground, the law is against them.

Jen Psaki uses the cae case to insist that Joe Biden is all about press freedom.  She states, "I will say that I think the President has shown that he respects the value of the freedom of the press."

She thought that, she insisted.  She thought that on the same day Joe Biden was in the news for sharing his thoughts on a reporter.  Courtney Subramanian (USA TODAY) reports:

Fox News' Peter Doocy asked the president whether he thought inflation would be a "political liability" ahead of November's midterm elections. Biden's reaction was caught on a hot mic. 

"That's a great asset, more inflation," Biden said. "What a stupid son of a b----."

Moments before, Biden groused about fielding questions on the deepening crisis in Ukraine instead of being asked about the White House Competition Council meeting, which focused on the administration's efforts to promote economic competition and drive down prices for consumers.

Anyone remember this from Joe Biden:

No mocking, no bullying?  Hmm.

Guess that was just more 'repsect' for the freedom of the press, eh, Jen?

The same 'respect' he shows Julian by persecuting him.  Julian didn't commit War Crimes.  He's not the one to punish.  Unless you're trying to intimidate the press and silence it.  Jen Psaki needs to put some make up on her face (I'm recovering from COVID as well, Jen, and I don't go inf ront of people looking chalky) and she needs to grasp how ridiculous her statements are.

At WSWS, JD Palmer notes the CBC's coverage of Julian which, like so many outlets, has been biased:

Having laid bare the US empire as a never-ceasing conveyor belt of war crimes, Assange exposed Washington’s lies of “nation building” in Afghanistan and Iraq as a vast “money laundering” operation.

And yet, as his legal case progressed, it was clear that the Wikileaks founder’s heroism was resulting in his slow murder via multi-state judicial corruption. In response to this remarkable case, in one of many examples of journalistic malfeasance, Chris Brown, in his report for the CBC’s flagship news program “The National,” falsely asserts that Assange “leaked” the cables that contained the infamous Collateral Murder video. Brown, a long-time CBC correspondent, can presumably distinguish between publishing and leaking. Determined to confuse the viewer, Brown fails to mention the role of whistleblower Chelsea Manning (Assange’s source) and through conflation taints the journalistic credentials of the man who exposed torture at Guantanamo.

Brown knows quite well that publishing leaks is the backbone of national security journalism with the quotidian apparatus of “legacy” newspapers like the New York Times, providing potential whistleblowers with technical instructions on their websites for evading detection. That’s why, as CBC fails to inform the viewer, the Obama administration chose not to prosecute Assange (a decision later reversed by Trump’s Department of Justice or DOJ). Due to what it deemed the “ New York Times problem,” such a precedent, Obama’s DOJ concluded, could be used against fellow elites.

Now in the hands of Biden’s DOJ, this clear case of selective prosecution by the US and its colluding vassal state, the UK, has been denounced by legal experts, a swath of trade unions and activists. And while one can reliably count on Canada’s public broadcaster to ignore grassroots campaigns, what’s remarkable is that the CBC’s reporting on this historic case sinks below even the corporate media’s degraded standards.

Turning to Iraq . . . 

When tens of thousands of young people took to the streets of Baghdad and towns and cities across southern and central Iraq in late 2019, one core demand resonated louder than any other — employment opportunities.

The country, which had only recently emerged from decades of tyranny, siege, war and insurgency, had delivered precious little for the generation of young Iraqis who came of age in the years after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Two years on from those protests, which fizzled out with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, and under the brutal heel of repression meted out by Iraq’s powerful militias, young Iraqis say nothing has changed.

“If anything we’re worse than when we started,” Rashid Mansour, a hairdresser from west Baghdad, told Arab News. “Neither me nor my cousins can afford to stay here. We all work part time. Just like the country, we’re all just getting by.”

Nothing's changed.  And it doesn't appear anything will change anytime soon.  There's talk that Iraq's prime minister will remain the same -- despite the October 10th elections.  The PUK is isnisting that the president of Iraq remain the same person and already the previous leader of Parliament has again been named Speaker.

What was the point of even holding elections?

The following sites updated:

No comments: