Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "The Experts" went up tonight. He's doing four nights in a row of comics, by the way. I told you last time that it was three nights but then he had another idea. Remember, in addition to doing comics at THE COMMON ILLS, Isaiah does a comic each week for every community newsletter.
New topic . . .
It's that time of year, when networks get serious about which shows they are dumping and which ones that they are keeping. From USA TODAY:
CBS' Hawaiian crime-fighting saga "Magnum, P.I." and ABC's soapy drama "A Million Little Things" led USA TODAY's 25th annual Save Our Shows poll.
Nearly 70,000 votes cast in the April survey revealed the two fourth-season dramas were the clear favorites among fans hoping for another run. This year, 24 endangered network TV series were featured in the poll. Almost half of voters (49%) want "Magnum" back – a remake of Tom Selleck's 1980s series that stars Jay Hernandez – while just 14% voted to cancel it. And "Million," a perennial "on the bubble" series, was favored by 33%, with 17% opting to say goodbye. (The remaining percentage of voters didn't care either way.)
Other top-performing series in this year's poll were ABC's "Big Sky" (with 30% support), two of Chuck Lorre's CBS sitcoms – "United States of Al" (with 29% voting to keep it) and "B Positive" (27% said yes) – and Mayim Bialik's Fox comedy "Call Me Kat" (27%).
Of the shows listed, I'd vote to save CALL ME KAT and BIG SKY. When I told my girlfriend I was going to note that, she said to note that she would vote to save MAGNUM P.I. but that she would vote even stronger for that guy (I'm forgetting his name) to be shirtless for over half of each episode (get why I'm forgetting his name).
I hope no favorite of yours is on the bubble.
I've had far too many shows cancelled. It's not fun.
With cartoons, I'm sure that they axed some I loved; however, I didn't know. I'd just be told, "Oh, they moved it to a different time." I fell for that over and over. But I remember Sunday night. Specifically THE JEFFERSONS. I was a tiny child when I got used to it being part of Sunday night and was in second or third grade (I think) when it got cancelled. They cancelled George and Weasie!!!! That's the first time I remember. Now I got really attached to my TV shows. Which is why adults would lie to me and tell me "Oh, they moved it to a different time." And when I couldn't find it, it probably made me even more attached.
There have been so many shows I loved that got the axe over the years. Even just during this website's lifetime, there have been a number of shows I loved that got axed -- NO ORDINARY FAMILY, THE CAPE, THE NEW ADVENTURES OF OLD CHRISTINE, CALL YOUR MOTHER, . . .
Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Thursday, May 5, 2022. The preening and posturing of our Congress needs to stop and we need to stop being such huge "f**king idiots."
On Roe v Wade, a number of e-mails to the public account are coming in about how they are upset that I am not commenting on this or that.
First, I have addressed this issue with community members via HILDA'S MIX. Second, because Elaine's asking me to address it again this morning, I will. Be sure to read Jonathan Turley's take on the issue. Third, don't think that you want my commentary, don't make the mistake of thinking that. You probably wouldn't like it to begin with.
I am firmly pro-choice, full on board with privacy rights and support safe and legal abortions for any woman who needs one.
Other than that, you may not be pleased.
I actually know the law. I'm not going to pretend I don't to say something that will soothe you and make you feel better.
People can disagree on the law. I think Jonathan Turley should be sitting on the Supreme Court and yet I will even disagree with him from time to time. I think he's the finest legal mind in the country but I do not agree 100% of the time. That's because sometimes something new comes along that we have to address. There is no building solely on precedent and there may be other issues. So he may offer a learned and wise opinion on a topic but I might beg to differ. Doesn't mean he's right and I'm wrong or vice versa, just means that we are interpreting the law and there may be more than one way to come at it in some instances.
Yesterday (believe it was yesterday), White House spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked a question by a reporter in the press briefing. It was about how revelations from Hunter Biden's laptop make it very hard to continue the fairy tale that Joe Biden was not involved in his son's business practices. The FOX reporter was clear that she was asking about the past -- this would be when he was vice president -- time covered on e-mails found on the laptop.
What did Jen respond?
No one seems to have gotten it right. They've quoted her correctly but they don't seem to have actually listened.
That's a real problem with politics today. A lot of stupidity.
Donald Trump says X and we're supposed to be outraged because, if you look into the original Psaki is being asked about an issue regarding Joe's vice presidency and is responding about President Joe Biden. It's a doge and even FOX NEWS didn't seem to note that reality.
For years, professional dram a queen Matthew Rothschild told you at THE PROGRESSIVE -- and on THE PROGRESSIVE RADIO HOUR -- that Bully Boy Bush was going to lock away al dissidents, that this or that national alert or FEMA measure was about that. He wasted a great deal of time. If only he had poured that energy into Iraq. Was he really worried about US government abuse because, if he was, strange, just like NEW YORKER whore Jane Meyer, he gave up the topic the minute Barack Obama was elected president.
To point a finger at myself, Rahm Emanuel, who I've known for years through his brother, told me I was a "f**king idiot" and he was right. We'll come back to that.
But we do tend to write a lot of things to fit however we want to see things.
I'm not going to offer nonsense about this justice lied!!! No. Susan Collins is an idiot. She proved that in 2002. She's a dumb idiot who hears what she wants to hear. Excepting her support for the Iraq War, I'm really not that vested in her one way or the other. And it's not fair to pin all the blame on her. The Democrats have done a lousy job and their work has been worse than Susan's.
But, for the future, don't hear what you want to hear. Examine the response youre getting.
Roe v Wade is settled law?
Yes, it is. Up until the Court chooses to hear a case on it. At which point, it is any judge's role to figure out if there is a conflict in the law, if the law applies, if . . . So you were an idiot -- this goes to various Democrats in the Senate and not just Republican Susan Collins -- hearing what you wanted to hear.
Quit nyou're whiing.
And if you produce a tape recording where some one on the Court promised you that they would enver vote to overturn Roe, first off we'd have ethical issues regarding your own behavior.
Second off, whether you like it or not Christian beliefs have had a significant role in the history of the US and one of those beliefs is redemption. Meaning, you can change. So let's use Alito. Alito promised not to overturn Roe (he didn't, this is a hypothetical) and Chuck Schumer has a recording of that office visit and makes it public.
After the outcry against Chuck died down, the point would be that Alito made a promise before he was a sitting Justice and he can easily argue that his opinion changed as his faith was renewed, as his faith grew, as he discovered a new religion, etc, etc.
And he wouldn't even have to bring in religion (but Alito would). He could merely argue that at that date in time, he meant what he said but that his years on the Court had increased his knowledge base and his opinons had changed.
So stop whining that you were lied to. And stop insisting that you had some promise before the justice sat on the Court Again, it's the law of the land (anything) up until you're asked to rule on it and then it is your role to interpret it and analyze it.
Again, don't ask for opinions if you 're not sure you want them. I'm not going to offer easy, pleasing takes that are devoid of reality.
If we're going to talk about this, we need to talk reality.
First off, no ruling has come down yet. Drafts are circulated all the time. The Justices confer and discuss and debate and some change their minds as a result of the give-and-take.
This draft may be destined for the trash heap.
That is not offered to say, "Cease working on this issue."
That is offered to say: Work smart.
Christine Pelosi thinks she's a feminist. She's not. Nepotism is not a feminist value. She's got a ton of opinions and they're all the opinions of entitled woman who has garnered every break the rich can receive in this country. She is not a learned mind.
As Margaret Kimberely has documented on her Twitter thread, when people were rightly noting that Ruth Ginsberg should step down, Christine showed up screaming sexism and ageism.
She was a stupid bitch then and she remains one today. Shooting out of Nancy Pelosi's vagina did not make Christine an expert on anything and we really don't need her faux wisdom.
Ruth was ill and she should have retired. She gambled and WE LOST. A lot of today is on her.
But let's get to Rahm correctly calling me a "f**king idiot."
Nancy, Steny Hoyer and Rahm controlled the House back then. There was concern over the ongoing Iraq War. I was so sure that the Democrats -- who were using it as an election issue in 2006 -- would end it as they promised. Rahm told me I was an idiot and explained why. It was big talk and it was nothing but an effort to get votes. The votes that had taken place where someone made a grand stand of voting against a buget for the war? Nancy had signed off on that. She had done so only after she had secured enough votes for the itme to pass.
It was all posture and play.
Rahm was right. I was wrong. I've said here many tiems I can be the world's biggest idiot.
How does that apply to today?
Democrats had years to make this a law. They didn't. They've used abortion as a political football and attempted to use it to get out the vote.
No one should accept them at their word in an election year if they promise that, come January, they'll pass it into law if you just vote for them.
They control the House, the Senate and the White House right now. If they can't get it done now, they can't get it done.
Nancy can -- and has -- kept her party in line when it comes to the votes she wants. That can take place in the Senate and in the House. Yes, even Joe Manchin can be put into line.
If they want votes this November, they need to deliver right now.
If they're uanble to do so when they control both houses and the White House, don't believe them that they'll do it at some point in the near future.
They could have stopped the Iraq War before it started. They could have ended it after it started.
They ran in 2006 on the promise to end the war. But they won both houses. And suddenly the Iraq War -- that they waffled on in the 2005 election -- was something they saw as a vote getter in the upcoming 2008 election. So they didn't end it. Not when it could be used in an election.
And I'm not prepared for the same thing to happen over and over with regards to abortion.
This would be chipping away at privacy rights. But I do not buy into the claim that this would mean that we'd lose the right to interracial marriage or to same-sex marriage.
I don't believe there's enough support for that. Abortion is a different issue that has other implications. Those who are strongly against it will argue that they can't do the live-and-let-live option on this (because they believe it's murder). With regards to who marries whom, that's a different approach and America is not fond of being told what to do.
I think trying to build that argument at this time is wrong and a distraction.
I think the focus needs to be on how Congress must ask and must ack right now.
The draft might end up in the trash. That's not breathe a sigh of relief time. We need legislation that can prevent this from happening again. Our right to privacy should not be held hostage.
The legislation should have come a long time ago.
In addition, we need a Democratic Party that actually acts. Do you remember Barack's last years as president?
The Republicans refused to allow his Supreme Court pick to be confirmed. So why did Democrats allow Donald Trump's picks -- that they were all over the news objecting to -- to be confirmed?
The party wants votes, they better start fighting to win.
And votes better stop accepting 'someday' promises and demand that politicians deliver first and then they can win our votes.
Adding this from The Feminist Majority Foundation:
1600 Wilson Blvd
Arlington, VA 22209
The following sites updated: