Grace Randolph is an idiot.
And that sends me into a panic.
C.I. called to check on me (I've got a new diabetic injection I'm trying) and I mentioned it to her.
I think I've posted Grace here. C.I. said, "Do you have a pen? It's 'That awful WONDER WOMAN 1984' and it's one of several videos."
I was sure, looking at her picture, that I'd posted something. It was back during WONDER WOMAN 1984. I posted many videos about that awful movie. In that post, I have five videos and one of them is her on WW 1984.
She's in the news, Grace is. She's being a stupid idiot -- which we all can be at times -- but when she's confronted with reality, she lies about Gina Carano. That's not acceptable to me.
Grace is a White woman pretending to care about Black lives. She doesn't. Grace stop fronting because maybe virtue signaling White people believe you, but, in the Black community, we know better. You're chasing trends and trying to make yourself look better.
Gina's post that you're calling anti-semitic wasn't. If you're a non-Jewish, Anglo White and you can't get that right, don't pretend you care about any African-American because you don't. You're just a piece of trash grabbing onto whatever issue you think will advance your as a likeable person.
Gina posted a very important and historic photo where she was celebrating the power of forgiveness and the lessons on grace and forgiveness we could learn -- we could all learn.
For Grace Randolph to lie about that makes it clear that blondie only cares about her own White ass.
Ive had it with this nonsense.
And I want to make clear before something else happens, my posting a video or quoting from someone's article does not mean that I agree with them or that I am a fan or a supporter or that we think alike.
I felt so sorry for Gina to be dragged yet again and felt so bad because I knew Grace Randolph was up on my site somewhere. I want to be clear that I am not Grace Randolph, I am not on Grace Randolph's side, I do not know her and, after what she's just done to Gina, I would not want to know her.
Grace pretends she helps those who are attacked.
Really? Because the dog pile on Gina never ended? She lied about Gina and she can't stop lying about her.
Gina deserves to be called out and her nonsense that you can 'criticize but not about race and gender?
I know people who criticized that hideous Joel Schumacher because Harvey Dent morphed into a White man played by Tommy Lee Jones. He'd been played by Billy Dee Williams in the two Tim Burton films.
We're allowed to criticize on anything.
And Grace is a dumb idiot. She pretends to be a journalist but she also wants to police what people say and write? That's not a free press, you stupid idiot.
And when you get called out -- rightly -- for your hypocrisy about what you did to Gina and you choose to lie about her again?
You're just a trash person. You have no reason to have a platform. I hope people catch on to you and stop streaming you and I hope your employers how shallow your 'criticques' are and how hollow your 'reporting' has been. Most people who 'reported' with as many mistakes as you have would have been fired long ago.
To Gina, most of us know Grace and people like her are a liar. You don't just have history on your side, a lot of us know right now that you are not anti-Jew or anti-trans, you're just someone who got railroaded for the stands you took on COVID and for you apparent political beliefs. (I say apparent because I don't know Gina's beliefs and I don't need to. If she voted for Trump, more power to her I didn't but I don't hate people who did.)
There's a lot of love in the world and I hope Gina knows that and knows that people like Grace Randolph are trapped in their own bubble of hate and will get the fate they deserve = a joyless and empty life.
Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, June 3, 2022. Sarah Jessica Pathetic 9to steal from Rebecca) fools some people, Sabby Sabs errs by giving someone the benefit of the doubt, will the entire US budget eventually go to Ukraine, watch out for the fake asses and much more.
Starting with housekeeping. Providing a head's up one more time for this coming Wednesday. The snapshot, if there is one, may go up earlier than normal or later than normal. I've got something that day and you've been forewarned.
Now let's pick up from Rebecca's "try sarah jessica pathetic."
The White House announced May 27 that Medicare recipients will not see their premiums lowered this year. This is despite the fact that a rate hike confirmed last November was due in large part to projected costs for a drug to treat Alzheimer’s disease that have now been lowered.
In November 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announced an approximately 14.5 percent increase to premiums for Medicare Part B, which covers doctor visits and some preventive care and outpatient services. The standard monthly premium rose from $148.50 in 2021 to $170.10 this year.
The hike came largely as a result of uncertainty over whether Medicare would cover the costs of Aduhelm, an exorbitantly expensive drug to treat Alzheimer’s. Under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, the controversial drug was approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021, despite disputes over whether it is effective in treating the debilitating disease.
Biogen, the maker of Aduhelm, originally priced the drug at $56,000 a year. After a considerable outcry from patient advocates and others, Biogen announced that the drug would cost $28,200 effective January 1, 2022, when the Medicare premium hikes kicked in. In April, Medicare instituted strict rules regarding who could receive Aduhelm, restricting its use mainly to clinical trials.
On May 27, the Biden administration said that despite the halving of Aduhelm’s cost, and also its restriction to a small patient pool, it would not be lowering the monthly premiums deducted from seniors’ Social Security benefits. The administration justified this move on the basis of “legal and operational hurdles.”
In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, mass demonstrations involving tens of millions of people took place in the United States and across the world. A section of the middle class “left” took part in these demonstrations, which brought together a broad cross-section of the population, including many young people and workers, in opposition to a war that would last nearly two decades and kill over 1 million people. At the time, individuals and political tendencies associated with groups like the Green Party and Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) participated in the demonstrations and presented themselves as anti-war.
Twenty years later, groups like the DSA and Greens not only support imperialist war, in some cases their political representatives are leading it. The DSA’s four elected members of Congress voted unanimously for the Biden administration’s $40 billion in military spending to fight Russia in Ukraine. The German Green Party is part of the coalition government carrying out the rearmament of German imperialism. Pabloite and Morenoite groups like the International Socialist League urge the imperialist powers to send more weapons to neo-Nazi Ukrainian militias.
A June 1 article by Matt Duss in The New Republic entitled “Why Ukraine Matters for the Left” is a milestone in the exposure of the pseudo-left’s pro-imperialist political essence.
Duss is a top foreign policy adviser for Bernie Sanders who typifies the social layer that has now become a main constituency of the Biden administration’s war against Russia. According to a profile in The Nation, Duss “first became involved in politics via anti-globalization activism and Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign.” A February 2020 Foreign Policy article noted that “Music, not foreign policy, was one of Duss’s biggest life passions—until the 9/11 attacks galvanized in him a sense of wanting to do more on US politics and policy toward the Middle East.” He developed a career as a critic of the war in Iraq, telling The Nation, “I was just uncomfortable with America sending troops around the world.”
On Monday, Jacobin magazine republished a 1916 article by American socialist Eugene Debs opposing the First World War and attacking those who attempt to reconcile “socialism” with support for imperialism. In a written introduction, Jacobin presents itself as the inheritor of Debs’ socialist, anti-war tradition: “This Memorial Day, we should rededicate ourselves to fighting the horrors of war. So here’s a 1916 Eugene Debs piece about why internationalism is at the heart of socialist politics.”
The DSA is not fighting the horrors of war, it is funding them, and Debs’ article is a devastating exposure of the DSA itself.
Debs denounces “self-called socialists who are nationalists first and who set the ‘fatherland’ of their masters above the whole earth and above all the workers of the world.” He excoriates the parties of the Second International for voting for imperialist war credits. Such parties and politicians are “not socialists at all” but “traitors to the cause.”
“When the tocsin sounded,” Debs continues, “international obligation was swept away, or forgotten, and in the frenzy aroused by the military clackers, thousands of socialist party members became the intensest of nationalists and ‘patriots,’ utterly denying their international principles and obligations and turning traitors to the movement.”
The seven-person civil jury awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages (lowered to $350,000, in accordance with the maximum under state law). Heard was awarded $2 million in damages for a comment made by Depp’s lawyer in the British press during an earlier, unsuccessful lawsuit in the UK. Depp had sought $50 million, for damage done to his film career, and Heard had counter-sued for $100 million.
Since October 2017, hundreds of lives and careers have been ruined through the dissemination of largely unsubstantiated claims, gossip and rumors. Isolated and officially disgraced, instantly turned into pariahs by the media, many of the accused have simply chosen to disappear. Virtually none of the latter have been charged with a crime, much less convicted. Now, a well-known figure has stood up to the petty bourgeois lynch mob, taken the issue to court and permitted a jury to decide on the merits of the case. The results are clear enough.
The jury, whether it intended to or not, rendered a damning verdict not only on the Depp-Heard affair, but on the entire McCarthyite scandal-mongering that has consumed a considerable portion of the upper middle class in recent years, led by the New York Times, the New Yorker and the Washington Post, and championed directly and indirectly by the Democratic Party and its “left” apologists. In reality, if most of the #MeToo allegations were subjected to the same degree of objective scrutiny, they would fall apart in a similar fashion. Hence, the howls of outrage from the identity politics-obsessed media following Wednesday’s verdict.
The Depp-Heard case hinged on a Washington Post opinion piece published in December 2018, one year into the #MeToo campaign, “I spoke up against sexual violence—and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change,” which appeared with Heard’s byline. In the piece, the actress (in fact, a ghost writer, as the trial revealed) asserted that “two years ago … I became a public figure representing domestic abuse.” This was a thinly veiled reference to her marriage to Depp (2015-2017), an allegation that ultimately triggered his suit. The actor denied that he had ever physically abused Heard.
That the jury, after six weeks of hearing evidence and three days of weighing the facts, concluded its deliberations in such a decisive fashion is revealing. As various commentators noted, public officials and celebrities are obliged to meet a “very high burden of proof” in order to collect damages. The jury members had to determine if two passages and the headline of the Post article were defamatory. Because of Depp’s prominence, as the Associated Press noted, “to find that she committed libel, the jury needed to conclude that Heard acted with ‘actual malice,’ meaning that she either knew what she wrote was false or that she acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The jury ruled in favor of Depp on all three counts, finding that she had indeed acted with actual malice.” Meanwhile, Heard’s lawyers had informed the jury Depp’s claim “had to fail if Heard suffered even a single incident of abuse.” The jury members evidently did not believe the actress’s allegations of physical abuse.
The following sites updated: