I don't know everything but if you e-mail with a
question, I will make an attempt to find an answer for you. Kendrick
e-mailed because he likes HERE'S LUCY. That was Lucille Ball's last
successful sitcom. It goes I LOVE LUCY, THE LUCY SHOW and HERE'S LUCY.
I love HERE'S LUCY and I LOVE LUCY. I couldn't stand THE LUCY SHOW.
Sorry. Love Vivian Vance but it was just too erratic and outdated for
me. HERE'S LUCY ran for six seasons on CBS. And if you're Gen X, like
me, you got a chance to see it in syndication. Lucille Ball did not put
that in syndication until the 80s. And then it was pulled around five
years later. I grew up loving that show and loving the opening.
So
Kendrick just got PEACOCK and he sees they have HERE'S LUCY. Great, he
thinks. He goes to watch and is done in one day. No, he didn't stream
all six seasons, he just streamed season one because that's all they
have. He then thought he'd go to HULU but HULU doesn't have it anymore.
So here's the answer: TUBI.
Let
me not steal credit. I texted C.I. and she texted back that TUBI had
it and to check and make sure. Yes, they have all six seasons of the
show.
And TUBI is free.
You don't even have to sign in if you don't want to. It's free so you
do get commercial breaks during the stream.
I don't know why PEACOCK would only offer one season. That really makes no sense to me.
Here's the opening of the show, by the way.
It's
the one where she's Lucy Carmichael. She works for her brother-in-law
Harry (Gale Gordon). She and Gordon teamed up in THE LUCY SHOW. He was
Mr. Mooney at the bank on that show. Her children Lucie Arnaz and Desi
Arnaz Jr. played her kids Kim and Craig. Kim's on all the seasons (and
even has a backdoor pilot on one episode). Desi Jr. had a successful
recording and touring career and was also branching out into film (and
fighting with his mother about whomever he was dating -- not just Patty
Duke) so he didn't stay for all six seasons and he moved out of the
family home really quick.
The
most famous episode of the show -- of HERE'S LUCY or, for that matter,
THE LUCY SHOW -- is when she mistakes Richard Burton for a plumber,
insults his Shakespeare recital and then discovers it's Richard Burton.
Then she ends up trying on Elizabeth Taylor's famous ring and then she
can't get it off her finger. So she ends up having to hide behind a
curtain at a reception, reaching her hand around so that it appears to
be Elizabeth's hand. Elizabeth was a two-time Academy Award winner. So
you know she's a good actress. Richard Burton was very good actor. I
say that because they couldn't stand Lucille but you'd never know it --
especially when they're laughing about having pulled the fakery off --
Burton gives Lucy a kiss and she laughs and then she presses her
forehead against Elizabeth's and Elizabeth laughs. It seems like
wonderful comedy by very happy people. But it was not a happy set and
they did not get along with Lucille who was loud and shouted. She told
Richard he wasn't funny -- and he got back at her when his diary was
published decades later. She tried to give blocking to Elizabeth. She
was not the director of the episode but she did that every episode with
various guests. That's one of the reasons Joan Crawford cussed her out
when Joan guest starred on THE LUCY SHOW.
On
THE LUCY SHOW, Lucille learned that guest stars really pumped up the
ratings. They had guest stars on I LOVE LUCY from time to time (William
Holden, George Reeves, etc) (Tallulah Bankhead was on the hour long
show Lucy and Desi did together THE LUCY-DESI COMEDY HOUR); but on THE
LUCY SHOW, they did guest stars for ratings. And with HERE'S LUCY, I
think it was a guest star every episode. They had Taylor and Burton,
Joan Rivers, Flip Wilson, Andy Griffith, Carol Burnett (she also guested
on THE LUCY SHOW), Ann-Margaret, Johnny Carson, Ruth Buzzi, Shelley
Winters, Vincent Price, Eva Gabor, Eve Plumb, Dinah Shore, Ginger
Rogers, Sammy Davis Jr., Jack Benny, Milton Berle, Frankie Avalon and
many, many more. Hey, she even had a guest star named Lucille Ball!
Not joking, Lucy Carmichael enters and wins a Lucille Ball look-alike
contest (with LB playing both roles, of course). I'm not counting
Vivian Vance. She did guest star but she was a given on all three of
Lucille's successful sitcoms (and on the hour long LUCY-DESI show).
By the way, I'm reading a biography on Lucille Ball and will review it here this weekend.
Starting
with Julian Assange. Yesterday, on DEMOCRACY NOW!, there were four
segments noting the passing of whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg including this one:
AMYGOODMAN: Two years later, in 2019, I spoke
to Daniel Ellsberg a day after the Justice Department charged WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act
for publishing U.S. military and diplomatic documents exposing U.S. war
crimes. Assange, who’s locked up in the Belmarsh prison in London, faces
up to 175 years in prison if extradited to the U.S. and convicted here.
DANIELELLSBERG:
Yesterday is a day that will be — live in the history of journalism, of
law in this country and of civil liberties in this country, because it
was a direct attack on the First Amendment, an unprecedented one. There
hasn’t actually been such a significant attack on the freedom of the
press, the First Amendment, which is the bedrock of our republic,
really, our form of government, since my case in 1971, 48 years ago. But
this is — I was indicted as a source. And I warned newsmen then that
that would not be the last indictment of a source, if I were convicted.
Well, I wasn’t convicted. The charges were dropped on governmental
misconduct. And it was another 10 years before anybody else faced that
charge under the Espionage Act again, Samuel Loring Morison. And it was
not until President Obama that nine cases were brought, as I had been
warning for so long.
But my warning really was that it wasn’t going to stop there, that
almost inevitably there would be a stronger attack directly on the
foundations of journalism, against editors, publishers and journalists
themselves. And we’ve now seen that as of yesterday. That’s a new front
in President Trump’s war on the free press, which he regards as the
enemy of the people.
AMYGOODMAN:
And the Trump administration saying Julian Assange is not a publisher,
is not a journalist, that’s why he is not protected by the First
Amendment?
DANIELELLSBERG:
In the face of this new indictment, which — and let me correct
something that’s been said just a little wrong by everybody so far. He
doesn’t just face 170 years. That’s for the 17 counts on the Espionage
Act, each worth 10. Plus, he’s still facing the five-year conspiracy
charge that he started out with a few weeks ago. I was sure that the
administration did not want to keep Julian Assange in jail just for five
years. So I’ve been expecting these Espionage Act charges. I really
expected them later, after he was extradited, because adding them now
makes it a little more complicated for Britain to extradite him now, as I
understand it. They’re not supposed to extradite for political offenses
or for political motives, and this is obviously for both political
motives and political offenses. So, from Julian Assange’s point of view,
it makes extradition a little more difficult.
Why then did they bring it right now? Well, coming back to the case,
by the way, that I faced, I faced only 11 [Espionage] Act charges, each
worth 10 years in prison, plus a conspiracy charge worth five. So I was
facing exactly 115 years in prison. He’s facing exactly 175. Now, that’s
not a difference that makes any difference. In both cases, it’s a
question of a life sentence.
I think that the reason they brought these charges so soon, because
they had until June 12th, was to lay out — the necessity to lay out for
extradition all the charges they plan to bring. And I don’t assume these
are the last ones. They’ve got a couple weeks left to string up some
new charges.
They started out with a charge that made Julian look something other
than a normal journalist. The help to hacking a password sounded like
something that, even in the Digital Age, perhaps most journalists
wouldn’t do, and that would hope to separate him from the support of
other journalists.
In this case, when they had to lay out their larger charge, this is
straight journalism. They mention, for instance, that he solicited
investigative material, he solicited classified information — terribly,
he didn’t just passively receive it over the transom. I can’t count the
number of times I have been solicited for classified information,
starting with the Pentagon Papers, but long after that, and that’s by
every member of the responsible press that I dealt with — the Times, the Post,
AP, you name it. That’s journalism. So, what they have done is
recognizable, I think, this time to all journalists, that they are in
the crosshairs of this one. They may not have known enough about digital
performance to help a source conceal her identity by using new
passwords, as Julian was charged with. They may not be able to do that.
But every one of them has eagerly received classified information and
solicited it.
AMYGOODMAN:
We end our show with Daniel Ellsberg in his own words, May 18th, 2018,
when I spoke to him at a Right Livelihood laureate gathering at
University of California, Santa Cruz. I asked him what message he had
for government insiders who are considering becoming whistleblowers.
DANIELELLSBERG:
My message to them is: Don’t do what I did. Don’t wait 'til the bombs
are actually falling or thousands more have died, before you do what I
wish I had done years earlier, in ’64 or even ’61, on the nuclear issue.
And that is, reveal the truth that you know, the dangerous truths that
are being withheld by the government, at whatever cost to yourself,
whatever risk that may take. Consider doing that, because a war's worth
of lives may be at stake. Or in the case of the two existential crises
I’m talking about, the future of humanity is at stake.
So many graduating classes, I think, have been taught — have been
told, year after year for half a century, that they face a crossroads or
that much depends on what they do. That’s no exaggeration right now.
It’s this generation, not the next one, the people living right now,
that have to change these problems fast. And I think truth-telling is
crucial to mobilize that.
AMYGOODMAN:
Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg died Friday at the age of
92, just months after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Our
deepest condolences to his family, his wife Patricia, his children
Robert, Mary and Michael, his grandchildren and his great-granddaughter.
That does it for our show. I’m Amy Goodman. Thank you for joining us.
But most of those today loudly hailing Ellsberg as an "American hero" have been far more reluctant to champion the Ellsberg of our times: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
For years, Assange has been rotting in a London high-security prison while the Biden administration seeks his extradition
on charges that ludicrously equate his publication of the Afghan and
Iraq war logs - a modern Pentagon Papers - with “espionage”.
Like Ellsberg, Assange exposed the way western states had been
systematically lying while they perpetrated war crimes. Like Ellsberg,
he was fraudulently labelled a threat to national security and charged
with espionage. Like Ellsberg, if found guilty, he faces more than 100
years in jail. Like Ellsberg, Assange has learned that the US Congress
is unwilling to exercise its powers to curb governmental abuses.
But unlike Ellsberg’s case, the courts have consistently sided with
Assange’s persecutors, not with him for shining a light on state
criminality. And, in a further contrast, the western media have stayed
largely silent as the noose has tightened around Assange’s neck.
The similarities in Assange's and Ellsberg’s deeds - and the stark
differences in outcomes - are hard to ignore. The very journalists and
publications now extolling Ellsberg for his historic act of bravery have
been enabling, if only through years of muteness, western capitals’
moves to demonise Assange for his contemporary act of heroism.
Let's
move over to US political campaigns and since Mike Pence's one lonely
supporter actually wrote the public e-mail (common_ills@yahoo.com) to
say that Mike doesn't get enough attention, let's offer two Tweets from
Paul Rudnick.
Moving on. The Merry Mariannes. They love them some Marianne
Williamson. They lie for her. We told you before she lost her first
campaign manger that the campaign was out of control. You should have listened. She's now lost another. Brittany Gibson (POLITICO) reports:
Marianne Williamson has lost her second campaign manager in as many months in what has proven to be a rocky 2024 presidential bid.
Roza Calderon’s departure was announced Monday on a small left-wing podcast, the Vanguard, and
independently confirmed by two sources to POLITICO granted anonymity to
discuss internal staffing dynamics. It is unclear whether she was
fired, quit or if it was a mutually agreed upon departure.
Calderon’s
experience in such roles was limited. She ran for Congress in 2018 but
lost. During that campaign, she was sentenced to probation after
allegedly stealing money from a local Democratic Party group to
spend on gas, movie downloads and BottleRock music festival tickets.
She had also embellished her resume calling herself a director of
development when she was in fact a contractor at the progressive
nonprofit Our Revolution.
People,
there's less than a year to go before the primaries (and caucuses) take
place. That means Marianne only has months to go through 39 or 40 more
campaign managers. Stop standing around, e-mail those resumes now.
Somewhere, the fictional character of Murphy Brown is noting that
Marianne goes through campaign managers like Murphy went through
secretaries.
Marianne can be nice if she sees you as an equal but she doesn't see many as an equal. That's reality.
Doesn't mean she couldn't be a good president. Does, for me, mean she's got more to prove.
The
Merry Mariannes have had to pretend that her stance on Ukraine is the
same as their own. She can be very seductive. But what issue does she
lead on?
The war against
LGBTQ+ people? Nope. I believe she's devoted 58 seconds to it online
in a video. I know she had an embarrassing (and shameful) answer when
she had a speaking event and only spoke to it because she was directly
asked about it.
So
she's
not an answer on war as evidenced by her comments on Ukraine. And she
wasn't an answer on war in 2020 either but everyone wants
to forget that. And she's not making any effort to address the war on
LGBTQ+ -- considering the hogwash she served to those suffering from
AIDS in the 90s, she really does need to make amends and make a real
effort at addressing this section of the population.
They
tried to pimp her as a better alternative to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and
did so because they didn't know Marianne's own vax history.
The Merry Mariannes tried so hard to pimp her. Maybe they can walk away now and invest everything in Cornel West?
He doesn't appear to have any answers either.
Like
Marianne, he's never held public office and is pretty much his own
creation. Like Marianne, he's a personality attempting to pose as a
politician.
I'm hearing a
lot of garbage when Cornel's name comes up -- or "Cornell" as some
'lefties' Tweeting and doing YOUTUBE programs keep misspelling it.
Here's
the biggest piece of garbage that his supporters are trying to trick
the American people with -- that would include Jill Stein and Ajamu
Baraka, by the way.
Cornel's run is creating a third party! Making a third party stronger!
No, it isn't.
I guess if you're an idiot or a know-nothing you can pretend that's true.
But
I voted in 2000 (for Al Gore) and I remember that argument. Ralph
Nader was going to build the Green Party. And I remember it with
Cynthia McKinney (I voted for Cynthia) and again with Jill Stein and
then again with Jill Stein. We're leaving out David Cobb
intentionally. He wasn't a real candidate -- though he does hold the
'honor' of being the first politician to write this site about how
unfair we were too him. It was the same day that Richard Perle e-mailed
to hiss about this site's opposition to the Iraq War. That was
actually fun because I said, "Who's Richard Perle?" -- and, small world
that it is, happened to say it to a friend who knew Richard . . . from
high school. That was a fun reply to dictate and, as I said in that
e-mail, "Crawl back under your rock, you're not needed." We still have
that post in the chamber in draft form -- a wonderful look back at
Richard Perle in high school with him just as hideous as you'd expect.
Some day we may post it here just for laughs (ours) and embarrassments
(his).
So I don't agree with Howie Hawkins on Ukraine. He's the only Green Party candidate, however, that's tried to build the party.
Celebrities of various standing showed up to run and then lost and left.
Why is that?
In part, it's because most of them were not Green Party members. You know, like Cornel isn't.
He's
70 years old but wants the party's nomination. The party he's never
deigned to join. But he was the nominee of The People's Party and then
found out their issues so he ran over to The Green Party and, let's be
honest, Ajamu, Jill and Chris Hedges tried to strong-arm the party to
make him the nominee. No. He's a candidate for the nomination. He is
not the nominee and they are not going to toss aside their rules -- nor
should they -- for anyone.
But Cornel's going to build the party.
Because he's a celebrity, apparently.
He's not Nina Turner, for example. Someone with real ideas about how to govern. And someone with actual experience.
This
is an out of touch (see previous remarks at this site regarding "crack
pipe" 90s phrase
and he's trying to charm a 10-year-old by talking about Tony! Toni!
Tone!) elderly man who has never held office and can't respond to a
question. He takes the topic, not the question, and extrapolates about
whatever he wants for five or so minutes. And pitches himself forward
and back in a rocking motion very often during this process making me
wonder about cognitive
issues.
Jill Stein did
nothing to build the party. Jill
was a loser in 2012 and she was a loser in 2016. Worse, she folded tent
and went home after both elections and couldn't be bothered with
working on building a party.
Nor
will Cornel. Cornel's got his own celebrity and fame to attend to. If
he should end up the nominee, he'll weaken the party (probably do some
sheep herding -- the way Jill did in 2012 -- but remember we never dare
question Dr. Jill) and leave it high and dry.
The
Green Party needs to put in a clause -- too late for this cycle -- so
that in 2028, the eventual nominee has to pledge to at least a year of
post-election day activity to work on building the party.
The
Green Party has great members. I really thought we'd be getting to the
point, for example, where Kat Swift would be a nominee.
But
remember, Green Party members, you're only there to vote. You're not
good enough, no matter how many years you've been a member of the party,
to win the nomination. They'd rather hand it to non-members.
Pathetic.
Watch
as The Merry Mariannes start to slowly -- with their lips moving --
read the writing on the wall and shift to Cornel! Or, as some of his
White supporters spell it -- in their Tweets and on their YOUTUBE
programs -- "Cornell." They're all about democracy, they claim.
And what's more democratic than someone repeatedly changing their party affiliation to run for president?
The
Green Party should not let Cornel turn them into a joke. But maybe
that's what they want to be? The eternal and holy fool of the US political
system?
Again,
I do not agree with Howie on Ukraine. But I will not spit on the work
he's done in the years since the 2020 election. Unlike everyone who
came before (even Cynthia), he didn't fold up and go home. He continued
to work. He wrote columns. More to the point, he did -- has done --
at least one video a week, every week, since the 2020 election
addressing Green Party issues. Wish he didn't think rooting for Ukraine
was a Green issue but he's addressed other issues as well.
Ralph didn't do that, no one but Howie did. Ralph also didn't become a Green.
And I don't know why you would have a Green Party for decades now and yet constantly go with outsiders.
In
fairness, Greens across the country are being very clear that Cornel is
going to have to campaign for the nomination and may or may not get
it. There is great anger about the backdoor dealings of Jill and
Ajamu. That is good news because tricksters in any political party
should not be welcome
Some
are not grasping what I'm saying in these comments about candidates.
Anyone who wants to run for office should. But I'm not here to pat your
back and tell you "good job." If you do a good job, I'll gladly note
it. Cornel has not done a good job -- and should be dancing with the
one who brung him (The People's Party). Marianne has not done a good
job. They can stay in the race as long as they want -- for Cornel, he's
looking at another year of campaigning. Maybe Kent Mesplay or Malik
Rahim will again seek the nomination or some others who are members --
and have been -- of The Green Party.
In
2000, as they pimped this is about building!, the Green Party got 2.7%
of the vote. The next cycle (2004), David Cobb couldn't even muster
1%. In 2008, Cynthia got .12% of the vote. In 2012, Jill got .36% of
the vote and 2016 she finally made it to 1%. Building the party?
Every
election has seen the nominee get a lower percentage of the vote than
Ralph. So maybe cut the nonsensical claim that Cornel's all about
building the party. We've heard that claim repeatedly and it didn't pan
out.
Let's
turn to the Republicans for a moment. Donald Trump is no longer the
only one willing to call out Doo-Doo Ron Ron De Santis. Kimberly Leonard (BUSINESS INSIDER) reports:
Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie dunked on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis this week over his bitter crusade against Walt Disney World as an example of the party wasting its time on "small" political issues.
Republicans,
he said, should instead be "arguing about and being daring" on policies
involving China, economic security, reducing the import of petroleum,
and expanding charter schools.
"What
we are wasting our time on is talking about, 'Is it OK for Disney to
oppose a bill in Florida and should they be penalized for it? And does
that prove you're really a tough guy or does it just prove that you're
not conservative in terms of the way you think government should
operate?" the former New Jersey governor told the "Ruthless" podcast in an interview that aired Monday, without using DeSantis' name.
If
Nikki Haley had the guts to call out Little Ronnie, she might see her
support increase. But as long as she plays it timid, she gives voters
every reason not to support her because no one votes for a weakling, a push over to become president.
Large majorities of U.S. adults across different racial, ethnic, and
religious identities oppose religious-based discrimination against
LGBTQ+ people, according to a new Williams Institute report.
Even majorities of Republicans oppose religious-based
anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, the report found. Its findings suggest that
Republican-led attacks on LGBTQ+ civil rights — many of which are
couched in religious terms — are actually opposed by most American
adults.
The data came from the Williams Institute’s September 2022 survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,003 adults.
Approximately 84% of survey respondents said they opposed
religious-based denials of healthcare to LGBTQ+ people, 74% opposed
religious-based anti-LGBTQ+ employment discrimination, and 71% opposed
business employees denying services to LGBTQ+ people based on the
employees or employer’s religious beliefs.
Over 80% of respondents in all non-white racial and ethnic groups
opposed the use of religious beliefs to deny LGBTQ+ people business
services, medical care, and employment. About 70% of white respondents
felt the same. Female, younger, or college-educated respondents were
also more likely to oppose religious-based anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination
than respondents who are men, older in age, or non-college educated.
A consultative process among Catholics around
the world has led the church to take steps to include women in
decision-making positions, accept “radical inclusion” of the LGBTQ+
community and change the authority of bishops Are. ,
The Vatican on Tuesday released a summary of
the consultation process, a project that has lasted two years and will
form the basis of discussions for a synod between bishops and laity in
October. The event, one of Pope Francis’ priorities, reflects his
vision of a Church oriented more toward the flock and not so much toward
the clergy.
Joni Ernst
is a Republican serving in the US Senate. Her office e-mailed the
following to the public account (and that is what it's for -- veterans
issues, Iraq, etc):
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), the first
female combat veteran elected to the U.S. Senate, is leading a
bipartisan charge to amend military records of female veterans who
deployed alongside Special Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to ensure they
accurately reflect their work as members of Cultural Support Teams
(CST). These female veterans shared similar operational experiences as
their male peers but have not been recognized for their combat service,
denying them rank, benefits, and critical healthcare services.
“Make no mistake – women have been wearing our nation’s uniform and
serving honorably in war zones long before our military removed the ban
on women serving in combat,” said Senator Joni Ernst. “As
the first female combat veteran to serve in the U.S. Senate, I’m proud
to fight for the hundreds of women who played critical roles in
Afghanistan and Iraq and ensure they receive the care and recognition
they have always deserved.”
Background:
Before female servicemembers were able to formally serve in combat
roles, CSTs were deployed to combat zones with Special Operations Forces
(SOF) in order to engage with female populations, greatly expanding
operational and intelligence capabilities.
This bipartisan effort would require the review of the military
records of CST women veterans who served from 2010 to 2021 in support of
Special Operations Forces. The bill is named the Jax Act after Jaclyn “Jax” Scott,
who served on a Cultural Support Team and has been leading the fight to
get female combat veterans the recognition and benefits they earned.
Senators Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) are leading the Jax Act alongside Senator Ernst.
No comments:
Post a Comment