WTF thought we ticket buyers wanted a movie with a late night setting?
We're relating to this crap how?
What does this have to do with our lives?
But it's about a young woman overcoming!!!!!
No, Mindy Kaling is 39 years old. She should have a job and a career set up long ago. If she didn't, that was the story. Not "Oh, I'll become a late night comedy writer!"
It's garbage, the whole f**king movie is garbage.
Ava and C.I. had a very good and apt critique of why Book Smart was going to fail. They said it before it came out and it ended up being true, didn't it? As they wrote in the gina & krista round-robin, "Who the f**k gives a s**t that Olivia Wilde has directed a movie? The studio thinks that's the selling point? That some actress who can't even star in a hit film has directed one -- that's now a selling point? It sinks Book Smart even further because it already seemed like little more than an empowerment lecture. Now they've added 'Olivia Wilde directs!' as an empty empowerment tag on top of an empty empowerment 'message'?"
Mindy writes a cookie cutter script about a world none of us honestly want to live in and that most of us actually don't.
And it's rah-rah-rah girl power!
It's not funny enough and the story is not strong enough.
I like Mindy, I like Emma. That's the only reason I paid money to see it. But I was bored. The only good thing was the meal Cedric and I had before the movie.
It's not a love story, it's not a hilarious comedy, it's nothing but a half-baked story of what's being passed off as empowerment.
For a non-White woman, Mindy sure writes like an entitled indivicual.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, June 14, 2019. Another push for war on Iran, 20 candidates
qualify for the Democratic Presidential candidates debates this month --
all six women made the cut, the press has used sexism repeatedly in the
coverage of female candidates -- including the coverage of Tulsi
Gabbard and Kirsten Gillibrand, and much more
In the United States, there are 24 candidates vying for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Of those 24, 20 have met the arbitrary rules of the DNC that will allow them to be on stage for the first debates. Remember, democracy requires restrictions -- per the DNC. The debates will take place in Miami over two nights -- June 26th and June 27th. Today, NBC will stage -- stage probably being the key term -- a drawing and the drawing will determine whether you take the stage on the 26th or the 27th.
Who made the cut?
REUTERS has a photo of all 24 and, from their caption, here are the 20 who made it:
U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Bennet; Former Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke, U.S. Representatives Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, Eric Swalwell, Tim Ryan, former HUD Secretary Julian Castro and former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Former Gov. John Hickenlooper, Gov. Jay Inslee, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.
And had I not been so impatient, I would have noticed that REUTERS gave a list of the 20 later in their piece.
Later?
It is news that four didn't make it. But the bigger news would be the 20 who did. I'm not a sports buff but when they have their draft picks, isn't the news who gets picked? When you have a spelling bee, you don't open with who didn't win. So I'm confused as to why you would bury the 20 and open with the four.
Here's another buried lede: Every woman, all six, running for the nomination qualified for the debates. That's historic. But, hey, media, look the other way yet again.
Hopefully, if you're vested in the race, you saw your personal choice or choices in the list above. Here's the four who did not make the cut: US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Seth Moulton, former US Senator Mike Gravel, the Governor of Montana Steve Bullock and, from Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam.
Some outlets insist that this is the end of the road for those four. That doesn't have to be the case. Already, Bullock is speaking out against the decision process. When he does that, he's speaking to anyone and everyone who's ever been cheated out of something for arbitrary reasons -- actually a large pool of people -- and he's speaking for his supporters and the supporters of the other three left out. He could gain some traction that way. Seth started his campaign very late and he's often spoken of how that might mean he doesn't qualify for the first debates. Point being, he could qualify for later ones if he stays in the race. Mike Gravel has a lively campaign that could overcome this and use it to fuel further actions. Wayne Messan's the only one I'd be concerned about. He has not gained traction. Even his Tweets have tended to underwhelm. That said, this decision not to allow him on stage might be the fuel that forces him to go deeper and he may end up at the next debates.
The debates after June? Just because the 20 qualified does not mean that they will qualify for the next debate. The DNC is making rules up as it goes along. Didn't they get in trouble for that last time? Or are we pretending that siding with one candidate before the primaries even start is one of the DNC rules?
At any rate, 20 made the cut for the first round.
One of the twenty is US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard. Yesterday, she took part in a WASHINGTON POST online event. Robert Costa (WASHINGTON POST) distorts, attacks and slimes her:
The leader of the United States has to be prepared to meet with any leader. In May 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama was asked, he made clear that he would meet with the leaders of 'rouge nations' and that he would do so without preconditions. From POLITIFACT:
"Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
"I would," Obama said. "And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous."
His position was debated (including here) but the only ones attacking him for it and maligning him for it were the right-wing press (led by THE NATIONAL REVIEW). Eleven years later, Tulsi gets attacked and distorted for putting into practice what Barack supported.
And can someone explain to Howard Dean -- one of the great fake asses of all time -- that he needs to close his blowhole? No woman needs to hear Howard's opinions of their actions. The fat ass sat on the sidelines allowing rampant sexism in 2008 when Hillary Clinton was a candidate and waited until she was no longer in the race to finally recognize sexism. He was the Chair of the DNC. He had nothing to say about women when it mattered so he should probably shut his damn mouth about women now.
And shame on women who have looked the other way as Tulsi has been attacked. She's a stronger candidate than most of the men in the race -- and I can't think of a man that's stronger than her -- maybe as strong. And yet women have allowed Tulsi to be attacked and have joined in the attacks. That's Bitch Whoring, not sisterhood.
We're the only ones, right here, in this space, who've noted that Tulsi was being treated in a sexist manner by the press. They didn't treat her the way they did veterans Mayor Pete and Seth. They treated her as 'the girl.' And thank you to friends in the press who responded to that critique because I do see some improvement from those I spoke with about it..
But this is beyond crazy. A flock of women on Twitter pretend to care about women and feminism but they either join in the attacks on Tulsi or they stay silent. That is outrageous.
Or maybe it's just a lot of 'brave' bitches are just chicken s**t scared? In 2008, most of these Alyssa Milanos weren't around defending Hillary from sexism. Those of us who were have the bruises and scars. Those of us who defended Hillary from sexism made a difference -- as did Hillary in 2008.
Why a bunch of useless 'women' want to whine about this or that but don't want to defend a serious candidate from sexist coverage is beyond me.
I'm not talking even about supporting her campaign, you can back whichever candidate you choose to. I'm talking about calling out sexism to ensure that it ends. Some of the crap that was pulled on Hillary in 2007 and 2008 is never going to be pulled on a female candidate again because it was specifically called out. You want to help all women? Tell the media to stop the sexism against Tulsi or any other woman seeking the presidential nomination.
On Thursdays, we note women in Congress and the actions they emphasize. That's a regular feature here. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is always included on that. We're noting here something already noted last night but it's an important issue and one we've long noted here:
Assault in the military is one of those things that is supposed to end but doesn't. I'm not a big fan of former Senator Claire McCaskill but I do give her credit for calling out the nonsense the US military was pimping not all that long ago. They were steering victims of rape and assault into non-disclosure avenues. This was to help the survivors, the brass maintained. Bulls**t, it was to hide as many assaults and rapes as they could. Claire called that b.s. out for what it was. I part with her where Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and many assault survivors did as Claire became a little too cozy with the brass. But this nonsense has been going on forever and a day and it's not ending. Why? It's the culture. I'm not referring to the culture of violence or a culture that devalues women -- though, yes, those cultures exist in the military -- I am referring to a culture of we-don't-answer-to-you.
Yes, you do. It's why there is civilian control over the military.
And the military's refusal to seriously address this issue should result in people demanding not only results on this issue but equal justice. The military has refused to fix their problem so let's turn it over to civilian courts. Military justice has always been a joke. Let's turn these matters over to the civilian courts so that this little pet of that little general doesn't get away with a crime.
There should never be a Suzanne Swift to begin with. Command rape? We have to discuss that this is wrong and against military guidelines?
I'm sorry, where did that issue get confusing? What was the quandary there?
And, in the end, who gets punished?
Suzanne. She self-checks out. Because the people in charge will not address what took place.
I'm sorry, in what world do we tell a rape survivor that she has to remain in the same unit as her rapist?
The military is happy to punish women who speak out after being assaulted and raped. It's just not too keen on punishing those who carry out the assaults.
Ask anyone working on this issue seriously for service women and veterans and they'll tell you Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is a real fighter on this issue because she has been.
And when I see various male reporters and some women (Queen Bees) basically ridiculing her for her focus on 'women's issues,' I see sexism. These are serious issues. And they need to be addressed. That they need to be addressed is outrageous, I agree. In 2019, these issues should be settled. But they aren't. And we need people like Kirsten who step up and lead on these issues.
She will be on the stage in the June debates and that is a very good thing.
And, in fact, please register this reality: Six women are among the 24 candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. All six women -- Tulsi, Kirsten, Marianne Williamson, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar -- qualified for the debates.
Take a moment to take pride in that. You don't have to support any of their campaigns, but let's happily embrace the reality that the 2020 race has included more female candidates than ever before and that every declared female candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination ,made the debates. Those arbitrary hurdles were tough -- four candidates weren't able to make the debates. So let's applaud the fact that six strong women qualified.
Again, you don't have to vote for one of them to be proud that the six show strength, courage and leadership.
We need leadership. Some are pushing for war on Iran, we need leadership now more than ever.
(By the way, that POST attack on Tulsi, would have been the perfect time for the paper to have noted that they presented a gas attack as carried out by the Syrian government and we now know for a fact that was a lie.)
Jake Johnson (ICH) reports:
In a press conference that immediately evoked memories of the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday claimed Iran was behind alleged attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman without presenting one single shred of evidence.
"This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high-degree of sophistication," said Pompeo, who did not provide any details on the intelligence he cited.
After asserting Iran was also behind a litany of attacks prior to Thursday's tanker incident—once again without presenting any evidence—Pompeo said that,"Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace and security."
Pompeo—who has a long history of making false claims about Iran—did not take any questions from reporters following his remarks, which were aired live on America's major television networks.
"Mike Pompeo has zero credibility when it comes to Iran," Jon Rainwater, executive director of Peace Action, told Common Dreams. "He's long been actively campaigning for a confrontation with Iran. He has a track record of pushing bogus theories with no evidence such as the idea that Iran collaborates closely with al-Qaeda."
History repeats.
In the United States, there are 24 candidates vying for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Of those 24, 20 have met the arbitrary rules of the DNC that will allow them to be on stage for the first debates. Remember, democracy requires restrictions -- per the DNC. The debates will take place in Miami over two nights -- June 26th and June 27th. Today, NBC will stage -- stage probably being the key term -- a drawing and the drawing will determine whether you take the stage on the 26th or the 27th.
Who made the cut?
REUTERS has a photo of all 24 and, from their caption, here are the 20 who made it:
U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Bennet; Former Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke, U.S. Representatives Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, Eric Swalwell, Tim Ryan, former HUD Secretary Julian Castro and former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Former Gov. John Hickenlooper, Gov. Jay Inslee, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.
And had I not been so impatient, I would have noticed that REUTERS gave a list of the 20 later in their piece.
Later?
It is news that four didn't make it. But the bigger news would be the 20 who did. I'm not a sports buff but when they have their draft picks, isn't the news who gets picked? When you have a spelling bee, you don't open with who didn't win. So I'm confused as to why you would bury the 20 and open with the four.
Here's another buried lede: Every woman, all six, running for the nomination qualified for the debates. That's historic. But, hey, media, look the other way yet again.
Hopefully, if you're vested in the race, you saw your personal choice or choices in the list above. Here's the four who did not make the cut: US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Seth Moulton, former US Senator Mike Gravel, the Governor of Montana Steve Bullock and, from Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam.
Some outlets insist that this is the end of the road for those four. That doesn't have to be the case. Already, Bullock is speaking out against the decision process. When he does that, he's speaking to anyone and everyone who's ever been cheated out of something for arbitrary reasons -- actually a large pool of people -- and he's speaking for his supporters and the supporters of the other three left out. He could gain some traction that way. Seth started his campaign very late and he's often spoken of how that might mean he doesn't qualify for the first debates. Point being, he could qualify for later ones if he stays in the race. Mike Gravel has a lively campaign that could overcome this and use it to fuel further actions. Wayne Messan's the only one I'd be concerned about. He has not gained traction. Even his Tweets have tended to underwhelm. That said, this decision not to allow him on stage might be the fuel that forces him to go deeper and he may end up at the next debates.
The debates after June? Just because the 20 qualified does not mean that they will qualify for the next debate. The DNC is making rules up as it goes along. Didn't they get in trouble for that last time? Or are we pretending that siding with one candidate before the primaries even start is one of the DNC rules?
At any rate, 20 made the cut for the first round.
One of the twenty is US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard. Yesterday, she took part in a WASHINGTON POST online event. Robert Costa (WASHINGTON POST) distorts, attacks and slimes her:
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), an Iraq War veteran
who is running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination,
forcefully defended her foreign policy positions on Thursday, dismissing
“neocon war hawks” who have supported increased U.S. military
intervention abroad and encouraging engagement with Russia and Syria on
counterterrorism efforts.
Those views have drawn
attention to Gabbard’s White House bid from antiwar voters, from
war-weary liberals to libertarian conservatives who are unhappy with the GOP establishment. They have also been criticized by some Democrats, who believe the United States should take a hard line on Russia and on Syria, which has used chemical weapons in the country’s eight-year conflict and committed human-rights abuses, according to watchdog groups and the United Nations.
Gabbard, in an interview at a Washington Post Live event,
did not waver from positions that have put her outside of the
mainstream of her party. She argued that the United States could
“perhaps” work with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian
President Vladimir Putin in the coming years to counter the rise of
Al-Qaeda-linked fighters and other terrorists in the Middle East.
“There are others within the region who share that objective. I think that we should be working with them,” Gabbard said.
The leader of the United States has to be prepared to meet with any leader. In May 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama was asked, he made clear that he would meet with the leaders of 'rouge nations' and that he would do so without preconditions. From POLITIFACT:
"Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
"I would," Obama said. "And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous."
His position was debated (including here) but the only ones attacking him for it and maligning him for it were the right-wing press (led by THE NATIONAL REVIEW). Eleven years later, Tulsi gets attacked and distorted for putting into practice what Barack supported.
And can someone explain to Howard Dean -- one of the great fake asses of all time -- that he needs to close his blowhole? No woman needs to hear Howard's opinions of their actions. The fat ass sat on the sidelines allowing rampant sexism in 2008 when Hillary Clinton was a candidate and waited until she was no longer in the race to finally recognize sexism. He was the Chair of the DNC. He had nothing to say about women when it mattered so he should probably shut his damn mouth about women now.
And shame on women who have looked the other way as Tulsi has been attacked. She's a stronger candidate than most of the men in the race -- and I can't think of a man that's stronger than her -- maybe as strong. And yet women have allowed Tulsi to be attacked and have joined in the attacks. That's Bitch Whoring, not sisterhood.
We're the only ones, right here, in this space, who've noted that Tulsi was being treated in a sexist manner by the press. They didn't treat her the way they did veterans Mayor Pete and Seth. They treated her as 'the girl.' And thank you to friends in the press who responded to that critique because I do see some improvement from those I spoke with about it..
But this is beyond crazy. A flock of women on Twitter pretend to care about women and feminism but they either join in the attacks on Tulsi or they stay silent. That is outrageous.
Or maybe it's just a lot of 'brave' bitches are just chicken s**t scared? In 2008, most of these Alyssa Milanos weren't around defending Hillary from sexism. Those of us who were have the bruises and scars. Those of us who defended Hillary from sexism made a difference -- as did Hillary in 2008.
Why a bunch of useless 'women' want to whine about this or that but don't want to defend a serious candidate from sexist coverage is beyond me.
I'm not talking even about supporting her campaign, you can back whichever candidate you choose to. I'm talking about calling out sexism to ensure that it ends. Some of the crap that was pulled on Hillary in 2007 and 2008 is never going to be pulled on a female candidate again because it was specifically called out. You want to help all women? Tell the media to stop the sexism against Tulsi or any other woman seeking the presidential nomination.
On Thursdays, we note women in Congress and the actions they emphasize. That's a regular feature here. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is always included on that. We're noting here something already noted last night but it's an important issue and one we've long noted here:
June 13, 2019
After Recent Department of Defense Report Highlights Its Continued Failure to Address Crisis of Military Sexual Assault, Gillibrand Leads Bipartisan Group of Senators to Reintroduce Military Justice Improvement Act and Calls On Congress to Act
Gillibrand’s Renewed Push Follows Shocking DoD Report Showing Sexual Assaults in the Military Dramatically Increased While the Number of Cases Going to Trial Went Down; Five Years After Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey Said Military Was ‘On the Clock’ to Fix Military Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault Remains Pervasive and Many Service Members Still Have Little Faith in the System; Bipartisan Legislation Would Create Impartial, Fair, and Accountable Military Justice System
Washington, DC –
U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the ranking member of the
Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, today led a bipartisan
group of Senators to reintroduce the Military Justice Improvement Act, which
would professionalize how the military prosecutes serious crimes by
moving the decision over whether to prosecute them to independent,
trained, professional military prosecutors. According to the Department
of Defense’s own data in this year’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) report, there
were an estimated 20,500 instances of sexual assault – a massive
increase over the 14,900 estimated in the previous 2016 survey. The
number of women in the military who experienced sexual assault increased
by 50%, from 8,600 in FY2016 to 13,000 in FY2018. In fact, by DoD’s own
admission, the odds of young service women experiencing a sexual
assault is one in eight, yet commanders have sent fewer cases to trial –
from 588 in FY2014, to 389 in FY2016, to 307 in FY2018.
“Our nation’s military leaders have
spent decades promising ‘zero tolerance’ on sexual assault, but it’s
painfully clear that they’ve failed at that mission. The Pentagon, by
its own admission, is out of time – and should now be out of excuses,” said Senator Gillibrand. “For
years, survivor after survivor has told us the change we need to make
in the military justice system to end the scourge of sexual assault in
our military – the same change that some of our allies all around the
world have already made: move the decision to try these crimes outside
of the chain of command to trained military prosecutors. The Department
of Defense has tried incremental reforms, but they clearly haven’t
worked. Sexual assault is still pervasive – in fact the latest DoD
numbers show that sexual assaults in the military have dramatically
increased while the number of cases going to trial has gone down. None
of this is acceptable. It’s long past time for Congress to step up and
create accountability where the DoD has failed. That is how we will
finally give our men and women in uniform a justice system that is fair,
professional, and actually works.”
Five years ago, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, said the military was “on the clock” to
fix military sexual assault, and indicated it would be right to bring a
bill back to the floor in a year if they hadn’t solved the problem. In
the years since, incremental reforms have been implemented yet sexual
assault in the military has remained pervasive and dramatically
increased over the last two years, with many service members still
having little faith in the military justice system.
The Military Justice Improvement Act would
professionalize how the military prosecutes serious crimes like sexual
assault, which would help remove the systemic fear that survivors of
military sexual assault describe in deciding whether to report the
crimes committed against them. This legislation would remove the sole
decision-making authority over whether serious crimes are prosecuted
from the military chain-of-command and give it to independent, trained
military prosecutors. Uniquely military crimes, such as a soldier going
AWOL, and other non-judicial and administrative remedies would stay
within the chain of command.
Specifically, the Military Justice Improvement Act would do the following:
· Grant
the authority to send criminal charges to trial (disposition authority)
to designated judge advocates (military lawyers) in the rank of O-6 or
higher who possess significant criminal justice experience.
· Ensure that judge advocates vested with disposition authority would
· Be outside the chain of command of the accused.
· Exercise professional prosecutorial judgment when deciding whether to proceed to court martial.
· Render decisions to proceed to trial free from conflicts of interest.
In addition to Senator Gillibrand, this
legislation is cosponsored by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Tammy
Duckworth (D-IL), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dick
Durbin (D-IL), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Michael Bennet
(D-CO), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ron Wyden
(D-OR), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI),
Chris Coons (D-DE), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom
Udall (D-NM), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Lisa Murkowski
(R-AK), Tina Smith (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bernie Sanders (I-VT),
Bob Casey (D-PA), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rand Paul (R-KY), Kamala Harris
(D-CA), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM).
“Justice is a founding principle
enshrined in the Constitution. Those who have dedicated themselves to
protecting and defending the Constitution as part of the armed forces
deserve justice as much as anyone else. But their fidelity has been
betrayed by a system that discourages reporting of sexual assault and
far too often fails to punish perpetrators. This is the fourth Congress
I’ve supported this legislation. It’s time for it to become law. We owe
it to the heroes who put their lives on the line in service to their
country and ask for so little in return,” said Senator Grassley.
“The
military has failed to address the sexual assault crisis, letting
victims down and harming our military’s readiness, recruitment and
retention efforts. Unfortunately, far too many of our men and women in
uniform do not trust they’ll get the justice they deserve if they pursue
it through the current system,” said combat Veteran and Senator Tammy Duckworth. “As
a former commander of an assault helicopter company, it’s become clear
to me that we need to pass meaningful reforms to bring more perpetrators
to justice and ensure survivors have the resources and support they
need to heal and be able to resume the careers they dreamt about from
the time they entered the military. I’m proud to have worked with
Senator Gillibrand on her new Military Justice Improvement Act, which
will help deliver justice to survivors without sacrificing military
commanders’ abilities to maintain discipline within their unit at home
or while deployed.”
“Sexual assault is one of the most
under-reported crimes in the nation, and recent data shows that
incidents are increasing at an alarming rate in the military. Service
members need to have confidence that if they come forward, justice will
be pursued without retribution or stigma,” said Senator Shaheen. “This
legislation will empower military prosecutors with the authority they
need to step outside of the military chain of command’s decision-making
power for the most serious crimes, helping to ensure perpetrators are
held accountable for their crimes and that survivors are treated fairly
and shielded from retaliation. No service member should be intimidated
out of reporting an assault – I urge Leader McConnell to bring this bill
up for a vote so we can protect and support our service members seeking
justice.”
“I’ve been deeply moved by the
courageous accounts of military sexual assault survivors whose bravery
reminds us that this horrific crime is all too common. The current
system for prosecuting these heinous crimes is simply inadequate, even
as reported assaults have increased dramatically. We have much more work
to do to ensure survivors, in and out of uniform, have access to the
support they need and the fair and effective justice system they
deserve. It ought to renew and reinvigorate our push to protect all of
our military men and women from these horrific crimes,” said Senator Blumenthal.
“The brave men and women who serve our
country should not fear retaliation from their peers and superior
officers when they report sexual assault and harassment. Sexual assault
in the military is a serious crime, and personal bias or conflicts of
interest from their fellow service members should not prevent survivors
from getting the justice they deserve,” said Senator Hirono. “The
Military Justice Improvement Act would put the decision to pursue these
serious crimes in the hands of trained and professional military
prosecutors, and ensure that survivors of sexual assault are not
victimized again when they report military crimes. This legislation
takes a critical step towards changing the culture surrounding sexual
assault and harassment, and I urge my colleagues to support and pass
this measure.”
“Sexual harassment and assault cannot
be tolerated in our society, whether it’s in the military, at home, in
the executive suite, or anywhere else,” said Senator Heinrich. “We
must take serious steps to address this issue head on. This legislation
that Senator Gillibrand has tirelessly pursued since I came to the
Senate will make our Armed Services stronger. I am proud to cosponsor
the Military Justice Improvement Act to create a military justice system
that holds perpetrators accountable and cultivate a safer, more
respectful environment for our servicemembers.”
“The current military justice system is failing servicemembers who have experienced sexual assault crimes,” said Senator Warren. “Servicemembers
have had enough of the same vague commitments – it’s time for real
structural change to ensure justice for survivors.”
“The stark reality is that far too many
sexual assault victims serving in the military claim to have faced some
sort of retaliation for reporting the crime. It’s obvious the current
justice system is not protecting members of the military that fall
victim to these heinous crimes,” said Senator Murkowski. “In
the unfortunate event that a serviceman or servicewoman falls victim to
sexual assault or sexual harassment, they must have the opportunity to
seek justice in a fair and unbiased environment. I am proud to join my
colleagues in support of legislation that protects the rights of
military sexual assault survivors by requiring military professionals
outside of the victim's chain of command to make the decisions regarding
their case. Every victim deserves justice and ability to speak up – we
need to ensure these terrible crimes are not swept under the rug.”
“Every American deserves a fair justice
system. Yet we still have military sexual assault and harassment
reports that are not properly investigated, and in many cases survivors
are reprimanded for speaking out,” said Senator Merkley. “It’s
past time for Congress to pass this bipartisan legislation so we can
make critical improvements to the process under which these cases are
reviewed. These brave Americans serve their country, and we must do
everything we can to ensure they do so with safety and accountability.”
“Too many sexual assault victims in the
military remain silent because they do not trust the military justice
system to hold their perpetrators accountable and protect them from
retaliation,” said Senator Coons. “The
failure of our military to prevent sexual assault remains
unacceptable. I support this carefully crafted legislation because we
need to remove any appearance of bias from the ways in which accusations
of sexual assault are handled in our armed forces. This
legislation will help ensure victims have the confidence to come forward
to report crimes. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to pass this important legislation.”
“Service members who’ve been victims of
sexual assault should not have to fear retaliation for bravely coming
forward and seeking justice,” said Senator Menendez. “It’s
clear that we need to do more to ensure that our military justice
system is both providing protection and fairness that survivors deserve,
and is holding the perpetrators who’ve committed these violent crimes
accountable for their actions.”
“As a former prosecutor, I know how
important it is to have strong policies in place to combat sexual
assault, and the military is no exception. Our legislation will improve
the system for reporting and prosecuting sexual assault in the military
and support survivors throughout the process. Our men and women in
uniform put their lives on the line fighting for our country—we must
make sure each one of them has trust and respect within their own
ranks,” said Senator Klobuchar.
“I am grateful to the victims who have
had the bravery to come forward, but there are still far too many
service members who feel they cannot report an assault without adverse
consequences to their careers,” said Senator Brown. “We
need to do everything we can to root out this problem, starting with a
military justice system that holds perpetrators accountable and creates a
safer environment for our nation’s heroes.”
“Women and men who honorably serve our
nation deserve our utmost respect, and part of our responsibility to
look out for them means ensuring there are systems in place to get
justice for victims of sexual assault in the military,” said Senator Smith. “We
owe it to those who make sacrifices for our nation to have systems in
place so victims do not live in fear of coming forward, and they know
there is a system of justice in place that will work for them.”
“The Military justice Improvement Act
is a critical step toward creating a safer environment and more reliable
system of accountability and survivor services for military survivors
of sexual assault. I stand ready to work with my colleagues in the
Senate to seek justice for survivors,” said Senator Casey.
“Sexual assault is a horrific wrong, and, tragically, it has proven far too pervasive in our armed forces,” said Senator Cruz. “We
have a solemn obligation to protect the young women and men in the
military, and to keep all of them safe from sexual violence. Decades of
experience have shown that, under the status quo, far too many victims
of assault are reluctant to come forward because they fear their
attackers will not be prosecuted. That’s why, for many years, I’ve
joined with Sen. Gillibrand to help lead this bipartisan effort to
ensure sexual assault cases are handled by career military prosecutors —
to honor our commitment to every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine —
and its why I’m proud to do so again.”
“We must speak the truth that past
efforts to protect our men and women in uniform from sexual assault have
failed, and we must change the system,” said Senator Harris. “As
a former prosecutor, I’ve seen up close how painful it can be for
survivors to come forward with an accusation—we owe them a fair and
impartial opportunity to seek justice. I’m proud to be a part of this
bipartisan effort to reform the military justice system to better
protect all service members and support survivors.”
“Our men and women who serve need the
confidence that the justice system is pursuing justice. While our
military is full of many great leaders who are working hard to change
military culture, the fact remains that in our country justice is
expected to be an impartial process administered by professionals
outside of the chain of command. The victims, and those accused,
deserve that system,” said Senator Leahy.
“Protect Our Defenders proudly supports
the Military Justice Improvement Act. Despite decades of promises from
military leadership to end the scourge of military sexual assault, the
crisis has only worsened,” said Don Christensen, President of Protect Our Defenders. “While
the rate of sexual assault continues to climb, prosecutions under the
commander controlled system have plummeted. Quite simply, the status quo
has failed. By empowering military prosecutors, MJIA will bring
accountability for those who commit these heinous crimes and justice for
survivors.”
“The lack of substantive progress in
addressing the pervasiveness of sexual assault in our nation's military
is unacceptable and a matter that requires immediate and decisive
redress. The failure to protect survivors and ebb these unspeakable
crimes reflect poorly on our military and erodes the public confidence
in the institution,” said Jeremy Butler, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). “IAVA's
2019 membership survey revealed a shocking 61% of veterans believed the
DoD is not effectively addressing this crisis. We commend Senator
Gillibrand's long-standing commitment to this critical issue.”
“At SWAN we hear from and work with
survivors on a daily basis. Their stories are always similar. If they
decide to come forward and report they are generally not believed; they
are seen as creating a problem where none existed before and they almost
always suffer retaliation. They consistently tell us that their
commanders failed them in profound ways,” said Dr. Ellen Haring, Colonel, CEO of Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), US Army (retired). “As
a former Commander I can tell you that I would not want to have to
decide if or when to move forward with the investigation of a sex crime
because I know that my knowledge and expertise in this area is limited
and that any JAG officer assigned to my command as an adviser would be a
generalist. Furthermore, there are simply too many possible conflicts
of interest for Commanders to be the best decision makers in sex crime
cases not to mention the fact that there are Commanders themselves who
have been perpetrators.”
Emily Martin, Vice President for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center said, “Women
join the military to serve and protect their country—not to be sexually
assaulted. But it’s a cruel reality that far too many women in the
military are sexually assaulted on the job. And for the one in three who
reports their abuse, little is done to stop it and they face routine
retaliation by their commander and cohorts for speaking up. Senator
Gillibrand’s Military Justice Improvement Act of 2019 would attack the
scourge of military sexual violence by removing prosecution authority
over sexual assault from commanders. This inherent conflict of interest
that shields perpetrators from facing the consequences of their abuse
must end.”
“Inaction on MJIA leaves military
commanders trapped in an impossible position. In my Marine Corps
service, I witnessed first hand how the actions of my commander in the
aftermath of a sexual assault tore apart cohesion, trust, and discipline
within my unit. We need to place these decisions in the hands of expert
prosecutors, allowing commanders to focus on their mission, where their
expertise lies. The status quo is unsustainable, and there can be no
more excuses. The more than 125,000 members of Common Defense call upon
every Senator who supports justice for our troops and
mission-effectiveness for our military to support the bi-partisan
Military Justice Improvement Act. We see this vote as a critical, moral
test of whether our representatives stand with everyday service members
and veterans like us,” said Alexander McCoy, USMC Veteran Sergeant, Political Director of Common Defense.
“As not only a Military Sexual Assault
Survivor, but as a former Commanding Officer of Navy War Ship, it is my
belief the some crimes are so heinous, so serious, that they need to be
handled by trained professional military judges. While the military has
made some strides in combating sexual assault over the last few years,
it still remains a pervasive problem that is not consistently addressed
adequately at the command level. Sending these felonies to a
professionalized military judicial system, out side of the victims and
accused chain of command, demonstrates how seriously this crime is
taken, that perpetrators will not be allowed to get away with these
crimes, and re-emphasizes to countless victims that they will be taken
seriously and treated with respect,” said Lieutenant Commander Erin Elliott, United States Navy.
Assault in the military is one of those things that is supposed to end but doesn't. I'm not a big fan of former Senator Claire McCaskill but I do give her credit for calling out the nonsense the US military was pimping not all that long ago. They were steering victims of rape and assault into non-disclosure avenues. This was to help the survivors, the brass maintained. Bulls**t, it was to hide as many assaults and rapes as they could. Claire called that b.s. out for what it was. I part with her where Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and many assault survivors did as Claire became a little too cozy with the brass. But this nonsense has been going on forever and a day and it's not ending. Why? It's the culture. I'm not referring to the culture of violence or a culture that devalues women -- though, yes, those cultures exist in the military -- I am referring to a culture of we-don't-answer-to-you.
Yes, you do. It's why there is civilian control over the military.
And the military's refusal to seriously address this issue should result in people demanding not only results on this issue but equal justice. The military has refused to fix their problem so let's turn it over to civilian courts. Military justice has always been a joke. Let's turn these matters over to the civilian courts so that this little pet of that little general doesn't get away with a crime.
There should never be a Suzanne Swift to begin with. Command rape? We have to discuss that this is wrong and against military guidelines?
I'm sorry, where did that issue get confusing? What was the quandary there?
And, in the end, who gets punished?
Suzanne. She self-checks out. Because the people in charge will not address what took place.
I'm sorry, in what world do we tell a rape survivor that she has to remain in the same unit as her rapist?
The military is happy to punish women who speak out after being assaulted and raped. It's just not too keen on punishing those who carry out the assaults.
Ask anyone working on this issue seriously for service women and veterans and they'll tell you Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is a real fighter on this issue because she has been.
And when I see various male reporters and some women (Queen Bees) basically ridiculing her for her focus on 'women's issues,' I see sexism. These are serious issues. And they need to be addressed. That they need to be addressed is outrageous, I agree. In 2019, these issues should be settled. But they aren't. And we need people like Kirsten who step up and lead on these issues.
She will be on the stage in the June debates and that is a very good thing.
And, in fact, please register this reality: Six women are among the 24 candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. All six women -- Tulsi, Kirsten, Marianne Williamson, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar -- qualified for the debates.
Take a moment to take pride in that. You don't have to support any of their campaigns, but let's happily embrace the reality that the 2020 race has included more female candidates than ever before and that every declared female candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination ,made the debates. Those arbitrary hurdles were tough -- four candidates weren't able to make the debates. So let's applaud the fact that six strong women qualified.
Again, you don't have to vote for one of them to be proud that the six show strength, courage and leadership.
We need leadership. Some are pushing for war on Iran, we need leadership now more than ever.
(By the way, that POST attack on Tulsi, would have been the perfect time for the paper to have noted that they presented a gas attack as carried out by the Syrian government and we now know for a fact that was a lie.)
Jake Johnson (ICH) reports:
In a press conference that immediately evoked memories of the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday claimed Iran was behind alleged attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman without presenting one single shred of evidence.
"This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high-degree of sophistication," said Pompeo, who did not provide any details on the intelligence he cited.
After asserting Iran was also behind a litany of attacks prior to Thursday's tanker incident—once again without presenting any evidence—Pompeo said that,"Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace and security."
Pompeo—who has a long history of making false claims about Iran—did not take any questions from reporters following his remarks, which were aired live on America's major television networks.
"Mike Pompeo has zero credibility when it comes to Iran," Jon Rainwater, executive director of Peace Action, told Common Dreams. "He's long been actively campaigning for a confrontation with Iran. He has a track record of pushing bogus theories with no evidence such as the idea that Iran collaborates closely with al-Qaeda."
History repeats.
"Remember the Maine!" and US lies about being attacked start wars!
If only war were on NETFLIX -- it would get cancelled after three seasons. Instead, we have never-ending wars that go on forever these days.
Iraq's already been destroyed. Can it really take more destruction if the US uses it as a staging platform for war on Iran?
The following sites updated:
