Meanwhile Mel went to Mexico to meet up with her father Ray. (Ray is not Macy's father -- she, Mel and Maggie share the same mother but Macy's father is a demon Maggie was raised with Ray as her father but he's not her biological father as she recently discovered.) And Maggie was convinced she was dying. She was in pain and burning. And then she began having blurry vision. Jordan showed up and got her to do some slow breathing. He thought it was a panic attack. She said it was like a magical neurotoxin. He disagreed and began probing what was going on when the attack hit. She said she and Maggie were talking about Ray "but he doesn't have that kind of power over me."
While Macy was out of it, Harry tried to escape. Meanwhile Maggie brought Ray back from Mexico. Ray's been working on finding out information about The Faction -- that's the group that had Harry and is battling to either destroy or steal magic.
As Harry is escaping, he passes a series of photos and sees himself with Maggie.
Macy is in the club and some guy comes up who somehow knows her (they're in a class together) and he slaps her ass. She tells him, "Don't ever touch me again" and without realizing it sends a flame at him that catches his shirt on fire.
Ray knows about the ring of forty stones -- it's in Brazil. So Mel and Ray head to Brazil.
Harry goes back to Macy after seeing the photos. He finds her still on the floor but with her nose now bleeding.
Macy's still remembering what happened in the past. She's talking to her father after the club and she tells him about what happened. ''I got mad, really mad. I lost control and then there was fire. Fire came out of my hands, Dad. Am I crazy?"
He tells her, "You're tired. You've had a lot to drink. Why don't you just lay down and we'll talk about it later."
She does but she wakes up to him on the phone telling someone to get over there because "that thing we always worried would happen? It happened."
Brazil is a bust for Mel and Ray. Maggie's not surprised. She says Harry was drugged and confused and what he actually heard was, "Fort Easton Power Site."
Meanwhile, Macy starts convulsing. Jordan calls Macy and Harry accidentally answers -- he doesn't know what a cell phone is. Jordan tells him to get her on her side and he's on his way.
Macy's dad takes her to a room where a sheet is hanging. He tells her someone will answer her questions "but whatever you do, do not look on the other side of this sheet."
Woman: Hello Macy.
Macy: Do I know you?
Woman: No, sweetheart but you spent the last 20 years of your life wishing that you did because you see I'm your mother.
Macy tries to charge at the sheet but her father stops her.
What's going on? Mom says, "Many things but right now the only thing that matters is that you are my daughter and I love you so much." Mom brings Harry over to wipe Macy's memory. Why tell her anything if you're going to wipe it? Why even show up?
The spell Macy was doing had a risk of unearthing Harry's painful memories but instead it ended up unearthing her painful memories. Why? Harry has a magic blocker inserted behind his ear. Jordan discovered the scar.
At the power plant, Maggie, Mel and Ray discover that there's a demo that will take place. A man thinks they are early for it. The actual people invited are at the front of the power plant and have discovered that the security guards are out.
Jordan removes the blocker and Harry remembers everything. He uses his White Lighter powers to revive her.
She and Harry hug.
And he asks her where the sisters are? She tells him and he grabs her arm and tells her they have to get there. He tries to orb them both but it doesn't work. He says he must have more of that poison in him then he knew.
At the power plant - "lockdown iniated.'' This happens after they see this huge tank filled with cages -- like the cage Harry was in last episode.
Julian has called the lockdown and he shows up with his goons. He wants to know why Maggie is there and she replies, "I could ask you the same thing but everyone always knows the handsome billionaire is always the bad guy."
She throws a potion and they go through the worm hole back to their base. But, as Mel points out, I think it was Mel, "Now he knows what we are and where we are which means Safe Space is no longer safe."
Then we get a resolution to the episode with everyone on watch for what will happen next and with Macy asking Harry to dance with her -- which he does.
May 1st? Is that the next episode? That's what they said in the preview for the next one -- which would be the season finale. Julian's putting up witch detectors all over the place in an attempt to track the sisters down.
Maggie gets upset with Ray and she's got a new power -- she can put that off on others -- as she did with the two security guards guarding the power plant.
Meanwhile
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, April 17, 2020. Biden Bullies are getting desperate in their attempts to silence and ignore Tara Reade.
Joseph Kishore is running for the presidency of the United States. He is representing the SEP. At WSWS, he notes:
In the days after formally ending his campaign and endorsing Joe Biden, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has intensified his efforts to dragoon his supporters into backing the right-wing standard bearer of the Democratic Party establishment.
In an interview with the Associated Press published on Tuesday, Sanders slandered as “irresponsible” any of his supporters who do not campaign for Biden. “Do we be as active as we can in electing Joe Biden and doing everything we can to move Joe and his campaign in a more progressive direction?” he asked. “Or do we choose to sit out and allow the most dangerous president in modern American history to get reelected?”
There is widespread anger and opposition among workers and youth to Sanders’ craven capitulation to Biden in a livestreamed eventon Monday. Sanders’ response is to declare: “I believe that it’s irresponsible for anybody to say, ‘Well, I disagree with Joe Biden—I disagree with Joe Biden!—and therefore I’m not going to be involved.’”
As he did in 2016, but now under much more explosive social and political conditions, Sanders is exchanging his “political revolution against the establishment” for the thin gruel of “lesser evil” politics.
A few points in reply to Senator Sanders.
First, support for Biden means support for the social interests that he represents and the program that he is advancing. Biden, who was first elected to the US Senate from the state of Delaware in 1972, has spent nearly four decades as a faithful servant of the ruling class. He has an extensive record of support for war, austerity, capital punishment, and mass incarceration.
The present catastrophe caused by the coronavirus pandemic is the consequence of policies pursued by the ruling class and its representatives, Democratic and Republican alike, for decades, with Biden playing a critical role. Endless resources have been funneled into the stock markets and the military, while social infrastructure has been dismantled and inequality driven to record highs.
As a member and then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden was one of the principal proponents of the US bombing of Yugoslavia (1999) under Clinton, and the US invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) under Bush. He voted for the Patriot Act and the expansion of illegal domestic spying after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, boasting that the legislation was modeled off a bill he had drafted in 1995.
Biden also voted for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, a milestone in the deregulation of the banks, vastly increasing the ability of giant financial institutions to engage in speculation and plunder. In 2005, Biden aggressively campaigned for the overhaul of consumer bankruptcy laws, making it much harder for working class families to escape debt burdens.
As vice president under Obama, Biden oversaw the bailout of the banks in 2008-09 as well as the wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen. This was in addition to the continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and the vast expansion of drone assassinations as an instrument of US foreign policy.
Amidst all of this, nothing was done to prepare for a pandemic, despite repeated warnings from scientists and epidemiologists. The Democrats, no less than the Republicans, are responsible for the destruction of health care infrastructure and the criminal lack of stockpiles of ventilators, face masks and other critical equipment.
No wonder Bernie lost. What a loser. What an idiot and fool. No one worshiped Bernie. Those who supported him were supporting him because of the issues. Now with Joe Biden doing nothing to address issues such as Medicare For All or ending endless wars, Bernie comes along to hector. No one cares. He's a betrayer and he has no one to 'command.' The notion that he can lead sailed long ago and everyone knows he endorsed a man accused of rape. Yes, on CBS NEWS, he did note that Tara needs to be heard.
But apparently, she doesn't need to be heard before Bernie endorses Joe.
Tara spoke out weeks ago. Asked by CBS NEWS, Bernie has no opinion and states he doesn't know enough to weigh the accusation. So a man is accused of rape and Bernie doesn't know whether the allegation is accurate or not? Wasn't he required to make some sort of determination before endorsing Joe?
And does he get how offensive and out of it he looks when he says Tara deserves to be heard but -- by golly, by gum -- everyone better fall in line behind Joe Biden.
Sorry, Bernie, some of us care about issues like rape. By that, I don't mean some of us write rape fantasies down and publish them the way Bernie did, I mean that some of us believe you take a firm stand in support of survivors or nothing ever changes.
I'm also getting tired of the bully boys insisting that we must vote for Joe Biden -- you must do what you must do, you can't tell anyone what they must do -- and we have to because, well, look at Donald Trump. They want you to know that families are being destroyed by Donald separating families via his deportation policies.
Donald still hasn't deported as many people in his time as president as Barack Obama did at the same time in his presidency. There's a reason Barack was dubbed "the deporter in chief." I'm sorry that so many whores think we're going to be tricked and conned.
But let's set the deportation issue aside.
Families destroyed under Trump so we need Biden?
Barack and Joe bombed Muslims repeatedly.
What the you-must-vote-for-Joe group is really saying is: We need a president who kills people but does so over there, away from home, so we can pretend it's not happening.
That's what so many disgusting people have done, ignoring The Drone War, ignoring everything.
A Ruth Marcus is a disgusting, middle-aged to elderly type person who has accepted a world in which corruption and murder are the norm and they are carried out by whomever occupies the Oval Office. She's a tired hag who whored out any sense of responsibility long ago and wants to whore everyone else out.
But everyone else isn't an empty shell or waiting to take orders from bullies.
In an editorial, THE COLLEGIAN notes:
It's Michigan's oldest college newspaper and, as we've repeatedly noted over the last weeks, college newspapers have led on the Tara Reade story. There's a reason for that. They're not dead inside like Ruth Marcus. They didn't sell or whore their souls years ago. They still have integrity and the belief in a better world.
That's what the Ruth Marcus-Joan Walsh-Jessie Valenti-Michelle Goldberg crowd never gets. They didn't get in 2016 and they don't get it now. They don't speak to college students, they have no idea what's going on. In March, we had to move our talks to online encounters but we're still speaking to groups -- including college students -- and the Tara Reade issues is not going away. No matter how many paid whores show up to try to dismiss it.
Let's note another student paper, Boston's THE DAILY FREE PRESS, where Gabriella Aponte observes:
Dear mainstream media, are you playing favorites?
Let’s be clear. The media was absolutely right to report and verify the allegations against Kavanaugh and Trump and anyone else accused of raping and assaulting innocent women.
The problem, here, is that the mainstream media seems to have a way of prioritizing certain victims over others. Ford’s allegations instantaneously dominated the headlines for weeks, but what about Reade?
Reade’s allegations have barely made a dent in the news cycle and even the Time’s Up organization, formed to aid women in this kind of situation, wouldn’t help her. Time’s Up reportedly turned Reade away, not for a lack of evidence, but because she was accusing a public official, something that could impact the nonprofit’s tax-exempt status.
Once Reade was finally able to come forward with her full story, it took 19 days for the mainstream media to report on it. And when they did, they made it very clear whose side they were really on.
In its article entitled “Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden,” The New York Times reported they “found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.” The Times later deleted that portion of the paragraph, admittedly at the request of the Biden campaign.
Did they delete or edit any portion of their story at Reade’s request? No, I didn’t think so.
If that sly edit doesn’t convince you of favorable bias towards the Biden camp, just take a look at the article’s subheading.
“Ms. Reade, a former Senate aide, has accused Mr. Biden of assaulting her in 1993 and says she told others about it. A Biden spokeswoman said the allegation is false, and former Senate office staff members do not recall such an incident,” it reads.
Why would former staff members recall an incident they were never party to or never told about? Reade never claimed to tell those specific staffers about the incident and she admits there were no eyewitnesses to the assault. So why include this information — information that proves absolutely nothing — in the subheading, if not to undermine Reade’s story from the get-go?
Ruth Marcus and her unethical kindred have no idea of the conversations taking place across this country. Let's go back to the corporate media. At REAL CLEAR POLITICS, Mark Hemingway takes on NYT's Dean Baquet:
Of the press attacks on Tara Reade, Carl Beijer argues:
In January, various members of Iraq's government were condemning foreign interference in Iraq. For some of the flakes in the US, it was time for applause. They took off from screaming that war on Iran was going to start in days -- still hasn't, by the way -- to applaud this condemnation of the US presence in Iraq. What they chose to ignore was that it was not just the US. Many politicians in Iraq were echoing what the protesters had been saying for weeks, that Iran also needed to stop interfering in Iraq. Is that part of the message why CodeStink, Margaret Kimberley and so many others elected to ignore the brave protesters who risked death and injury on a daily basis?
At any rate, Iraq's national sovereignty has long been undermined and it goes beyond just the US and Iran to include others -- like Turkey. Nouri al-Maliki was in his first term as prime minister -- that's how long this has been going on -- when he slammed Turkey for bombing northern Iraq. These bombings continue and they have expanded to also include Turkish troops on the ground in Iraq.
AP notes:
Turkish airstrikes targeting members of an outlawed Kurdish rebel group struck a refugee camp in northern Iraq and killed two refugee women, Iraqi authorities said Thursday.
The strikes, which took place Wednesday, were a violation of Iraq's sovereignty, Iraq's Foreign Affairs Ministry said.
The strikes on the Makhmour refugee camp were carried out by a Turkish military drone that was detected by Iraq's air defense, a statement from the ministry said. It expressed "condemnation in the strongest possible terms over these Turkish attacks" and said they also "constituted a serious violation of international humanitarian law."
Two refugee women dead because the government of Turkey thinks they can act as terrorists and bomb northern Iraq. They always insist that they are battling the PKK -- they insist this as they kill and wound civilians.
The PKK is one of many Kurdish groups which supports and fights for a Kurdish homeland. Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described them in 2008, "The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these are now at risk." The Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq has been a concern to Turkey because they fear that if it ever moves from semi-autonomous to fully independent -- such as if Iraq was to break up into three regions -- then that would encourage the Kurdish population in Turkey. For that reason, Turkey is overly interested in all things Iraq. So much so that they signed an agreement with the US government in 2007 to share intelligence which the Turkish military has been using when launching bomb raids. However, this has not prevented the loss of civilian life in northern Iraq. Aaron Hess noted, "The Turkish establishment sees growing Kurdish power in Iraq as one step down the road to a mass separatist movement of Kurds within Turkey itself, fighting to unify a greater Kurdistan. In late October 2007, Turkey's daily newspaper Hurriyet accused the prime minister of the KRG, Massoud Barzani, of turning the 'Kurdish dream' into a 'Turkish nightmare'."
The following sites updated:
Joseph Kishore is running for the presidency of the United States. He is representing the SEP. At WSWS, he notes:
In the days after formally ending his campaign and endorsing Joe Biden, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has intensified his efforts to dragoon his supporters into backing the right-wing standard bearer of the Democratic Party establishment.
In an interview with the Associated Press published on Tuesday, Sanders slandered as “irresponsible” any of his supporters who do not campaign for Biden. “Do we be as active as we can in electing Joe Biden and doing everything we can to move Joe and his campaign in a more progressive direction?” he asked. “Or do we choose to sit out and allow the most dangerous president in modern American history to get reelected?”
There is widespread anger and opposition among workers and youth to Sanders’ craven capitulation to Biden in a livestreamed eventon Monday. Sanders’ response is to declare: “I believe that it’s irresponsible for anybody to say, ‘Well, I disagree with Joe Biden—I disagree with Joe Biden!—and therefore I’m not going to be involved.’”
As he did in 2016, but now under much more explosive social and political conditions, Sanders is exchanging his “political revolution against the establishment” for the thin gruel of “lesser evil” politics.
A few points in reply to Senator Sanders.
First, support for Biden means support for the social interests that he represents and the program that he is advancing. Biden, who was first elected to the US Senate from the state of Delaware in 1972, has spent nearly four decades as a faithful servant of the ruling class. He has an extensive record of support for war, austerity, capital punishment, and mass incarceration.
The present catastrophe caused by the coronavirus pandemic is the consequence of policies pursued by the ruling class and its representatives, Democratic and Republican alike, for decades, with Biden playing a critical role. Endless resources have been funneled into the stock markets and the military, while social infrastructure has been dismantled and inequality driven to record highs.
As a member and then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden was one of the principal proponents of the US bombing of Yugoslavia (1999) under Clinton, and the US invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) under Bush. He voted for the Patriot Act and the expansion of illegal domestic spying after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, boasting that the legislation was modeled off a bill he had drafted in 1995.
Biden also voted for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, a milestone in the deregulation of the banks, vastly increasing the ability of giant financial institutions to engage in speculation and plunder. In 2005, Biden aggressively campaigned for the overhaul of consumer bankruptcy laws, making it much harder for working class families to escape debt burdens.
As vice president under Obama, Biden oversaw the bailout of the banks in 2008-09 as well as the wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen. This was in addition to the continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and the vast expansion of drone assassinations as an instrument of US foreign policy.
Amidst all of this, nothing was done to prepare for a pandemic, despite repeated warnings from scientists and epidemiologists. The Democrats, no less than the Republicans, are responsible for the destruction of health care infrastructure and the criminal lack of stockpiles of ventilators, face masks and other critical equipment.
No wonder Bernie lost. What a loser. What an idiot and fool. No one worshiped Bernie. Those who supported him were supporting him because of the issues. Now with Joe Biden doing nothing to address issues such as Medicare For All or ending endless wars, Bernie comes along to hector. No one cares. He's a betrayer and he has no one to 'command.' The notion that he can lead sailed long ago and everyone knows he endorsed a man accused of rape. Yes, on CBS NEWS, he did note that Tara needs to be heard.
But apparently, she doesn't need to be heard before Bernie endorses Joe.
Tara spoke out weeks ago. Asked by CBS NEWS, Bernie has no opinion and states he doesn't know enough to weigh the accusation. So a man is accused of rape and Bernie doesn't know whether the allegation is accurate or not? Wasn't he required to make some sort of determination before endorsing Joe?
And does he get how offensive and out of it he looks when he says Tara deserves to be heard but -- by golly, by gum -- everyone better fall in line behind Joe Biden.
Sorry, Bernie, some of us care about issues like rape. By that, I don't mean some of us write rape fantasies down and publish them the way Bernie did, I mean that some of us believe you take a firm stand in support of survivors or nothing ever changes.
I'm also getting tired of the bully boys insisting that we must vote for Joe Biden -- you must do what you must do, you can't tell anyone what they must do -- and we have to because, well, look at Donald Trump. They want you to know that families are being destroyed by Donald separating families via his deportation policies.
Donald still hasn't deported as many people in his time as president as Barack Obama did at the same time in his presidency. There's a reason Barack was dubbed "the deporter in chief." I'm sorry that so many whores think we're going to be tricked and conned.
But let's set the deportation issue aside.
Families destroyed under Trump so we need Biden?
Barack and Joe bombed Muslims repeatedly.
What the you-must-vote-for-Joe group is really saying is: We need a president who kills people but does so over there, away from home, so we can pretend it's not happening.
That's what so many disgusting people have done, ignoring The Drone War, ignoring everything.
A Ruth Marcus is a disgusting, middle-aged to elderly type person who has accepted a world in which corruption and murder are the norm and they are carried out by whomever occupies the Oval Office. She's a tired hag who whored out any sense of responsibility long ago and wants to whore everyone else out.
But everyone else isn't an empty shell or waiting to take orders from bullies.
In an editorial, THE COLLEGIAN notes:
When The
New York Times finally did report Reade’s allegations on April 12, the
paper tweeted this: “We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden,
beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them
uncomfortable.” But they quickly edited the sentence, removing “beyond
hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them
uncomfortable,” because the Biden campaign told them to do so.
Any individual who is accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. But these cases — just like those of Blasey Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick — should be respected, taken seriously, and investigated properly.
Last April, eight women, including Reade, publicly claimed that Biden assaulted them. But then, and now, the media has remained mostly silent.
In a Q&A, New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet said that the paper’s reporting on Kavanaugh was different than their treatment of Biden because Kavanaugh “was already in the public forum in a large way.”
Right, because being a presidential candidate, former vice president, and former senator is not “in the public forum in a large way.”
The media is choosing to silence Reade and protect Biden.
Maybe Biden and his supporters in the media should take his own advice: When a woman alleges sexual assault, presume she is telling the truth. If we’re going to #BelieveAllWomen, let’s believe Lucy Flores, Amy Lappos, D.J. Hill, Cailtyn Caruso, Ally Coll, Sofie Karasek, Vail Kohnert-Yount, and Tara Reade.
Any individual who is accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. But these cases — just like those of Blasey Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick — should be respected, taken seriously, and investigated properly.
Last April, eight women, including Reade, publicly claimed that Biden assaulted them. But then, and now, the media has remained mostly silent.
In a Q&A, New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet said that the paper’s reporting on Kavanaugh was different than their treatment of Biden because Kavanaugh “was already in the public forum in a large way.”
Right, because being a presidential candidate, former vice president, and former senator is not “in the public forum in a large way.”
The media is choosing to silence Reade and protect Biden.
Maybe Biden and his supporters in the media should take his own advice: When a woman alleges sexual assault, presume she is telling the truth. If we’re going to #BelieveAllWomen, let’s believe Lucy Flores, Amy Lappos, D.J. Hill, Cailtyn Caruso, Ally Coll, Sofie Karasek, Vail Kohnert-Yount, and Tara Reade.
It's Michigan's oldest college newspaper and, as we've repeatedly noted over the last weeks, college newspapers have led on the Tara Reade story. There's a reason for that. They're not dead inside like Ruth Marcus. They didn't sell or whore their souls years ago. They still have integrity and the belief in a better world.
That's what the Ruth Marcus-Joan Walsh-Jessie Valenti-Michelle Goldberg crowd never gets. They didn't get in 2016 and they don't get it now. They don't speak to college students, they have no idea what's going on. In March, we had to move our talks to online encounters but we're still speaking to groups -- including college students -- and the Tara Reade issues is not going away. No matter how many paid whores show up to try to dismiss it.
Let's note another student paper, Boston's THE DAILY FREE PRESS, where Gabriella Aponte observes:
Dear mainstream media, are you playing favorites?
Let’s be clear. The media was absolutely right to report and verify the allegations against Kavanaugh and Trump and anyone else accused of raping and assaulting innocent women.
The problem, here, is that the mainstream media seems to have a way of prioritizing certain victims over others. Ford’s allegations instantaneously dominated the headlines for weeks, but what about Reade?
Reade’s allegations have barely made a dent in the news cycle and even the Time’s Up organization, formed to aid women in this kind of situation, wouldn’t help her. Time’s Up reportedly turned Reade away, not for a lack of evidence, but because she was accusing a public official, something that could impact the nonprofit’s tax-exempt status.
Once Reade was finally able to come forward with her full story, it took 19 days for the mainstream media to report on it. And when they did, they made it very clear whose side they were really on.
In its article entitled “Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden,” The New York Times reported they “found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.” The Times later deleted that portion of the paragraph, admittedly at the request of the Biden campaign.
Did they delete or edit any portion of their story at Reade’s request? No, I didn’t think so.
If that sly edit doesn’t convince you of favorable bias towards the Biden camp, just take a look at the article’s subheading.
“Ms. Reade, a former Senate aide, has accused Mr. Biden of assaulting her in 1993 and says she told others about it. A Biden spokeswoman said the allegation is false, and former Senate office staff members do not recall such an incident,” it reads.
Why would former staff members recall an incident they were never party to or never told about? Reade never claimed to tell those specific staffers about the incident and she admits there were no eyewitnesses to the assault. So why include this information — information that proves absolutely nothing — in the subheading, if not to undermine Reade’s story from the get-go?
Ruth Marcus and her unethical kindred have no idea of the conversations taking place across this country. Let's go back to the corporate media. At REAL CLEAR POLITICS, Mark Hemingway takes on NYT's Dean Baquet:
The allegations have been all over the Internet since March 25. Tara
Reade, who worked for Biden when he was a senator, alleges in 1993 Biden
pushed her up against a wall and digitally penetrated her without her
consent, while telling her, “Come on man, I thought you liked me.”
To address the growing criticism that the Times sat on the story for political reasons, the Times also published an interview with Baquet under the headline: “The Times Took 19 Days to Report an Accusation Against Biden. Here’s Why.” The headline promised an explanation, but the only thing the story delivered was humiliation for Baquet and his newspaper.
The Times’ recently hired media critic, former BuzzFeed Editor Ben Smith, asked Baquet some obvious questions about the paper’s coverage, including why the paper never hesitated to report on the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Here’s Baquet’s answer to that question in full:
His further equivocating didn’t help. Baquet stated that “Kavanaugh’s status as a Supreme Court justice was in question because of a very serious allegation.” But what constitutes a serious allegation when it comes to sexual assault? By almost any standard, Reade’s accusations against Biden are far more “serious,” not to mention more credible, than the accusations brought against Kavanaugh just a year and a half ago. For instance, no one disputes that Reade worked for Biden and had some contact with him. To this day, no one has presented any outside evidence Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, ever even met.
The four witnesses Blasey Ford named as being present at the party where Kavanaugh allegedly tried to assault her all refused to corroborate her story. Yet, The Washington Post, lacking any corroboration, rushed to print with Blasey Ford’s accusations, touching off a national firestorm.
The Times, at Baquet’s direction, quickly joined the frenzy. In the
interview on the Biden accusations, Ben Smith specifically asked Baquet
to justify the Times’ treatment of Kavanaugh. To his credit, Smith noted
that the Times also regurgitated additional -- and truly absurd --
claims that as a young man Kavanaugh had regularly participated in
suburban gang rape parties.
These lurid tales were spun by Julie Swetnick, who has history of being party to dubious lawsuits, and her now-disbarred lawyer Michael Avenatti, who at the time had been accused of numerous instances of fraud and has since been convicted of extortion. Yet, the Times reported the Swetnick allegations the same day they were made, even though their report noted “none of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated.”
Baquet is probably correct when he asserted, “If you ask the average person in America, they didn’t know about the Tara Reade case.” But why is that? Although her allegations were aired extensively by conservative media and among the Bernie Sanders-supporting left, for weeks there was a near total blackout of the story by the legacy media, including the Times.
As the Washington Free Beacon recently noted, “Joe Biden has been asked 81 questions in over two hours' worth of media interviews since a former staffer in his U.S. Senate office accused him of sexual assault three weeks ago. He hasn't fielded a single question about the allegation.” If the average person doesn’t know about Reade’s allegations, it’s because gatekeepers such as Dean Baquet chose not to inform them.
To address the growing criticism that the Times sat on the story for political reasons, the Times also published an interview with Baquet under the headline: “The Times Took 19 Days to Report an Accusation Against Biden. Here’s Why.” The headline promised an explanation, but the only thing the story delivered was humiliation for Baquet and his newspaper.
The Times’ recently hired media critic, former BuzzFeed Editor Ben Smith, asked Baquet some obvious questions about the paper’s coverage, including why the paper never hesitated to report on the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Here’s Baquet’s answer to that question in full:
"Kavanaugh was already in a public forum in a large way. Kavanaugh’s status as a Supreme Court justice was in question because of a very serious allegation. And when I say in a public way, I don’t mean in the public way of Tara Reade’s. If you ask the average person in America, they didn’t know about the Tara Reade case. So I thought in that case, if The New York Times was going to introduce this to readers, we needed to introduce it with some reporting and perspective. Kavanaugh was in a very different situation. It was a live, ongoing story that had become the biggest political story in the country. It was just a different news judgment moment."The executive editor of the of the New York Times is actually arguing that Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination meant he was already subject to scrutiny, but Joe Biden’s presidential campaign is not a “public forum in a large way.” This is absurd.
His further equivocating didn’t help. Baquet stated that “Kavanaugh’s status as a Supreme Court justice was in question because of a very serious allegation.” But what constitutes a serious allegation when it comes to sexual assault? By almost any standard, Reade’s accusations against Biden are far more “serious,” not to mention more credible, than the accusations brought against Kavanaugh just a year and a half ago. For instance, no one disputes that Reade worked for Biden and had some contact with him. To this day, no one has presented any outside evidence Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, ever even met.
The four witnesses Blasey Ford named as being present at the party where Kavanaugh allegedly tried to assault her all refused to corroborate her story. Yet, The Washington Post, lacking any corroboration, rushed to print with Blasey Ford’s accusations, touching off a national firestorm.
These lurid tales were spun by Julie Swetnick, who has history of being party to dubious lawsuits, and her now-disbarred lawyer Michael Avenatti, who at the time had been accused of numerous instances of fraud and has since been convicted of extortion. Yet, the Times reported the Swetnick allegations the same day they were made, even though their report noted “none of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated.”
Baquet is probably correct when he asserted, “If you ask the average person in America, they didn’t know about the Tara Reade case.” But why is that? Although her allegations were aired extensively by conservative media and among the Bernie Sanders-supporting left, for weeks there was a near total blackout of the story by the legacy media, including the Times.
As the Washington Free Beacon recently noted, “Joe Biden has been asked 81 questions in over two hours' worth of media interviews since a former staffer in his U.S. Senate office accused him of sexual assault three weeks ago. He hasn't fielded a single question about the allegation.” If the average person doesn’t know about Reade’s allegations, it’s because gatekeepers such as Dean Baquet chose not to inform them.
Of the press attacks on Tara Reade, Carl Beijer argues:
It’s at least worth noting, I think, how the Biden campaign has been working behind the scenes to
shape media coverage of the allegation. It’s worth noting how the last
few weeks of silence from these pundits could be read, to the cynical,
as a comms team saying “now’s not the right time” or “let’s see if this
blows over.” It’s worth noting how the timing of these articles,
released one after the other over three days starting on Monday, look a
whole lot like a messaging rollout. It’s worth noting that in 2016, Jessica Valenti was caught coordinating her coverage with the Clinton campaign, while Goldberg flat-out admitted it.
And it’s worth noting, in passing, how all three pieces are curiously
on-message: “we can’t know for sure what happened, but many of the
critics have bad motives, and [Valenti and Walsh assure us] we’ll vote
for Biden regardless.”
To my eye, the timing, the
messaging, and the actors all make this look a whole lot like a comms
operation — particularly since we know that Biden’s team has been working to shape the coverage.
In January, various members of Iraq's government were condemning foreign interference in Iraq. For some of the flakes in the US, it was time for applause. They took off from screaming that war on Iran was going to start in days -- still hasn't, by the way -- to applaud this condemnation of the US presence in Iraq. What they chose to ignore was that it was not just the US. Many politicians in Iraq were echoing what the protesters had been saying for weeks, that Iran also needed to stop interfering in Iraq. Is that part of the message why CodeStink, Margaret Kimberley and so many others elected to ignore the brave protesters who risked death and injury on a daily basis?
At any rate, Iraq's national sovereignty has long been undermined and it goes beyond just the US and Iran to include others -- like Turkey. Nouri al-Maliki was in his first term as prime minister -- that's how long this has been going on -- when he slammed Turkey for bombing northern Iraq. These bombings continue and they have expanded to also include Turkish troops on the ground in Iraq.
AP notes:
Turkish airstrikes targeting members of an outlawed Kurdish rebel group struck a refugee camp in northern Iraq and killed two refugee women, Iraqi authorities said Thursday.
The strikes, which took place Wednesday, were a violation of Iraq's sovereignty, Iraq's Foreign Affairs Ministry said.
The strikes on the Makhmour refugee camp were carried out by a Turkish military drone that was detected by Iraq's air defense, a statement from the ministry said. It expressed "condemnation in the strongest possible terms over these Turkish attacks" and said they also "constituted a serious violation of international humanitarian law."
Two refugee women dead because the government of Turkey thinks they can act as terrorists and bomb northern Iraq. They always insist that they are battling the PKK -- they insist this as they kill and wound civilians.
The PKK is one of many Kurdish groups which supports and fights for a Kurdish homeland. Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described them in 2008, "The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these are now at risk." The Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq has been a concern to Turkey because they fear that if it ever moves from semi-autonomous to fully independent -- such as if Iraq was to break up into three regions -- then that would encourage the Kurdish population in Turkey. For that reason, Turkey is overly interested in all things Iraq. So much so that they signed an agreement with the US government in 2007 to share intelligence which the Turkish military has been using when launching bomb raids. However, this has not prevented the loss of civilian life in northern Iraq. Aaron Hess noted, "The Turkish establishment sees growing Kurdish power in Iraq as one step down the road to a mass separatist movement of Kurds within Turkey itself, fighting to unify a greater Kurdistan. In late October 2007, Turkey's daily newspaper Hurriyet accused the prime minister of the KRG, Massoud Barzani, of turning the 'Kurdish dream' into a 'Turkish nightmare'."
The following sites updated:
