New to the cast of Call Me Kat? Andy Favreau:
Andy Favreau is a male in the entertainment industry who has worked as an actor. Andy Favreau is known for his work in television on "1600 Penn," "2 Broke Girls," "A to Z," "Aquarius," "Bones," "NCIS," "Revenge," "Rosewood" and "Young & Hungry" and in film on "The Charnel House".
If you've seen him, you've probably seen him on Will & Grace. He was on one episode (I think season two of the three season return) where he played a young man at a coffee shop that was attracted Grace. She plans to see him. It's the one where she bumps into her old college professor that she once slept with and she's also trying to make it work with a guy her own age. All three men? Related. Favreau played the son of the man she was trying to make it work with and the college professor was the father of the man she was trying to make it work with.
He showed, Favreau, a real gift of timing on that episode.
On Call Me Kat this week, he played Nick. Nick's a new business owner on the block. He calls Kat "honey" and tries to give her things to do as though she works for him. He's selling beer without a license at his meat shop (he requires a sweven dollar tip for a bottle of beer), he's painted a curb yellow instead of going through the process of getting a section marked delivery, he's selling illegal cheese, etc, etc. He's also giving away free coffee (Kat's Cafe serves coffee) and doing other things to get under her skin.
Randi sees him as a problem and also advises Kat to let it go, she's giving him too much attention. But Max thinks the guy's great. The guy asks if she and Max are a couple. Later, when she's angry, she shows up to find Max and Oscar eating there. For Nick the surprise is that her boyfriend (Oscar) can be so close with her friend (Max) that she had something with.
Sylvia (Kat's mother) says the back and forth between her and Nick is about an attraction. Kat disagrees. But then he shows up to ask her for a date. And she turns him down but confesses, after he leaves, to a cat on the couch that, yeah, there was something there.
Then she wakes up in bed and he's there in bed next to her. Then she wakes up and it's Oscar asleep next to her.
That was a big twist -- Nick being introduced this episode, not the dream. They put Kat with Oscar but they have not spent any real time developing the relationship.
Kat belongs with Max. But she has more chemsitry with Nick than she has ever had with Oscar. Maybe Nick's going to be her rebound that helps get her to Max.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Thursday, March 17, 2022.. The rabid hate-fest that passes for public affairs programming in the US is something to ponder.
Starting with Sabby Sabs.
Whoopi can't get next to the table. Note that. It's not the double chins, it's the extreme girth that should alarm everyone. She's so fat she has to scoot her chair way, way back because her belly is too big for her to be close to the table.
She's ugly, yes. But she can be as ugly as she wants. She's been ugly for years. But she can't be that fat. Not when she's diabetic. She wants to talk about examples being set by others? Fatty is out of control with her diabetes. She's way too fat. If anyone really loved her in her life (no one does), they'd sit her down and say "Whoopi, you're going to lose a foot. You've got to get your weight under control."
Sabby is shocked that Joy said that Tucker wouldn't "be welcoed here for much longer" and she can't believe that she used to watch the show. Apparently not for that long. When Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House, when Joy was on the panel, THE VIEW did what it's doing now -- for the right wing. It's really easy for those losers to pretend otherwise but they condmened people left and right and that includes Joy. In fact, Joy was part of the 'hot topic' that went way off the rails one day. Barbara Walters was not on that show but had to come on the next day to straighten things up.
Joy and the other ladies (exepting Lisa Ling) trashed Jane Fonda who wasn't even part of the news cycle. They just started trashing her. They just started trashing her, ssaying she belonged behind bars, saying this and saying that. A FOX NEWS talk show could not have been as hateful to Jane as THE VIEW was. And Joy laughed with the hideous Meredith, at the end of the segment, about how Jane would never ask to come ont he show again.
No, bitches, Jane doesn't ask to be on a show. A show asks her to be on.
Barbara Walters had to come on the next day and note that the conversation had gone too far and that what was said was wrong.
Barbara is not part of the show now (due to health) and there's n one who can come on and tell these out of control lunatics to STFU.
They're not qualified for anything but they speak on everything. And they are never wrong in their mind.
I decline to comment on everything because I can't know everything. But the less educated women of THE VIEW think they know everything -- which is why you'll notice the idiot Sunny is always reading off remarks. Love that unscripted but really scripted quality Sunny has because it's lets us know she's an idiot. She can't even formulate the froth she's spewing on her own.
It's really time for THE VIEW to end. And thta's going to depend upon the viewers saying enough. There are toher programs you can watch which don't have lunatics in front of the cameras screaming for this person to be arrested, this tried on treason, this kicked out of the country, this . . .
In other words, the women on other morning shows aren't as rabid 00 or, let's be honest, as ugly. More and more to be a member of THE VIEW, you really do have to be ugly.
So just say no to ugly, rabid people.
That's the only way that you're going to end this garbage. And it is garbage.
This is not it did have rules and follow them. That's not the case anymore. It's time for the show to go. The women who have inheretied it will just continue ta daytime talk show. Not one to be on a genearl entertainment network. The hosts are ignorant of events and even of basic necessities.
To note another incident, the ladies walked off during an interview because they didn't like what was being said. That was Whoopi, that was Joy. They walked out. They were sent back on stage because whore's don't want to lose money but, again, the next day Barbara had to show up to fix everyting. She had to explain the idea was that THE VIEW would engage, not that it would do that nonsense.
More to the point, hosts -- paid hosts -- do not have the right to walk out in the middle of an interview.
They know nothing about anything. They don't know the basics of hosting a talk show. They don't know the basics of what they're discussing.
This is not a show worth embracing and to keep watching these War Harpies is to embrace war. It's to embrace hate. Last month, Whoopi was distorting the Holocaust. She lied and she faux apologized and some of the left defended her. She lies all the time. She shouldn't be on air
She should be at a fat farm working every day to reduce her girth to a point where it is not endangering her health. She's not ten or thirty pounds overweight. She is grossly overweight. And she is diabetic.
When the health problems come along, no one should feel sorry for her. She's in con-compliance.
And maybe that's where the hate she's spewing comes from. And maybe she's poisoning her body intentionally. But I'm not going to feel sorry for her when she's the one destroying herself.
I also don't think we need to hear from anyone whose life is out of that control. She's like an addict who is active in her addiction. She's not someone to be a moderator as a result of that.
And before she worries next about what message Tucker or Tulsi is sending, she might want to grasp that she -- tugboat Whoopi -- is sending a message as well and it's that daibetics can be diagnosed and then get grossly overweight and it's nothing to worry about or be concerned about.
She wants to sti in judgment on everyone else in the world on every thing they do. But she doesn't want to apply the same eyes on and commentary about her own health.
The only real anti-war position on the Ukraine conflict is support for de-escalation, diplomacy, and detente. Yelling “PUTIN BAD” and calling for escalations that could lead to a very fast, very radioactive WWIII are not anti-war, and indeed such sentiments are being exploited to prolong this war.
No efforts are being made toward diplomacy and peace, only toward escalations like building an insurgency and unprecedented economic warfare which fit perfectly into pre-existing US agendas against Russia. This is in the exact opposite direction of peace.
De-escalation is a skill we’re meant to start learning in kindergarten. These people act like they learned their de-escalation skills in the Minneapolis Police Department.
If you want to keep screaming that Putin is Adolf Hitler and even insignificant concessions like promising not to add Ukraine to NATO would be Chamberlainesque “appeasement” then go ahead, but don’t pretend you’re anti-war or pro-peace, because you’re not.
Wars end in one of two ways: with diplomacy and negotiation, or with mountains of corpses. If you’re opposed to any kind of negotiation with Moscow to bring about peace, then you want the latter. And if you do, you should get your bitch ass on a plane and join the front lines.
So let's tart a GoFundMe for the ladies of THE VIEW so they can put their tough girl asses on the line and use something more than their useless mouths as the crow and bray for more war.
Quick sidenote, THE VIEW is not the only embarrassment appearing on so called public affairs programs. A CNN friend called and played me a clip of US House Rep Maria Salazar revealing herself to be an idiot and an insulting one on Tucker Carlson's program. Tucker said "our boys" and I don't expect anything more from him. I don't consider him to be high at the top of the food chain or even the least bit aware of the world he lives in. But the elected US official began repeating it and running with it "our boys." SHe doesn't want to send "our boys" to Ukraine. Over and over.
The place of a woman like that is not in the House or the Senate. If she's not aware that women are part of the US military, that women are in combat, that women serve, she's too dumb to serve in Congress, hell, she's too dumb to greet you at the door of Sam's. Maybe she should meet with some US senators? She could speak with Tammi Duckworth, for example, who could speak about serving in Iraq, she could speak with Joni Ernst. She could speak with any number of women. By 2012 alone, 283,000 American women had deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan (or, in some cases, to both).
That an elected member of Congress could be so stupid is appalling. That the member is also a woman just adds further insult when she's erasing the service of other women.,
Turning to the ongoing persecution of Julian Assange, Marjorie Cohn (TRUTH OUT) notes:
The British judicial system has erected still another barrier to Julian Assange’s freedom. On March 14, the U.K. Supreme Court refused to hear Assange’s appeal of the U.K. High Court’s ruling ordering his extradition to the United States. If extradited to the U.S. for trial, Assange will face 17 charges under the Espionage Act and up to 175 years in prison for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes.
With no explanation of its reasoning, the Supreme Court denied Assange “permission to appeal” the High Court’s decision, saying that Assange’s appeal did not “raise an arguable point of law.” The court remanded the case back to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which is the same court that denied the U.S. extradition request on January 4, 2021.
In all likelihood, the magistrates’ court will refer the case to the British Home Office where Home Secretary Priti Patel will review it. Assange’s lawyers then have four weeks to submit materials for Patel’s consideration. If she orders Assange’s extradition — which is highly likely — his lawyers will file a cross-appeal in the High Court asking it to review the issues Assange lost in the magistrates’ court.
If the High Court refuses to review those additional issues, Assange can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. That could take years. Meanwhile, he languishes in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison, in fragile mental and physical health. He suffered a mini-stroke as his extradition hearing began. United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer wrote in a Twitter post that the “U.K. is literally torturing him to death.”
US President Joe Biden could end this nonsense at any time. He could drop the pursuit of Julian. He might if pressure were brought to bear. Julian's crime was journalism. Joe loathes him because Julian exposed US War Crimes. And if Joe gets away with it, the US government will begin punishing other foreign journalists operating outside of the US. It will demand that they be turned over to the US because their truthful reporting embarrassed the US government. Oscar Grenfell (WSWS) points out, "The British and US authorities are seeking to make an example of Assange, to intimidate widespread anti-war sentiment, and to create a precedent for further political persecutions targeting opposition to war and militarism. At the same time, the incessant media propaganda over Ukraine is being seized upon, to drown out other crucial issues, including Assange’s plight."
With Julian still, for no rational reason, held in maximum security, the legal process around his extradition continues to meander its way through the overgrown bridlepaths of the UK’s legal system. Today the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal, which was based on the grounds of his health and the effect upon it of incarceration in the conditions of the United States prison service. It stated his appeal had “no arguable legal grounds.”
This is a setback which is, most likely, going to keep Julian in jail for at least another year.
The legal grounds which the High Court had previously ruled to be arguable, were that the USA government should not have been permitted to give at appeal new (and highly conditional) diplomatic assurances about Assange’s treatment, which had not been offered at the court of first instance to be considered in the initial decision. One important argument that this should not be allowed, is that if given to the original court, the defence could argue about the value and conditionality of such assurances; evidence could be called and the matter weighed by the court.
By introducing the assurances only at the appeal stage – which is only on points of law and had no fact-finding remit – the USA had avoided any scrutiny of their validity. The Home Office have always argued that diplomatic assurances must simply be accepted without question. The Home Office is keen on this stance because it makes extradition to countries with appalling human rights records much easier.
In saying there is no arguable point of law, the Supreme Court is accepting that diplomatic assurances are not tested and are to be taken at face value – which has been a major point of controversy in recent jurisprudence. It is now settled that we will send someone back to Saudi Arabia if the Saudis give us a piece of paper promising not to chop their head off.
It interested me in particular that the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal on the basis there was “no arguable point of law”. When the Supreme Court refused to hear my own appeal against imprisonment, they rather stated their alternative formulation, there was “no arguable point of law of general public interest”. Meaning there was an arguable point of law, but it was merely an individual injustice, that did not matter to anybody except Craig Murray.
My own view is that, with the Tory government very open about their desire to clip the wings of judges and reduce the reach of the Supreme Court in particular, the Court is simply avoiding hot potatoes at present.
So the extradition now goes to Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, to decide whether to extradite. The defence has four weeks to make representations to Patel, which she must hear. There are those on the libertarian right of the Tory party who oppose the extradition on freedom of speech grounds, but Patel has not a libertarian thought in her head and appears to revel in deportation, so personally I hold out no particular hope for this stage.
We'll wind down with this from Black Allaince for Peace:
For Immediate Release
202 643 1136
MARCH 15, 2022—The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) declares its support for garment workers in Haiti and stands with the Haitian people who, migrating from the country for economic or political reasons, have faced racism, hostility, and terror abroad. We also condemn the neo-colonial political economic policies of the U.S. government, its international allies, and the multinational corporations who have created Haiti’s imperial crisis by continuing to undermine the sovereignty and independence of the Haitian people.
Early in the year, garment workers launched protests at the Caracol Industrial Park in Haiti’s northeast region. These protests have since spread to Port-au-Prince. The workers—mostly women—have demanded wage increases and decried the dehumanizing and demeaning sweatshops in which they are employed. Their demands have been blocked by the U.S. government and by those foreign corporations, including Hanes, New Balance, Champion, Gilden Activewear, Gap, and Walmart, which have profited from a decades-long history of Haitian labor exploitation and wage suppression. With wages at a criminally-low figure of under $5 per day, the workers are demanding an increase to $15 per day.
At the same time, thousands of Haitian people continue to abandon their homes and flee their country for economic and political reasons. Their journeys abroad are uncertain and perilous and their encounters with foreign governments have been punitive and hostile. Only last week, a boat carrying more than 300 Haitians capsized off the coast of Florida. In Mexico, Haitian migrants confront daily the racism of immigration agents and the National Guard and thousands of Haitians have been illegally incarcerated in Tapachula in what some have described as concentration camps. The Dominican Republic, with help from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is militarizing its border with Haiti, beginning construction on a planned 164-kilometer long wall with 70 watchtowers and 41 access points. Dominican President Luis Abinader has called it an “intelligent fence”: It will use radars, drones, movement sensors, cameras and, of course, well-armed border patrol agents to prevent Haitian migration.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration deports Haitian asylum seekers at a record pace. Biden has continued the use of Trump-era policies including “Remain in Mexico” and “Title 42” to deny asylum seekers the right to due process and safety. More than 20,000 Haitians have been deported within Biden’s first year in office, a number greater than the record of the previous three presidents combined.
It goes without saying that the treatment of Haitian people provides a stark, racial contrast with that of Ukrainian refugees. While Biden has told Haitians, “Don't come over,” he has welcomed Ukrainians “with open arms.”
For the Black Alliance for Peace, imperialism is the root cause of both the protests of Haiti’s garment workers and the experiences of Haitian migrants. While multinational corporations have undermined Haiti’s workers, the U.S. government, alongside U.S.-led bodies like the Organization of American States (OAS) and the CORE Group, have decapitated the Haitian state. As Haitain wages have been suppressed, Haitian democracy has been throttled. And as Haitian immigrants are abused in and deported from foreign countries, it is foreign meddling that has created the conditions forcing Haitians to migrate.
Thus, as Jemima Pierre, BAP’s Haiti/Americas Committee Coordinator, reminds us, “Haiti’s domestic crises are crises of imperialism, generated by the policies of the United States and its allies.”
The Black Alliance for Peace reaffirms its solidarity with the Haitian people in their unremitting struggles for peace, independence, and self-determination against U.S./UN imperialism. We salute our sisters and brothers fighting for higher wages and better working conditions at home, and in their quest for a better life abroad.
The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) calls on all organized labor to organize boycotts of Hanes, Levis, Fruit of the Loom and H&M in solidarity with Haitian workers.
BAP demands that the Biden regime stop its racist hypocrisy and end deportations of Haitian asylum seekers.
BAP demands that Haitian refugees and asylum seekers in the United States, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and elsewhere be treated with dignity and be afforded their legal rights under international law.
BAP calls on all organizations in the Caribbean and Latin America to issue denunciations of the OAS and United States and organize regular pickets outside of their headquarters and embassies.
BAP calls on all human rights organizations and members of the Black liberation movements to organize long term strategic solidarity campaigns to support self-determination for the Haitian people.
No Compromise, No Retreat!
The following sites updated: