And to think I worried that my young daughter would get nightmares from "Park Avenue 666." So far, there's no problem with the violence.
There's also not a problem with sex because I'm upfront with my kids about sex and would rather see that on television than violence any day.
Last night, we're watching and a murder's about to happen and birds are in the building and even attack Jane (Rachael Taylor) before Brian (Robert Buckley) steps out of his shower to discover a woman in his bathroom. My daughter's not scared. She just looks over at me and says, with emphasis, "Mommy, he's my boyfriend!"
Alright then.
Again, to think I worried that the violence might be too much for her.
Brian is attractive. And he and Jane's husband Henry (Dave Annable) are good looking. So if you haven't checked out the show yet, there's two more reasons to do so.
Vanessa Williams and Terry O'Quinn are Olivia and Gavin, a married couple who owns the demonic building in NYC. Jane's just become the building manager. (It's her and Henry but Jane's doing all the work.) Gavin banishes someone into a wall (the wall swallows the man) and shortly after Jane discovers there are birds in the walls. She calls an exterminator to take care of it and to break open a door that concrete's been put over. This despite warnings that the birds won't like it. "Those birds never bothered anyone before," Gavin says.
Meanwhile a woman (Danielle) kills a man (her date) and, while this happens, Jane is asleep and dreams the woman as a fifties housewife killing her husband.
Gavin has plans for Jane and Henry. Olivia calls Henry "a boyscout" and Gavin insists he's going to be a hero.
The man Jane hired disappears. She goes to the building's basement to discover he did break down the concrete. She opens the door, steps into the dark and the door slams behind her. End of episode.
I wish they'd pace the scary better so that the scares came more often and it wasn't always the cliffhanger at the end of the episode being the most scary moment of the episode.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday,
October 8, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Joan Walsh can't stop
lying about Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech, Nouri goes to Russia
and gets tight, Iraq executes more people (even more), Turkey continues
bombing northern Iraq, Senator Patty Murray and US House Rep Rick Larsen
call attention to inequality in veterans health care, and more.
We
have to start with Mitt Romney. Not because I want to but because we
have to. Why do we have to? Because Joan Walsh has written another
alarmist piece for Salon. Joan's not a smart woman. I don't
know her personally and my contact with her in the past has been nothing
more than dictating e-mails to be sent to her along the lines of,
"Joan, please correct your error so I don't have to call you out online
today." You'd think I wouldn't have to do that. Joan and I are both
live in the Bay Area and you'd assume, for example, a supposed informed
woman like Joan could write about our state elections and the Democratic
candidates (Joan and I are both Democrats) without a mistake. Joan
struggles with facts. Sadly, that includes on election day -- like in
2010 when she was yammering away about a male Democrat's great run for
attorney general in our state race. For those who don't know, Kamal
Harris was elected California Attorney General in 2010. Kamal was the
Democratic candidate for that office and, yes, she is a woman.
Was one at birth, was one during the campaign and, despite Joan's bad
writing, Kamal was even a woman on election day. These are not minor
mistakes and go far beyond carelessness. As a general rule, I avoid
Joan in part because I'd be calling her out every day if I didn't but
also because -- unless it's about the state we both live in -- what she
writes is is so inconsequential. Like most, it's about what she saw on
cable last night. She's an aspiring TV blogger. She can almost handle
that. Almost.
But today Joan
wanted to tackle big topics. Or was forced to pretend to have that
desire because Mitt Romney gave a speech on foreign policy. So she took to Salon and to demonstrate that her liberal arts education was not wasted, immediately took to Tennessee William's Cat on a Hot Tin Roof to grab "mendacity." She really doesn't seem to know what it is but she was exposed to Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and damned if she's not going to shoe horn a multi-syllabic word in there somewhere.
Through
insinuation, Joan Walsh attempts to paint Mitt Romney as craven
(careful readers will grasp just how much autobiography went into Joan's
writing today). She has to use insinuation because there's nothing
that alarming in his speech. There's also nothing foreign policy in
Joan's blog post (she repeats and she rails, she never has a framework
other than "Mitt Bad, Vote Barack.") That's the problem with the
half-fact checkers ("half" because they never check their own beloved
while passing themselves off as journalists), they can't handle ideas,
their brains aren't equipped, one rogue metaphor and they're flailing
around wildly in a cup of alphabet soup.
Mitt
Romney, if you hadn't grasped it already from Joan's rabid hate of him,
is the GOP presidential candidate. Today, he spoke at the Virginia
Military Institute. Click here for the speech he gave.
This
isn't the "Libya snapshot." But Joan has deliberately distorted what
Romney stated about the September 11, 2012 attacks and Joan knows the
easiest way to lie about what Romney said is not to quote him in full
but to serve up half-sentences. So she rants and raves and hopes you
don't know that her overblown faux outrage never quite makes sense.
Let's quote a chunk of what he said:
Last
month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of
our fellow Americans are dead -- murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the
dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men, on a mission of
peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President
Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues
represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their
loss.
The attacks against us in Libya were
not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots
in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also
in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has
been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from
their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting "Death to America." These
mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American
embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.
As
the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how
this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and
what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I
have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic
recent events -- and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for
a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.
The
attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They
are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the
broader Middle East -- a region that is now in the midst of the most
profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle
can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.
The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th,
2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked
our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be
blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the
Administration's attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as
the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the
deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark
ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to
control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual
war on the West.
We saw all of this in
Benghazi last month -- but we also saw something else, something
hopeful. After the attack on our Consulate, tens of thousands of
Libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in Benghazi
against the very extremists who murdered our people. They waved signs
that read, "The Ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya is sorry."
They chanted "No to militias." They marched, unarmed, to the terrorist
compound. Then they burned it to the ground. As one Libyan woman said,
"We are not going to go from darkness to darkness."
This
is the struggle that is now shaking the entire Middle East to its
foundation. It is the struggle of millions and millions of people --
men and women, young and old, Muslims, Christians and non-believers --
all of whom have had enough of the darkness. It is a struggle for the
dignity that comes with freedom, and opportunity, and the right to live
under laws of our own making. It is a struggle that has unfolded under
green banners in the streets of Iran, in the public squares of Tunisia
and Egypt and Yemen, and in the fights for liberty in Iraq, and
Afghanistan, and Libya, and now Syria. In short, it is a struggle
between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.
That's
Romeny putting facts into a framework. Is it right or wrong? It's
really neither. It's a framework and those of who took actually theory
classes grasp that. We grasp that there are world views. There are
ways people see the world around them. The view above is not a lie or
magical thinking or a tribute to mendacity. It is the framework of
Mitt's thinking. (Most likely the speech was written by someone else.
Not even Barack writes his own speeches. But speech writers do work to
reflect the speaker's thoughts.) The speech is not uncommon and
altering just a few words and examples would demonstrate that it's one
that's basically been givein by candidates of both parties for several
decades now. The speech is premised more on bi-polar [due to the
either-or construction trap we fall into in the US] than it is
uni-polar, so some may see it as a throw back (bi-polar refers to the
period when the US and the USSR were considered the two poles, the two
giants, controlling world policy; when the USSR imploded, many noted it
was now a uni-polar system and a few insisted/predicted that's how it
would remain). Others may not feel that way as they see emerging powers
on the horizon and may grasp that, historically, a uni-polar system
tends to move to a multi-polar or bi-polar one.
If
you leave out the section on Chris Stevens, in fact, you've got a view
in Mitt's speech that Barack's repetedly referenced in speech after
speech -- none of which found Joan objecting to 'mendacity' or 'magical
thinking' when Barack, like every other US president, was
stating 'people want to be free.' However, this is what the faux fact
checker Joan can point to with 'pride:'
Ironically,
in a speech most passionate about making sure there's no "daylight"
between the U.S. and Israel, Romney repeatedly hailed VMI graduate
George Marshall, the former secretary of state who famously opposed
Harry Truman's recognizing the state of Israel in 1948.
That's
it. He praised a man who opposed the US recognizing Israel. Only in a
simplistic mind, only in the mind of someone unable to process and
analyze, does one policy position become entirely who they are.
Marshall (who I don't personally think was so great) is famous and
infamous for many things. But Joan thinks she's found a way to play
Ha-Ha-Look-At-The-Idiot. She'll probably repeat it smugly on Hardball
when she appears there next. She's a dog who found a dead mouse in the
field and brought it up to the farmhouse porch. Nothing more. Thats
what the faux fact-checkers do. That's what their mini-minds can almost
handle.
[While Joan reduces George Marshall
to "the former secretary of state," Romney's praising Marshall as "the
Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary
of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe's
rescue from despair."]
And every time they
puff out their pompous chests and spew their vile, we all get a little
dumber as a nation. Joan insists in her opening paragraph that Romney's
speech was full of "promises or threats to maintain, restore, escalate
or commence military involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and
Iran at a minimum." That is why I had to read Mitt Romney's speech in
full. No offense to Romney, but I had better things to do today then
read a stump speech. But if Mitt's making a call for 'maintaining,
restoring, escalating or commencing military involvement in Iraq, that's
news and it's news that belongs in the snapshot.
So lets read Mitt Romney calling for maintaining/restoring/escalating/commencing military involvement in Iraq:
In
Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising
violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad,
and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America's ability to
influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the
abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried --
and failed -- to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would
have better secured our gains.
What? He didn't call for what Joan said? You mean Joan Walsh lied?
Yeah,
she did. And are we shocked? Sadly becoming campaign whores every
four years was bad enough. Now the election cycle never ends and the
Joan Walshes are campaign whores non-stop. In the process, they degrade
and destroy the country.
Self-serving
campaign whores like Joan Walsh pretend to give a damn about Iraq. Yet
they've never bothered to tell their readers (or repeat when guesting on
MSNBC) what Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th,
"Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could
result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on
training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to
General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently
deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with
intelligence."
Read Joan Walsh's garbage
today. Note her faux outrage. To her it is outrageous that Mitt Romney
would attempt to send troops into Iraq. I share that feeling. But
unlike Joan, I'm not just upset if Mitt Romney does it and I'll leave it
to the cheap whores to pretend like Barack's not trying to do -- right
now -- what Joan's falsely declaring Mitt Romney said he'd do today.
If
it is outrageous to Joan that Mitt would do what she accuses him of
doing (which he didn't do in the speech), then it should be outrageous
to her that Barack is doing what she's accused Mitt of. The fact that
she doesn't acknowledge what Barack is doing goes to the fact that she's
a cheap whore who degrades the public discourse by intentionally lying
day after day. Judging by her work, she awakes each morning not
thinking of how she might inform or assist American citizens in grasping
what is going on. She doesn't want them to be informed. Informed
people make their own decisions. Joan wants zombies -- fact
challengened ones -- readers of Salon who will march with her to the voting booth and vote Democrat.
That's
not how you create an informed citizenry, it's not how you create a
healthy democracy. In her post today, Joan accused Mitt Romney of
lying. To do that, she had to lie and pretend Barack wasn't trying to
do what she was accusing Mitt of and she also had to lie and distort
what he said. When you have to lie to take down your political rival,
that says a great deal more about you than it does about your rival.
Let's go through what Mitt Romney said about Iraq.
In
Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising
violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad,
and the rising influence of Iran.
The
press reports that al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is responsible for the rise
in violence. I tend to be more skeptical of that claim and see this as
less about terrorism and more as a fight for who will control the
country. In my view, the refusal to share power and bring in Sunnis is
creating the same oppression that the Shi'ites lived under for decades.
But Mitt Romney expressed statements perfectly in keeping with the
American press reports (and Salon's not challenged those reports or even
been skeptical of them). From the right and the left, you read about
Iran and Iraq's increased relationship. From the right, it's Barack's
fault for what he's done in the last four years (his fault that Iran and
Iraq are so much closer), from the left it's Bush's fault for starting
the illegal war. Regardless of who gets blamed, the reality is that
Iraq and Iran are much closer than they were before 2003.
And
yet, America's ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has
been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence.
Where's
the controversy there? Abrupt? It was an abrupt drawdown. It wasn't a
withdrawal -- all forces have not left Iraq. But to argue with Mitt
Romney that it wasn't a withdrawal, you'd have to have offered at some
point that it was a drawdown. Salon's never done that. Few have. Most
go along with the lie that all US forces were brought home from Iraq by
Barack in December 2011. Most fail to note the 15,000 that were moved
to Kuwait (which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended this
summer drop to 13,000 and be left there for several years), most fail
to note the Special-Ops that remained in Iraq, the trainers, the
military to protect the Embassy, etc. But it was "abrupt," the
drawdown.
"America's ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined"?
Yet again, let's note John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):
Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."
Back to Mitt Romney.
In
Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops The President tried -- and
failed -- to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have
better secured our gains.
Wheres the problem with that? That is what happened.
Negotiations
fell apart. In November they were ongoing, in December, (most) US
troops were leaving. November 15, 2011, the Senate Armed Services
Committee heard testimony from Gen Martin Dempsey (Chair of the
Joint-Chiefs of Staff) and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. In that
hearing, the ongoing negotiations were discussed by Panetta repeatedly.
If you missed that, we reported on the hearing in three consecutive
snapshots: "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot." Ava reported on it with "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," Wally reported on it with "The costs (Wally)" and Kat reported on it with "Who wanted what?" -- we also covered it repeatedly at Third.
It
was actual news. If you're not familiar with it that's because the
so-called grown up press chose to ignore the heart of the hearing to
instead (mis)report a line of questioning between Senator John McCain
and Panetta. They reduced a hearing on Iraq to McCain got nasty! And
wanted to pretend that this sort of National Enquirer tabloidization of the hearing counted as 'reporting.' (Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times
was the only one at a daily paper -- and even the wire services missed
it -- to inform about the large issues the hearing was addressing.
Broadcast news stuck to catty or ignored the hearing entirely.)
America
has lost influence in Iraq. The White House keeps trying to get
Nouri's Baghdad-based government to go along with war on Syria. Nouri
keeps refusing. Today, Lina Saiigol and Michael Peet (Financial Times of London) report,
"Iraq is quietly shipping vital supplies of fuel oil to Syira in a deal
that has triggered concern in Washington and exposes Damascus's
difficulties keeping its economy afloat in the face of a growing civil
war and economic sanctions." The government of Russia has opposed the
US government's desire for war on Syria (via its seat on the UN
Security-Council, among other things). Guess where Nouri is today?
Dar Addustour notes
that Nouri was received by Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, in
Moscow today as the two, in the words of Nouri's spokesperson Ali
al-Dabbagh, improve diplomatic and military ties between the two
countries. Iraq's most recent diplomatic move with Russia prior was the
arrest of Russian bikers, the torture of Russian bikers. So this is a
big step for Iraq. Al Mada reports that Nouri is hoping to replace American influence with Russian influence. AGI adds
that "the two heads of government will be addressing the Syrian
escalation. Both countries have been accused by members of the
international community if backing the [Syrian President Bashar] Assad
regime." Xinhua quotes Nouri declaring, "Some people describe this visit as solely about arms purchases. But that is not the case." UPI notes
that word in Baghdad is that "Maliki will sign a $5 billion air-defense
contract with Moscow. It's not clear whether Baghdad's seeking to
pressure Washington to speed up the delivery of arms or [. . .]
genuinely seeks an alternate major power source of supply." IANS/RIA Novosit adds,
"Asked how the Iraqi authorities will explain Russian arms purchases to
the US, al-Maliki said his country did not consult anyone regarding
arms purchases." Kitabat reports that Nouri's hoping Russia can help with air defense which would further weaken the relationship with the US government. In a Dar Addustour column, As Sheikh sees the trip as Russia's attempt to block US influence in the region and to rearrange alliances.
As
Iraq seeks to increase ties with Russia, new tensions emerge with Iran
whose government today began issuing public warnings. Vestnik reports,
"Iran's Ambassador to Baghdad Hassan Danaeifar has warned against the
consequences of Iraq's inspection of a Syria-bound Iranian cargo
plane." ISNA quotes
Danaeifar stating, "What Iraq did about inspection of airplanes bound
for Syria is not proportional to the diplomatic ties of the two sides
and is contradictory to security agreements and air transportation
treaty of the two countries."
Saturday, "Al Mada reports that the US military has entered Baghdad International Airport and taken over the inspection of all Iranian planes en route to Syria." Kitabat reports that on Sunday the US took the lead in the inspections. This may account for the Iranian government's sudden desire to comment on the policy. Two weeks ago, when Iraqis inspected the first Iranian plane bound for Syria, and publicly noted the inspection, there was no real comment from the Iranian regime. Suddenly, it's an issue, a very big issue. Hard to believe the reports of the US now handling the inspections isn't responsible for some of the warning statements from the Iranian government.
Saturday, "Al Mada reports that the US military has entered Baghdad International Airport and taken over the inspection of all Iranian planes en route to Syria." Kitabat reports that on Sunday the US took the lead in the inspections. This may account for the Iranian government's sudden desire to comment on the policy. Two weeks ago, when Iraqis inspected the first Iranian plane bound for Syria, and publicly noted the inspection, there was no real comment from the Iranian regime. Suddenly, it's an issue, a very big issue. Hard to believe the reports of the US now handling the inspections isn't responsible for some of the warning statements from the Iranian government.
Conflicts also continue with Turkey. Kitabat reports
the Turkish military is stating it bombed northern Iraq last night via
war planes (twelve F-16s) in the continued assault on the Kurdish rebel
group PKK. Trend News Agency reports the war planes used "missile and bomb strikes." Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described the PKK 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." Last night's bombings were the third night in a row.
Kitabat noted the Friday air raids with Press TV adding, "On
October 5, Turkish security forces killed six PKK members during
separate operations in the eastern provinces of Elazig and Siirt." Press TV reports the war planes continued bombing Saturday. AFP explains,
"The latest operation comes after the Turkish government asked
parliament last week to renew the mandate for its armed forces to attack
Kurdish rebel bases in Iraq for another year, as the clashes sharply
escalated between the two sides." And Kristin Deasy (Global Post) reminds,
"Baghdad on Tuesday announced that it would no longer tolerate foreign
intervention -- a statement seen as directed at Turkey's military
activity in the north, according to AFP. Tensions between the two nations have been on the rise." The Saudi Gazette reports bombings continued Monday night ("overnight" -- it's Tuesday in the region already).
The
parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee said that there are 16 Turkish
military bases on Iraqi territory along the border with Turkey.
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834 - press office
202--224-0228 - direct
