Yet we were all supposed to rally when CBS was supposedly punishing Fat Ass Ed for speaking out. And I did. I wrote the letters. I said Ed had a right to express himself.
Tonight, I must apologize to CBS.
Ed had no right to express himself.
I say that because he's launched an attack on Kathryn Bigelow. So if she can't express herself without being demonized, neither can he. That's what fair is, right?
I find him disgusting.
I also think Jane Fonda and other women need to start speaking out for Bigelow. I seen Jane can praise a racist movie on her blog.
Ed and Jane?
I seem to remember when Jane was going to be appointed to an arts position by then-Governor Jerry Brown. She didn't get the post.
Asner and others circulated a petition. It was wrong, they insisted, to politicize the arts.
If you missed it, Kathryn Bigelow and her film Zero Dark Thirty are under attack from a right-winger and a bunch of closet cases who can't admit they're Communists.
Zero Dark Thirty does not make for a good Communist film, Michael Ratner wants you to know.
And, as in the days of Stalin, Communists feel they can lie completely to get their way. So they attack Kathryn's films with lies.
The Los Angeles Times reports:
"Experts disagree sharply on the facts and particulars of the intelligence hunt, and doubtlessly that debate will continue," Bigelow wrote in a statement for The Times. "As for what I personally believe, which has been the subject of inquiries, accusations and speculation, I think Osama bin Laden was found due to ingenious detective work. Torture was, however, as we all know, employed in the early years of the hunt. That doesn't mean it was the key to finding Bin Laden. It means it is a part of the story we couldn't ignore."
"War, obviously, isn't pretty," she added, "and we were not interested in portraying this military action as free of moral consequences."
"Zero Dark" has been lauded by critics and has the earmarks of a box-office hit — it garnered more than $24 million in the U.S. last weekend, its first of wide release. But the movie has lost momentum on the awards trail since the Washington condemnations began. Bigelow was not nominated for a directing Oscar, and the film only earned a single prize, for acting, at the Golden Globes on Sunday.
Go read Ava and C.I.'s "Media: The allure of Bash The Bitch" and I'm noting this from C.I.'s "2012: The Year of Avoidance:"
Avoidance. Avoiding dealing with reality, avoiding calling out that which needs to be called out.
In November, shortly after the election, Law and Disorder Radio featured attorneys Michael Smith and Michael Ratner discussing Barack's re-election. Excerpt.
Michael Smith: What if Obama wasn't re-elected and the new president personally has a kill list? And he's being advised by one of the top CIA guys who was in charge of the torture program five years ago? They're killing, from the sky, not only foreigners but American citizens. You would have a huge constituency opposing that. You're not supposed to murder people without due process, particularly American citizens. But that's the very thing that Obama is doing. It's like people are in a trance. No one's even criticizing it.
Michael Ratner: I agree completely, Michael. I mean we have no real constituency left on these issues. We can't get the people out on them. I mean, we're trying and I think it'll change over the next couple of years. But it is amazing how his election has disabled both African-Americans as well as, uh, [pauses] --
Michael Smith: Liberals, progressives. A very large part of people we had hoped to count on have taken themselves out of the ballgame on this.
Michael Ratner: I mean, that's not necessarily a reason someone shouldn't have voted for him.
Those aren't reasons people shouldn't have voted for him? Seriously? Killing American citizens isn't reason enough not to vote for Barack?
How far will you go to whore?
Clearly, Ratner and Smith will go very far. I wanted an easy Monday but made the mistake of promoting the latest broadcast of Law & Disorder. I was told that Iraq (specifically the torture of Iraqi women in prisons and detention centers) would be discussed. It was not discussed.
What we got instead was b.s. and sexism.
Sexism. Two weeks ago, Ann became the first to call out right-wing, Iraq War hawk Glenn Greenwald on his attacks on Kathryn Bigelow's new film Zero Dark Thirty -- a film he had not seen. (Disclosure, I've known Kathryn for decades now.) Ann's an educated woman so she immediately grasped you really can't slam a film you haven't seen. It was too much logic and thought for most of the left writers to absorb and always willing to slam a woman (see "Media: The allure of Bash The Bitch"), a large number of men (and disgraced former reporter Jane Mayer) joined in the attacks.
It's amazing that anyone would listen to Glenn Greenwald -- he supported and voted for Bully Boy Bush and he championed war on Iraq -- but it's especially appalling that the left has decided to embrace him. His sexism is well known.
Had Greenwald a history of critiquing film -- or had he called out the disgusting Homeland on Showtime (which does endorse torture and did so in it's original form -- as a TV show on Israeli TV that justified the attacks on Palestinians) -- you might want to excuse him. But Greenwald doesn't offer film critiques. Now he's going after Bigelow? He's leading a crusade against this female director?
It's sexism and goes to his long, long pattern of sexism.
Michael Ratner's got a pattern of sexism too. He and Smith giggled 'honey pot' and other crap when they attacked the two women who may have been raped by Julian Assange. Michael Ratner can't shut up about Assange and let's hope he bills him for all the times he brings up Assange over the public airwaves (he is one of many attorneys badly representing Assange). He hosts a show that once had four hosts -- two women and two men. It long ago dropped down to two men and one woman. Heidi Boghosian is a very sweet person. It might serve the show better if she weren't. Meaning? She's repeatedly talked over by the two male hosts who never seem to get that this behavior is sexism. The Michaels don't talk over one another. But if Heidi's explaining a legal point (all the hosts are attorneys), one of the Michaels (usually Ratner) will jump in, interrupt her and change the topic.
Michael Ratner, that's sexism. I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with that.
Like Glenn Greenwald, Law and Disorder does not have a history of addressing films. But today, in what was supposed to be the report on Iraq (a big screw you to Iraq from the radio show, in fact), we had the two Michaels blather on about a film that they hadn't seen.
This didn't stop Smith from identifying it as "that Hollywood movie that excuses torture." Smith also felt the need to tell you that "this movie puts forward the proposition that torture works." That's strange because I read the script before the film was made, I've seen the film and I don't see that in the movie.
Michael Ratner "this movie has done more already to legitimize torture than every thing Karl Rove ever did in his life."
Oh, heaven help us all. The movie, first off, it's not in wide release until January 11th. Few people can see it currently. Now what's currently legitimizing torture is a TV show called Homeland. The heavily praised and lauded show endorses torture. That's Ava and my opinion -- we tackled the show over the summer -- and others have since agreed -- such as Jordan Chandler Hirsh and Jeremy Dauber (The New Republic). Now there is a difference, those of us criticizing Homeland actually watched it.
Ava and I called it out, we didn't scream for censorship or that it didn't need to be on the air but we're Democrats not closeted Communists from the 20th century who were weaned on sexism and hate women.
Here's a little tip for closeted political cases who just know they're going to lead a revolution -- though the days remaining for them to do grow less and less: You can't lead a parade of one.
It's not a parade, it's just you walking.
In other words, in the 21st century, no one's going to giggle as you attack women. No one's going to give you a pass because you were a Trotsky-ite once upon a time or because you did this radical thing or that. No one honestly gives a damn about your tired past.
People today are focused on today. They're focused on their own lives. There are immediate concerns in this world. You're nostalgia sickness for a time that never was isn't helping advance anything. But your blatant sexism is harming.
If you don't doubt it, Michaels, grasp that people tuned in Monday morning to hear what was happening to Iraqi women, the torture in prison and jails. They didn't get that, did they?
Your sexism ensured that they didn't. And your sexism was hard to ignore when Heidi wasn't on the show and when both guests were men.
You can (and they have -- after complaints went in to the show) change your website, but you can't change what went down.
Two male hosts, ignoring the news to bash a woman for directing a film they hadn't seen.
Do you two really think that helped anyone? It certainly didn't help your image.
It certainly didn't help you be heard by anyone.
You need to check your sexism.
And when you're done with that, you need to ask yourself why you're more comfortable ripping apart Kathryn Bigelow and her film then you are in taking on Barack Obama?
For example, you're quite clear in expressing that no one should see Kathryn's film. But killing American citizens without due process, you argue, isn't reason enough not to vote for Barack.
An artist, you attack. A president you handle with kid gloves.
Again, the term is: Avoidance.
And that's all 2012 was.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Tuesday: