DramatistDreamer

Trump, in his ridiculous statement about the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, feels compelled to mention, not once but twice that he doesn't take Saudi money. "I don't make deals with Saudi Arabia" (remember how he repeatedly chants "No collusion" with Russia?) Also, "I don't have money from Saudi Arabia". Yeah, that's convincing.

Eeh, any article that cites the New York Post as a primary source though...The Post is more of a tabloid to me. It doesn't mean that what they report isn't often true but they definitely give me pause because they tend to rely a lot on gossip and hearsay. I admit that seeing The NY Post highlighted in red stopped me in my tracks.

Geez, it never ends.

The thing is, that there are rivals and factions that don't get along even within the KSA. Al Qaeda, right from the start was a pan Islamist militant organization, meaning they draw extremists from all over the Islamic world, not just Saudis. Bin Laden himself was ethnically Yemeni and Syrian. Bin Laden fought alongside the Pakistani mujahideen in the '80s against the Soviets. (which might be why he felt so comfortable retreating to Pakistan in the wake of the 9-11 attacks) There was some support for Al Qaeda within KSA, many from Wahabis who ostensibly hated the royal governing family. To calm them, the ruling royal families allowed the Wahabis to carve out their own sphere of influence within the kingdom, which many believed the governing families within KSA would later regret as it pulled the kingdom further toward Wahabism and an extremely conservative form of Islam, which the jet-setting, conspicuous consuming Saudi royals did not care for. Ironically, MbS seemed to be pulling KSA away from those more conservative aspects which were rooted in Wahabism, which is why MbS initially had so much support, particularly from Western countries and KSA's youth (which he may still have support from, tbh). We should never forget that Al Qaeda attacked and bombed other countries years before they attacked the U.S. Al Qaeda killed hundreds, thousands of people, mostly Muslims before they attacked the U.S. Bin Laden was already on the Most Wanted Lists for Terrorists, years before September11th, 2001. I'm not really sure where the theories of collusion between the Saudi government and Bin Laden stem from as I'm not familiar with those theories but I do remember that in Bin Laden's manifesto (written years after the attack), he claimed that Al Qaeda's motives for the attacks were a reaction against the U.S. having troops stationed in KSA, where the U.S. used Saudi airfields and airspace, as well as sanctions against Iraq. The bitterly cruel irony is that, of course, Al Qaeda would ultimately use airplanes as weapons of destruction. In short, we know that there are individuals who have been highly supportive of terrorist organizations and some of them are in KSA, as well as the UAE but from what I've read and saw in documentaries, Bin Laden, in particular had a distaste for the Saudi royal family and the feelings were mutual.

Unfortunately many people were fooled by the contrived statements about WMDs that were never proven to exist. Also, the U.S. never understood how complex ethnic and religious rivalries were, which was one of the reasons why Iraq was such an unmitigated disaster. Once upon a time, the U.S. had use for Saddam Hussein (under Reagan...again) until they didn't. He was every bit as much of a despot back then but back then, he was a useful despot. Sometimes I wonder, personally if Al Qaeda was timing it specifically for an American presidential administration that was prone to war-mongering like a G.W. Bush administration. Would bin Laden have tried this during an Al Gore presidency? He didn't do this during the Clinton years.

Bush's issues in Iraq from what I've read, had more to do with Saddam Hussein and 'finishing the job that his father George H.W. didn't complete'. bin Laden, on the other hand had already been expelled by the Saudis, no? While Reagan and the U.S. military trained bin Laden and the mujahideen against the Soviets (skills that would boomerang back on Sept 11th). I doubt that the Saudis needed U.S. protection on that matter since Bin Laden was far from KSA in the caves of Afghanistan. Kuwait, Iraq's vulnerable neighbor, was another matter. Sometimes U.S. and Saudi oil industries collaborate (oil production, strategically driving down oil prices) and sometimes they are at cross-purposes (e.g. Trump administration granting waivers enabling businesses to buy from mutual enemy Iran, for seemingly political purposes). I haven't done much reading/research into Halliburton and oil, but Halliburton profited handsomely in Iraq by catering to the U.S. military in the theaters of war (catering, supplies, etc.) The war in Iraq itself was highly profitable whereas the war in Afghanistan (where bin Laden was thought to be hiding for a decade), was not. Trump's vested interest in KSA is likely to be much the same as the other autocratic countries he does business with.

I thought that the administration of Bush Jr. was one of, it not the most destructive presidencies in my lifetime (I can only speak for myself) but one tangible difference between the two is that Trump likely has personal business with the Saudis. Dick Cheney might have had business with KSA through his contracting firm Halliburton and though, he may have been the 'unseen hand' behind the president, he didn't hold the actual title. Trump, who is the current occupant of the title has business with the Saudis through Trump Inc. One of the reasons why I hope Rep. Maxine Waters demands and digs through those tax returns, is that there may be some irrefutable proof of Trump's conflicts of interest-- then again, he may have figured out a way to obscure the evidence by January '19.

It's well known that the U.S/KSA (oil) alliance has been in effect for several decades through various presidential administration in both political parties but KSA/MbS and Trump Inc. seem to be especially connected to each other. And the Trump administration is in the intrigue up to their necks.

Yesterday, I very nearly posted a tweet by Maggie Haberman where she was trying to amplify that very same concept by retweeting some ridiculous opinion piece from Slate. Why do these people only lecture Democrats and/or liberals to shrink from using language that is direct and bracing, while merely mentioning the abrasive, often insulting tones of Republican/Trumpists in the most matter-of-fact tone possible? Why no lecture for the Trumpists? I thought better of posting anything that Haberman tweets because by now, we all know what she's all about and frankly, I'm tired of her 'access journalism'.

Someone posted several videos from The Price Is Right from 1983 when the show did a salute to CBS daytime dramas by featuring actors from the network's soaps. This episode featured "Steve" and "Betsy" introducing prizes during the Showcase Showdown. They come on at around the 52nd minute.

Wow @Costello, how did I miss your post?? Looks like Cibulkova is doing a cameo in the Li Na movie.

It's amazing how the U.S. media is neglecting to report the massive failures of the Trump administration on the international stage. The 2018 APEC Conference just concluded and for the first time since 1988, the participants weren't even able to summon enough agreement to craft a joint statement. The reason-- the U.S. and China and what some are referring to as an increasing Cold War. Ever wonder why there is virtually no news on the so-called U.S./North Korea summit relations? Because it's not going well. At all. Not to mention the fact that, according to reports, Trump is refusing to even listen to the evidence that implicates KSA crown prince MbS. Trump claimed that this arms deal was going to be 'yuge' but to this day, there has not been one completed deal between the U.S. and KSA. Not. one. Oh and what about that Middle East peace deal? How's that going? Weren't Jared and MbS supposed to craft some sort of new New World Order of peace and prosperity (namely for their own family's fortunes)? It seems stalled, at best, to me. Let's not even get into Europe. Or Canada. Or...sigh...Latin America. If I didn't read/watch international news, I swear, I'd know nothing of any of this! On the domestic front... There's been a turkey salmonella outbreak going on for about a year now, announced just in time for Thanksgiving...Gobble Gobble!

Shade.

But believing that they could extract themselves from a decades long socio-economic pact with minimal complications is a form of illusion, no? The younger people had no such illusions, they knew that their futures were tied to access to a global marketplace where they were permitted the right to travel across Europe without a tangle of bureaucracy. Many who work in the corporate sector probably work for multinationals. They knew what they stood to lose. As I understood, those (like Boris Johnson) who had been extolling the 'virtues' of an exit from the EU hadn't been doing it for 2+ years but for 20+ years! That's quite a long period of indoctrination, which could partially explain why older people were more likely to believe the Brexit mythology--they've been absorbing it for so long. To paraphrase on that old adage of 'a lie can become like the truth if repeated often enough'.

John McCain's problem wasn't having a woman as a running mate, it was the particular woman that he selected, who was clearly out of her depth in all matters political. Proposing that had Bernie won the nomination, he would've won the WH is asking for an awful LOT of hypotheticals to be put into place and JMO, but I don't see any of that happening. The fact that Bernie couldn't get out of the nomination is where the argument ends for me but let's entertain the far-fetched notion that he could have somehow secured the nomination-- Trump Inc. would've certainly dredged up every vote, every questionable word uttered by Bernie since he entered public office in the 1980s. Remember those very distasteful and shady articles that Bernie wrote when he was around 33 years old? Those would've most certainly been brought to the fore, instead of existing on marginalized blogs. Trust that every untoward thing that Bernie had written or said (and he has a record of this that stretches back decades) would've been dredged up. And lest, anyone believe that Bernie's questionable writings would be no match for Trump's history-- Trump Inc. would make sure to tilt the focus on how it reflects on Bernie's history in public service, meanwhile casting Trump's indiscretions as purely personal (as he had no history in public service before getting elected), much like how the Trump campaign used the l'affaire Lewinsky and Paula Jones to re-litigate Bill Clinton's fitness for public office and by association, HRC. Bernie's deviant essays from the 1980s would've been cast as perverted and warped, and unworthy of support from those evangelicals that the Trump campaign courted so assiduously. I could go on and on, point by point and show you how anyone could've magnified Bernie's perceived weaknesses in a general election because anyone could do it, even the most novice of political novices. And if a political novice could thoroughly deconstruct Bernie's general election campaign, imagine what people as cunning and ruthless as Kellyanne Conway and Roger Stone could do? I think the magical thinking about Bernie needs to come to a close. Speaking of magical thinking, I wonder how many Brits still labour under the illusion that there is any scenario in which an exit from the E.U. could produce a favourable outcome? Theresa May has failed to secure what the Tories promised but can anyone secure what the Tories promised? Sure doesn't look so from here. Also, this 1922 Committee is unlike anything I've ever read, seen or heard of in politics. Leave it to the Brits to dust off a little used rule that few people are familiar with and are confounded by and introduce it as a mechanism to add to an already tangled and complicated process.

Sounds like you have an aversion to bad writing, which is not in short supply on network too. I can see where a binge-method of presenting string of On Demand episodes might not be a good fit for a lot of continuing drama but even Netflix is beginning to present series that present episodes one at a time. I've had a ball binge-watching classic ATWT on You Tube and many of those episodes have no commercials. I think the biggest thing is that a lot of the websoaps of today just happen to be poorly written. The production values have improved but the scripts, by and large, haven't.

Apparently, there's a fake death hoax on Twitter involving actress and composer Billie Eilish, who is the daughter of Maggie Baird, who played Dr.Taylor Baldwin, briefly an antagonist toward Lyla and Casey Peretti and Tom and Margo Hughes.

British journalists love to brag about how knowledgeable British fans are about tennis, while denigrating other countries (e.g. China) about how ill-informed their tennis fans are but only ignorance can truly explain why people would boo and continue to boo because of a mistake that a ballboy, a volunteer and a kid, made by accident. Maybe the Brit tennis fans are not all they've been lauded to be.

Wesley Morris writes a glowing review of Amazing Grace, which makes me even more curious as to why Ms. Franklin was so adamant that this film not be shown (at least in her lifetime). Aretha Franklin Didn’t Want You to See This Movie. But You Must.

Interesting profile story about Michael B. Jordan in NYT, which briefly gives a nod to the fact that he and Chadwick Boseman played the same character in All My Children. Michael B. Jordan Is Finally in Control. Now What?