Troubling Attacks on Edward Snowden From The Left

...there's nothing surprising about the reaction to this week's disclosures about the National Security Agency's unprecedented surveillance program. In our cult-of-personality society, that reaction has been predictably - and unfortunately - focused less on the agency's possible crimes against the entire country than on Edward Snowden, the government contractor who disclosed the wrongdoing ~ David Sirota (dob 11/2/1975) an American liberal political commentator, nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, Democratic political spokesperson and radio host based in Denver. Quote from his 6/14/2013 article, "Snowden deserves our Sympathy".

The following is an excerpt from the 6/13/2012 broadcast of Current TV's The Young Turks, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Host Cenk Uygur and guest Daniel Ellsberg (the Vietnam war-era whistleblower who released the Pentagon_Papers) discuss Edward Snowden.

Cenk Uygur: How similar is your case and the cases of Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning?

Daniel Ellsberg: I feel a great identification with them, despite the fact that we have different backgrounds and were different ages when we made our disclosures. Bradley Manning was 22, and I give him credit at having arrived at that [decision to become a whistleblower at such a] young age. I think we all faced the same problem.

Basically we saw we were working for a government that was lying to the people and was acting illegally and unconstitutionally in various ways. Whether we would live up to our oath to support the Constitution or to our promise to keep secrets to a boss, even when those secrets involved criminality. We chose the Constitution. Unfortunately that is pretty rare, so I feel considerable identification with both of them.

Cenk Uygur: So, Daniel, how do you answer the people who say these guys clearly broke the law, so obviously they should go to jail?

Daniel Ellsberg: That is a complicated legal question. Regarding Edward Snowden, there is a law against divulging communications intelligence information, regardless of what your motive is. There is no element of motive in that law, 18 USC 798, which I was not charged with and Bradley was not charged with. I would say he [Snowden] did break that law, and that raises the question... can it be criminal to release secrets that are protecting criminal or unconstitutional behavior?

That has never been tested in any court case. It has never gone to the Supreme Court. I would like to see that tested in court. Not that I want to see him [Snowden] on trial, particularly. But that is the issue that would be raised there.

Cenk Uygur: Yes, interesting. To me what's even more interesting is the different reactions throughout those different years.

Daniel Ellsberg: None of them were different in the beginning. I was called a traitor as much as either of those people [Bradley Manning & Edward Snowden]. I'm struck by the fact that... I am receiving some favorable comments from some surprising people than I've had for 20 or 30 years... in the context of using me as a foil against Bradley Manning or Snowden. "Ellsberg good, Manning bad". "Ellsberg good, Snowden bad". I don't accept that at all.

I think we have people who, after the exposures of the last 10 and 20 years, are pro-whistleblower in general, just against the current whistleblowers. I think that's true of... people like Tom Friedman and David Brooks. Overall FOR whistleblowing, but not for these guys. If Edward Snowden was not right to put out this unconstitutional behavior, a blatant violation of the fourth amendment, I wonder what these people would say would be reasonable whistleblowing? You can't get more classic whistleblowing than that.

Possibly, the next step will be the revelation that they are not just looking at meta data... I feel sure - I can't prove this, I haven't seen the documents; no one has outside the NSA - but I feel sure they are collecting and keeping all of the content of all digital communication (all telephone, everything else)... big brother is collecting everything. We don't have the proof of that yet...

These people are heroes to me... Dianne Feinstein doesn't know treason, the Constitution does not define it as that. It is a slander for her to say so. What it shows is that our system of oversight has failed. That is true under both Republicans and Democrats. For high level Democrats to be denouncing Snowden instead of focusing on what he has revealed shows that the structure of checks and balances has disintegrated, and that means that our democracy is very much in question. This is perhaps a chance to get some of that back. That means putting pressure on people like Diane Feinstein.

[End transcript of the 6/13/2012 Current TV broadcast of The Young Turks]

I end my transcript when the show goes to commercial (although there was some stuff near the end that I cut out). After returning from commercial Ellsberg seems to suggest the NSA may be listening/reading our electronic communications without a court order. According to him, they can "Google it" or the equivalent at any time, and they have "blackmail capability" for "every journalist, every Congressperson [and] every judge".

I'm not sure about that. Ellsberg says it will take another Snowden to give up the documents that would prove his allegations are accurate, because without documents the people will believe whatever the government tells them. As proof he cites the case of NSA director James Clapper, who lied to Congress when asked by Senator Ron Wyden (in a 3/12/2013 United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing), "does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" and Clapper responded, "No, sir".

Chenk postulates that there is no chance of rolling back the surveillance state. A member of the panel (which he introduced after the break) agrees, and notes that public opinion is on the side of allowing this to continue. That, or they are indifferent. So, no chance. Not while most of the public is either apathetic or on board for whatever reason. Repubs because they're so afraid of the terrorists or Dems because they trust the current occupant of the White House.

Yes, those on the Left are lining up behind President Obama. In the article I pulled my opening quote from David Sirota notes that "plenty of Obama loyalists — many of whom criticized the Bush administration for much less invasive surveillance — took to Twitter to berate Snowden as an attention-seeking traitor". What I've found is that the Obama apologists have also taken to their blogs to condemn and malign Snowden and defend the administration.

Several Liberal blogs I comment on are bashing Snowden (and Glenn Greenwald) and defending what Daniel Ellsberg calls a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. And they say Ellsberg is a hero but Snowden is a "character-disordered con-man", and that the fact that he ruined his life to disclose this wrong-doing is proof that "he has a demonstrated callous disregard of people without conscience or remorse [and that his] chest-thumping grandiosity is the ego food of a narcissist".

So Ellsberg was definitely right about people saying "Ellsberg good, Snowden bad". The comment I just quoted is from a Lefty. The point made on the blog the previous hyperlink connects to is that Snowden fled to Hong Kong and may have disclosed "secrets" to the Chinese. Perhaps there is something to those criticisms. We don't know what he's telling the Chinese. They also note that he is (supposedly) a Libertarian Ron Paul supporter. I've heard that as well, but I say it's irrelevant.

I agree with the commenter who wrote, "Whatever Snowdon's personality traits, whatever his motivation... we do need to be concerned about government power and it's intrusion into our personal lives". Absolutely. My electronic communications are my "papers" and the government does not have the right to seize them (and store them in gigantic data processing centers), even if they are get a (secret) court order (from a secret court) before reading or listening to the content. They're only able to read or listen to my "papers" using that warrant because they previously seized them (with no warrant).

I've seen the old Ben Franklin quote cited many times in connection with the Edward Snowden case, which is "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", and I agree it is extremely applicable. The Left criticized the Repub's who defended bush when he illegally wiretapped American citizens, but now that it's a Democratic president doing it, they're OK with similar unconstitutional behavior? I must say I'm disappointed in my fellow Liberals.

SWTD #167

Brookings' Intellectually Honest Analysis Of Romney's Tax Proposals Got Me Banned

Romney says he is going to balance the budget, cut taxes, raise defense, protect Medicare, and preserve all the institutions of the federal government that we need from the FBI to the FAA. You can't possibly do all of those things. That was my problem. How does the math add up? To me, he's still at war with math ~ Tom Friedman (b. 7/20/1953) NYT columnist and self-identified Republican, on the 9/2/2012 broadcast of BC's Meet the Press.

Preface 1: This is a old post. I originally intended to publish it in September of 2012, but never got around to finishing it. I wrote most of it, but never actually completed it for some reason. I was recently looking for things to delete from my computer and found this... and decided to dust it off, finish it, and publish it. Why? Because it explains MY SIDE of a debate that lead to me being banned from the blog Contra O'Reilly.

I've authored a number of highly critical posts over the last few months that take aim at the proprietor of that blog, a Mr. Willis L. Hart (who I refer to as "PA" below). This post explains why. He banned me over a stoopid disagreement over former presidential contender Mitt Romney's tax plan (a plan that was never explained in detail, therefore making assumptions necessary if anyone wished to critique it).

Preface 2: What follows is my original post which my records say I intended to publish on 9/1/2012...

According to Wikipedia Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception".

Definition-wise, Wikipedia states that Intellectual Honesty is: [1] One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth. [2] Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis. [3] Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another. [4] References are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Regarding "Intellectual Honesty", I certainly do not try, nor have I ever tried to deceive with any of my posts, although I'm not going to claim that my personal beliefs never interfere with the pursuit of truth. They do. Facts here will sometimes be presented in a "biased" manner... from my Democrat-Liberal-Progressive point of view, that is. That is my bias. I don't deny it, but I do deny that I am the most intellectually dishonest person Willis Hart this particular as*hole has ever had to deal with.

The particular as*hole (PA) who levied this insult (and then banned me from his blog) did so because I defended a report from the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center that said the Romney tax plan would raise taxes on the poor and middle class (see my previous post on the subject). Regarding Brookings' determination "...that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed... maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment... would... increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower-income taxpayers", PA asserted that, "this study was done for one purpose, and one purpose only, to make frigging Romney look ridiculous".

Because Romney has put forward very few specifics, Brookings was required to make a number of assumptions in order to do the analysis at all. One of the things they assumed was that because Romney has said he favors "maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment" that items that fall into this category are "off the table".

So just what deductions is Mitt Romney talking about? In their analysis Brookings/TPC says, "offsetting the $360 billion in revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction... would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low and middle-income families and children like the EITC and child tax credit".

No way says PA. PA thinks it is much more likely that Romney would lower taxes as he has described, while keeping these deductions and allow the deficit to rise. Do I think Romney would actually put forward a budget that did this? I doubt it, but, AGAIN, he has proposed a huge tax cut that also "maintains all tax breaks for saving and investment", and that simply is not possible unless many or most tax expenditures are reduced or eliminated. This is another reasonable assumption... in my opinion.

But because of these assumptions PA determined that the Brookings analysis was BS. Why? Apparently because the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, and the Manhattan Institute (all Conservative) made that exact criticism. Even though Brookings concluded that "maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment" meant taxing these items would be "off the table".

But PA says the report's assumptions are not reasonable, and when I continued to insist they are, PA flew off the handle declaring, "what an absolute piece of shit you are". Why? Because I was claiming (according to PA) that "[Brookings] included it by not including it". No. They looked at these items and determined that they were "off the table" because they fell into the category of "tax breaks for saving and investment".

So, why MUST these items be "on the table" according to PA? Because Mitt Romney has never said they were off. In other words, because Romney has not put forward a detailed tax plan, ANY analysis of a possible Romney tax plan (taking what Romney has said and making some assumptions) is completely invalid. Or any analysis that doesn't include reducing or eliminating tax deductions for "municipal bonds and life insurance savings" is invalid. Why? Damned if I know.

I do know, however, that I'm "intellectually dishonest" for agreeing with the Brookings determination that these things would be "off the table", and was banned for that reason. PA authored a post that said, "You're done. I don't want you to comment here anymore". OK by me. This guy is clearly a lunatic. Why we can't simply disagree on what is a "reasonable assumption" is beyond me.

Finally, regarding the comment from PA that the Brookings/TPC report was done, "to make frigging Romney look ridiculous"... PA says Brookings (one of the preeminent Think Tanks in the country) is LYING because they are a "Liberal" organization. He bases this on an article from US News & World Report that points out that from 2003 to 2010 most of Brookings political contributions went to Democrats (97.6% to Democrats and 1.2% to Republicans).

The US News & World Report article identifies Brookings as a "Liberal" Think Tank. However, in an article titled "Brookings: The Establishment's Think Tank", Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) points out that "much of Brookings' top brass has come from Republican administrations". FAIR says labeling Brookings Liberal is "a victory of Right-wing think tanks" and that "to this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed liberal... It's called centrist almost as often, but never conservative, though that label would be more accurate than liberal".

SourceWatch says Brookings was "initially centrist... [but] since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the Right in parallel with the increasing influence of Right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.

Wikipedia states that the Tax Policy Center was formed "in 2002, [by] tax experts who had served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton administrations [with the objective of] providing unbiased analysis of tax issues".

Now, FAIR and SourceWatch are both progressive/Liberal organizations, but who better to determine what organizations are "Liberal" than other Liberal organizations? So why all the donations to Democrats? I say it is because that is where all the Moderates are. PA describes himself as a "Moderate", and has (previously) identified as a "Blue Dog" Democrat. So who are these Moderate Republicans he thinks Brookings should be donating to if they were really (in PA's estimation) a centrist organization?

With the ascendance of the Tea Party and Mitt having to adopt positions contrary to those he used to hold in order to secure the nomination, how can any sane person deny the Republican Party has moved to the Far Right? Beats me, yet the Hartster does just that, in agreement with his Conservative buddy dmarks who contends that Brookings is a "well known leftist group".

But articles can easily be found via Googling that correctly state that Republicans of yesteryear would not be welcome in the Republican Party of today, including Richard Nixon and the Repub saint Ronald Reagan.

In a recent Fox News interview conducted by Chris Wallace former Senate majority leader Bob Dole said he "doesn't think he could make it in today's Republican Party". Wallace referred to Dole's "generation as Eisenhower Republicans, moderate Republicans". These are the Republicans that by and large no longer exist, so how the hell can Brookings donate to the re-election campaigns of moderate Republicans when there aren't any (or hardly any)? The answer to that question should be self-evident, I say.

But I disagreed, and that was another of several reasons the "Moderate" proprietor of Contra O'Reilly asked me to leave his blog and never return (and that he'd delete my comments if I did). This is a frigging stoopid reason for a banning, IMO. What it really shows is this Willis Hart fellow is really not all that Moderate.

Afterword: On 2/10/2013 PA (AKA Willis Hart) authored a post titled "The Silence of the Lefts" in which he criticized the political Left for it's "silence" regarding specific actions taken by the Obama Administration that are very similar to actions taken by the prior administration. Specifically drone strikes, reauthorization of the PATRIOT act, indefinite detention and rendition of terror suspects, and the president's kill list.

For the record I actually AGREE with PA. Both with his objection to these policies, and with his criticism of the Left in it's acceptance of Obama continuing these policies (when they were severely critical of bush when he did the exact same things). Willis does, however, slip in one lie. According to him Democrats in Congress were "seemingly" briefed on waterboarding. He is one of those who thinks Nancy Pelosi lied when she said the CIA never briefed her on the fact that they were waterboarding. Pelosi told the truth about not being briefed about EITs (enhanced Interrogation Techniques) AKA waterboarding, as her House colleague Bob Graham confirmed.

Also, while the Left (voters and politicians) are much too accepting of these policies just because a Democratic president is in office, there are voices of Progressive disagreement. I would have told Willis that if I had been allowed to comment (and I did tell him I disagreed with these policies prior to my banning). I am actually in agreement with the 26 members of the Progressive caucus (the real Left) who sent a letter to President Obama "demanding greater openness on all aspects of its counterterrorism-related targeted killing program".

I am also in agreement with Progressive host of The Young Turks, Cenk Uygur, who says the problem isn't with drones, because drones are just a tool. The actual problem is how we are using this tool. The three problems identified by Mr. Uygur are that... [1] We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial, [2] Most of the drone strikes are signature strikes where we have no idea who we're killing, and [3] We often do double taps where we kill first-responders and the people trying to help the wounded.

I am absolutely in agreement with Mr. Uygur on all three points. With these three concerns addressed I'd have much less a problem with the Obama administration's use of drones. But because they are not addressing them, and are in fact killing innocent civilians - I say they are creating more "terrorists" than they are killing... by angering the relatives of the innocents we are killing, who then join up to fight against the United States [1].

As it currently is utilized I strongly oppose the administration's use of drones. I am not silent in this regard. Also, in regards to the uninformed (Lefty) voters, Mr. Uygur says, "the great majority of Americans have no idea what we're doing with these drones. They think we're only targeting high level terrorists". He is correct. There are uninformed voters on both the Left and the Right. Here the Left is "silent" (in support of the drone program) because they don't understand how the drone program works.

In concluding his post PA says, "I'm beginning to think here that the Left wasn't so much anti-war as anti-Bush", but I say he is a fibbing (as well as displaying his fervent anti-Left bias). He has a point (so I don't say "lie"), but to not mention (at all) that there are those on the Left who are against these policies - the same as when bush was president - is a little dishonest. Only "a little" because I'm sure there are some on the Left who only complained about drones when bush was president because bush was president. Now they support the use of drones because it is a Democratic president doing it.

But for PA to suggest the Left is entirely silent? The progressives (that Willis dislikes with much intensity) ARE speaking out. That he ignores this fact is as dishonest as PA's characterization of me as "the most intellectually dishonest person [he] has ever had to deal with". That is way over the top and a huge distortion of reality - a reality in which I AGREE with him on some topics but disagree with him on others. The problem PA actually had with me was that, when I disagreed I wouldn't end up caving when he kept insisting he was right.

Footnote
[1] AKA blowback, which is a concept the idiot Willis, while he criticizes Obama for his drone policy, does not agree with. According to dope, the idea that all the murdering via drone that we're doing (of mostly innocents) causes anyone to seek revenge "ultimately fails". The US, in his mind, is blameless, in other words. Sounds like something a jingoist fear mongering warmongering MIC-stooging Republican would say. (Note: This footnote was added on 7/19/2015).

Video Description: Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks speaks out against Obama's use of drones.

SWTD #160, wDel #27.

Banksters Threaten Politicians With SuperPAC; Tea Party Useful Idiots for Banksters

The nation's banks have been taking it on the chin for too long. Until this very moment they've been powerless to strike back. Now, finally, the Supreme Court has bestowed the tools on them, through Citizens United, to finally have a voice in public affairs. They can now begin their trip on the road to renewal with their very own SuperPAC ~ David Dayen, in the sarcastic opening of his FireDogLake article, "Bankers Finally Get a Voice With Their Own SuperPAC".

The following is an excerpt from the 4/5/2012 broadcast of Current TV's The Young Turks, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Host Cenk Uygur and guest Thomas Frank discuss the takeover of our democracy by the plutocrats and the role of the Tea Party useful idiots.

Cenk Uygur: There is a new SuperPAC in favor of the bankers, and they say they're going to buy the politicians. ... Apparently they think they are suffering great injustices. Now, let me give you some quotes from some of the bankers involved.

Roger Beverage is the president and CEO of the Oklahoma Bankers Association, and he says, "Congress isn't afraid of bankers, they don't think we'll do anything to kick them out of office. We are trying to change that perception".

Oh yeah, nobody in Congress is afraid of you at all. That's why Dick Durbin, the number two man for the Democrats in the Senate said, "frankly they run the place". They RUN the place! And this guy is like, boo-hoo they won't listen to us.

Before I go on, let me give you an interesting stat. The FIRE sector (that stand for Finance, Insurance and Real Estate), is number one in lobbying. They are the biggest contributor of campaign funds and the biggest spender on lobbying in Washington over the past 14 years. And they cry about not having enough representation?!

Look at this, more crying here... Howard Headlee, president and CEO Utah Bankers Association, quote, "clearly there are members of Congress who have absolutely no reservations about kicking traditional banks in the teeth, and we are tired of it. We've got to be able to defend the folks who have the courage to stand up for us as well".

As if bankers are oppressed. Oh my god, the bankers! Is anybody standing up for them? It's absurd. But at least they're honest about their intentions here. They basically talk about buying our politicians. Here is Matt Packard, who is the chairman of Friends of Traditional Banking. He says, "if someone says I am going to give your opponent 5 thousand dollars or 10 thousand dollars, you might say 'Yea, OK'. But if you say the bankers are going to put in 100 thousand or 500 thousand, or 1 million into your opponent's campaign, that starts to draw some attention".

You know what that means? That means "let's go buy them"! 5 or 10 thousand won't do it. I need a million, and I [say to the politician], "either you're going to get elected with this million dollars, or your opponent is going to get elected with this million dollars". So you now work for the banks. As if they didn't buy our politicians enough already.

Finally, one more minute of clarity, we have Don Childears, president and CEO of the Colorado Bankers Association, saying, "we need to get more deeply involved as an industry in supporting friends and trying to replace enemies".

OK, if you don't do as the bankers tell you, you're going to get fired. It's not like you're the people's representative, you're now the representative of these donors who have bought you. Now they're going to buy you even more effectively, if you can imagine it. We have the perfect guest to discuss this - Thomas Frank, the author of the best seller What's the matter with Kansas, and he also has a new book out, Pity the Billionaire.

First of all, tell me about the hardships facing Billionaires and bankers in this country. How bad of shape are they in?

Thomas Frank: It's been really hard on them Cenk. They were bailed out. The government was basically giving them cash at extremely low interest rates. It's been difficult.

Cenk: That drives me crazy. 700 billion from TARP (at least), and 7.7 trillion in basically free money from the FED (money that they can turn around and loan back to the government at 3 or 4 percent). They get all this money with no strings attached (they can give any bonuses they like), honestly it's a GD robbery. And here are the robbers crying, "oh, poor us", right?

So the question that arises, and the one you try to answer in your book, is... how did they get away with it?

Thomas Frank: These people who are society's masters are now complaining that everyone is being mean to them; that they're being ground under the heel of a Socialist tyrant. Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged?

Cenk: When I was younger I tried to read it. I read like three pages, and I was like, this is the most boring book I've read in my whole life.

Thomas Frank: I forced myself to read it last year. It's the most popular book with the Tea Party set. It had a huge resurgence in the aftermath of the bailouts. Everybody was buying it. The book is about capitalists going on strike because people like you and me are to mean to them. [both laugh]

Cenk: This isn't capitalism, it's crony capitalism, where a select few bankers capture the whole system and use it to crush their competition.

Thomas Frank: We're seeing it happen before our eyes. Setting up the SuperPAC, that's what this is all about.

Cenk: It's obvious. They're saying, we're going to spend a million dollars and the [politician] will do whatever the hell we tell him to. Now the question is, how do they get the population to [vote against their own interests and in the interests of the banksters]?

Thomas Frank: The way they do it, and you've seen this unfold over the last couple of years... they represent themselves as a populist movement; as the populist response to the financial crisis. [They deployed the Tea Party dupes to] rail against socialism and economic collapse if we don't return to laissez-faire capitalism. The really crazy thing [is that people buy this nonsense]. They won in 2010.

Cenk: Right. The Tea Party people...the actual voters going to the protests... they have no idea what's going on. They said they were against the bailouts, but they didn't do a single protest on Wall Street, they didn't protest against (even Obama's) Treasury Department. Do you think they know they were tricked, or are they like, "yea, we're fighting for the little guy!".

Thomas Frank: I went to the very first Tea Party rally in a park in Washington DC, less than a month after Obama was inaugurated. The things that they were saying kind of made sense to me. A lot of the things they were protesting against were things that I was angry about too. It started as them being angry about the bailouts, but somehow, along the way this gets turned into a call for a more pure free market. We haven't deregulated enough. We need to double down in the direction we've been going for the past 30 years.

Cenk: They got suckered hook, line and sinker. The Koch brothers sent the buses in. They said, here, we know you need to go to the anti-Obama pro-corporate rallies, and [the Tea Partiers] fell for it.

My Commentary: The Supreme Court Citizens United decision was the beginning of the end of our democracy. Unless President Obama is elected to a second term and he is able to appoint one or more SCOTUS judges, it's over... goodbye democracy, hello plutocracy.

Video Description: Cenk restates the Bankster SuperPAC story for The Young Turks YouTube channel. Quote: "The greedy never stop being greedy". Go to Wolf-PAC to fight back.

SWTD #113

Current TV Shoots Self in Foot By Dismissing Olbermann (Corporate Democrats Silence Keith Again!)

For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it ~ Keith Olbermann on his depature from Current TV (via Twitter), 3/30/2012.

Current TV debuted a new program last night hosted by disgraced former NY governor Eliot Spitzer called "Viewpoint". At first I thought, "This is odd, where's Keith?". Then I figured that they were debuting this new program in Keith's time slot so viewers who tuned in specifically to watch Keith (like me), would continue to watch "Viewpoint" when they moved it to it's regular time slot on Monday (following Jennifer Granholm's "The War Room", I presumed).

Given Keith's history of clashing with management wherever he has previously worked, all the news stories are saying it was no surprise that Current decided to dismiss him. And there are also the reports that Keith was upset with technical difficulties on his program (difficulties that led him to start broadcasting from a completely black set). So, perhaps I should have seen this coming. Regardless, I was still shocked when I read the email from Newsmax this morning that announced Keith and Current were parting ways (I'm subscribed to several Rightwing newsletters).

I assumed that Current was aware of Keith's history and planned to avoid his notorious "clashes with management" problem by putting him in charge. When hired by Current Olbermann was named "Current Media's chief news officer" and given an equity stake in the company. In my mind this meant they were committing seriously to Keith... because extraditing themselves from this relationship would be extraordinarily difficult (and quite expensive).

Indeed, I think it could break Current if they paid him to leave like MSNBC did (Keith received his FULL salary for the remaining 2 years on his MSNBC contract). This explains why Current is claiming Keith was in "breach" of his contract... for taking several unscheduled days off. According to Meidaite, "technical problems beset the program, and since then, Olbermann has been hosting his show from what appears to be an endless black void". The no-show days were intended to encourage Current to fix the technical problems.

Keith, in his role as "Chief News Officer" wanted Current to succeed, and viewed these technical difficulties as an impediment to that success. Although, as Chief News Officer, I don't know why he couldn't have just ordered the problems fixed. Certainly I believe he should have been able to. Apparently he didn't have as free a reign as the title "Chief News Officer" implies.

What went wrong, a Politico story explains, is a repeat of the MSNBC situation where Keith clashed with MSNBC president Phil Griffin. Politico reports that, "Olbermann had a particularly tense relationship with David Bohrman, the former CNN executive who was brought in as Current president last summer, following the departure of Mark Rosenthal, an executive with whom Olbermann got along well".

A 7/28/2011 "Deadline New York" article by Executive Editor David Lieberman reveals, "Mark Rosenthal decided to leave because [Current co-founder] Joel Hyatt was crowding him in... [Hyatt] wanted to run Current again after Rosenthal recruited Keith Olbermann to come on board. ... Hyatt's desire to run the operation reached the point where he and Rosenthal agreed a few months ago to be co-CEOs... But the the channel's too small to require two chiefs. What's more, Rosenthal had held bigger jobs by himself when he was CEO of Interpublic Media and COO of MTV Networks. He was a board member at Current when Hyatt asked him to step in and professionalize the programming, marketing, affiliate sales, ad sales, and research efforts..."

My conclusion is that Joel Hyatt stepping in and elbowing out Mark Rosenthal is what lead to Keith's firing. And, yes, perhaps Keith should have known better, given Hyatt's past association with the The Democratic Leadership Council. (Wikipedia notes that "Hyatt was a founding member of the U.S. Senate Democratic Leadership Circle and was a member of that group from 1981 to 1986. He was the Democratic National Committee's assistant treasurer from 1981 to 1983").

Given this information concerning Hyatt (information I was previously unaware of until researching this story), it's no surprise Olbermann and Hyatt would clash. Because, as explained by Wikipedia, the DLC "has become unpopular within many progressive and liberal political circles such as the organizations Center for American Progress, Democracy for America, and [progressive blogs like] the Daily Kos... Some critics claim the strategy of triangulation between the political left and right to gain broad appeal is fundamentally flawed. In the long run, so opponents say, this strategy results in concession after concession to the opposition, while alienating traditionally-allied voters".

Count me in as a Liberal who strongly dislikes the DLC. It's the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. NO WONDER Hyatt, the president Hyatt hired (Bhorman) and Keith didn't get along! IMO Hyatt should have butted out and let Mark Rosenthal do the job they hired him to do. At least Hyatt should have consulted Keith before hiring Bhorman... seeing as Countdown was the lynchpin of the network's new format. What Current needed was a president who allowed Keith to run things as he saw fit. That, or Hyatt should have objected to the hiring of Keith from the get-go. This whole debacle is clearly Hyatt's fault. He's the one who put himself in a position where a confrontation with Keith was virtually a foregone conclusion.

It's my opinion that Current has shot itself in the foot with this boneheaded move... and Tim Goodman, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, agrees. In his Friday article he predicts that we can "bet on Olbermann to be around longer". That is, Current will fail while Olbermann will find employment as a political commentator elsewhere. Goodman explains his conclusion, stating, "now, let's disabuse those who think he's unemployable given his track record of going someplace and then leaving not too long after, burned bridges and accusations littering the highway behind him. That reputation of his hasn't stopped anyone yet. And it won't in the future. Olbermann's delivered ratings wherever he's been - most recently his defining stint at MSNBC and then Current. If you want to equate him to a diva wide receiver in the NFL (or quarterback or whatever), that's fine. If you're a sports fan, you know that those divas always find a home and always get paid".

Keith's response to the firing, via Twitter: Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract. It goes almost without saying that the claims against me in Current's statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently (Huffington Post Keith Olbermann Fired By Current TV; Replaced By Eliot Spitzer by Jack Mirkinson, The Huffington Post 3/30/2012).

My response is... it's back to MSNBC for me. I'm don't think I'm going to watch Eliot Spitzer. He's OK, but Current hiring him to host the lynchpin show for their network is unbelievably stupid. I feel bad for The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur (and gang). Cenk left his gig in the 6pm slot at MSNBC on 7/20/2011 because "he had been told he was too combative towards those in power" and had been instructed to "tone it down".

Cenk's move to Current seemed ideal, because he got to bring along all his friends (from the "Young Turks") and was able to speak his mind (no MSNBC censorship). When I heard about what happened with Cenk Uygur, I thought... that makes sense, given Current's hiring of another individual who speaks his mind (and was let go from his last gig for that reason)... now we've got two strong independent minded Liberals who speak back to power on the same network. "Bravo Current" I thought... AT THE TIME.

The statement released by Current founders Joel Hyatt and Al Gore reads (in part), "Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it". So they're claiming that Keith was uncooperative and disrespectful. Again, didn't they know that working with Olbermann might be difficult when they decided to enter into this relationship?

Dismissing Keith and abruptly replacing him with the inferior (no disrespect intended) Spitzer, especially when Keith was only trying to do what was best for Current, does not, in my opinion, represent loyalty to Current viewers. Difficulties should have been anticipated and they should have been worked out... THAT would have shown loyalty to viewers who followed Keith from MSNBC to Current.

What gives, Al Gore? I thought Current was serious about challenging MSNBC... which is becoming the "establishment" Left channel. Current could have been the REAL progressive channel (instead of another "Liberal" channel run by DLC/Corporate types like MSNBC), but, clearly Current has decided, in letting Olbermann go, that's not the strategy they're going to use to attract viewers any longer.

So, why the heck should people watch Current now? Keith Olbermann provided that reason, and there isn't much of one anymore, in my opinion. I'm disappointed Gore didn't oppose Hyatt's meddling... unless he's in agreement with Hyatt. Then I'm disappointed with him for that reason. Which is probably the case, given the fact that Gore, like Clinton, is also a DLC/Corporate Democrat. At least Gore was hands-off and didn't interfere like Hyatt (although Gore should have said something when Hyatt elbowed out Rosenthal).

I wish Keith luck in his lawsuit against Current, even if that means the destruction of Current and the end of "The Young Turks". The Young Turks was my second (now first) favorite Current program, but if Keith was wronged (and I believe he was) he is due justice. Sorry Cenk, I hope it doesn't come to that. I'll keep watching the "Young Turks" as long as Current remains on the air... unless Hyatt and Bohrman decide to fire him too... for being to outspoken/difficult. In conclusion, I say what we need is a REAL progressive news channel RUN by progressives. I'm sick of the Corporate Democrats being in charge.

Video Description: Cenk Uygur (host of The Young Turks) explains why he turned down a new, significantly larger MSNBC contract after hosting a prime-time show on the network that was beating CNN in the ratings. [It was because he wouldn't play ball with Corporate Democrats].

SWTD #111, KO #3.

Tickling the Conservative Id

There has been a lot of talk about whether Gingrich's recent language, including his performance in the South Carolina debates and his earlier declaration that Barack Obama has been America's best "food-stamp president", amounts to a coded appeal to racist sensitivities. The answer is simple: yes ~ Leonard Pitts Jr (10/11/1957) a politically progressive African American commentator, journalist and novelist, as quoted in his 1/29/2012 publication article, "GOP's Politics of Racial Resentment".

I would not make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money ~ Rick Santorum (5/10/1958) a Republican politician who served as a United States Senator representing Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007, as well as a religious fundamentalist, homophobe and racist, as quoted during a 1/2/2012 Iowa campaign speech... a comment he later denied, insisting he was actually talking about "bla" people.

The following is an excerpt from the 3/13/2012 broadcast of Current TV's The Young Turks, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Host Cenk Uygur discusses recent statements by Sarah Palin with Alexis Garcia (a political Correspondent with PJTV) and Paul Waldman (Contributing editor at the American Prospect)...

Video Clip of Sarah Palin: [Clip used in an Obama campaign ad pulled from the Sean Hannity Show]. Obama has never been seen in the conventional, traditional way as we who would describe a man of valor. And his profession as a community organizer... what went into his thinking was this philosophy of radicalism. He is bringing us back, Sean, to days... you can harken back to days before the civil war. What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin. Why are we allowing our country to move backwards... [End video clip].

Cenk Uygur: OK, that's it... it's official. This breaks the record for the dumbest criticism of the president ever. President Obama would like to go back to the days before the civil war when we had slavery. Who can possibly believe that? How can you be that profoundly stupid?

But Palin says that was "heavily edited". All right, we have the actual clip from the Sean Hannity program. Let's see if she was taken out of context.

Unedited Video Clip of Sarah Palin: [My summary] Sarah Palin says exactly the same thing as in the edited clip, with a few sentences removed to cut down the length of the clip. The edited clip is an accurate representation of what she said. Her "out of context" claims are baloney. [End video clip].

Cenk: [Scoffs] Oh, that made it much better. ... She went on and on, calling him the "radical of the radicals". She said "radical" about eight times. When you see the full tape it's much worse. So, Alexis, you're in a tough spot here. Are you going to defend this national embarrassment or not?

Alexis Garcia: ...Obama makes an ad about this because it's the only thing he can talk about. He's got to rile up his base. Your viewers are intelligent and can see this for what it is. The president can't talk about the economy, he can't talk about gas prices, he's continuing the bush policies in Afghanistan... he's got to remind his base - look at the Right-wing wackos out there.

Cenk: Alright, a spirited effort. ... Now I've got to go to Paul. Paul, when someone pitches you a softball, what do you normally do with it?

Paul Waldman: Well, you hit it. And I think it does show the Obama campaign sees some political benefit in drawing attention to Sarah Palin. I don't think that's aimed at the base. I think it's aimed at the broader electorate, particularly independents. What we've seen over the course of this primary, as the Republican candidates have tried very hard to appeal to their base, is that the opinions of the Republican Party and of those candidates in particular have gone down and down [he's talking about public sentiment]... and the Obama campaign knows what it's doing.

Sarah Palin knows what she's doing too. Even though you look at that statement and you may think that's nuts... she understands what parts of the Conservative Id she's tickling. Since Obama came into office, and even before... there's been this real part of the Conservative movement in America who believe the way to keep up their support and generate opposition to Obama is to play on racial grievance. To tell people that, not only is he "other", but that the blacks in America are coming for them.

That's why Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners that the Affordable Health Care Act is reparations for slavery. That's why Glenn Beck goes on TV and says Obama has a deep-seated hatred of White people. That's why Andrew Breitbart did that edited Shirley Sherrod video that tried to convince people that the agriculture department was discriminating against Whites. It's this message over and over that Obama is some kind of Stokely Carmichael type figure... despite everything that he's actually done.

If we can go back and find that he some sort of radical association, that will give you the clue that his war on White people is about to begin. It hasn't actually begun yet, of course... because you don't want to talk about the things that have actually happened. It's always right around the corner. Some kind of terrible thing is about to come and all of that racial grievance is going to be unleashed on White America.

Cenk: Unfortunately we're out of time... to me it seems like Paul is right, of course... [End of segment]

My Commentary: Alexis Garcia's response isn't a "spirited effort", it an obvious dodge. She doesn't answer the question, although she's right about Sarah Palin being a wacko. (and about Obama continuing the bush policies in Afghanistan, unfortunately)... but her answer isn't why I decided to turn this excerpt from the Young Turks into a blog post. The reason I did that is because of Paul Waldman's response concerning Palin "tickling the Conservative Id". It's blatant race-baiting. They deny it eternally, but continue to employ it.

Video 1 Description: Sarah Palin on the Sean Hannity program, 3/9/2012. Sarah inserts the racist dog whistles (those excerpted for the Obama Ad) beginning at the 5:22 mark, and ending at 6:47.

Video 2 Description: Mitt Romney on Barack Obama: "He has been awful European". Translation: Barack Obama isn't American. Or, as a commenter who calls himself "tom cook" on the World Net Daily message board recently said, "You can't be just a good old American anymore to be popular; you have to be an African-American, or a Latin-American, or some other wog-American. The liberals and the NEA have made all of the stupids ashamed of good solid American Americans". So, who are the "American Americans"? Obviously they're white people.

SWTD #110

Rush Limbaugh's Disgusting Comments Regarding Sandra Fluke Versus Bill Maher Calling Sarah Palin The C-Word

Senator Rubio... issued a statement in which he called Thursday's vote "a setback for religious freedoms in America". In fact, it was nothing of the kind. The health care law does not demand that religious groups change their beliefs, only that they not impose them on nonbelievers - or believers who disagree ~ Randy Schultz in a 3/2/2012 Palm Beach Post editorial, referring to Rubio's disappointment in the defeat of the Blunt amendment (an amendment under which all employers - not just religious or religious-affiliated employers - could refuse to include any coverage in medical insurance plans that is not "consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions").

Note: The following is an excerpt from the 3/9/2012 broadcast of The Young Turks hosted by Cenk Uygur, which I edited for brevity and clarity...

Cenk Uyger: In a stand up routine in Dallas Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the "C" word, which is very, very harsh (although this was in a stand up routine and not on his HBO program). Apparently he said "That's the only word for her".

Video Clip of Sarah Palin: [My summary] Sarah Palin has suggested on Fox Nooz that Barack Obama's Super PAC should return the 1 million dollars Maher donated. Sarah Palin calls the donation "dirty money" and asks (in reference to the president) "How can he sleep at night". [end video clip].

Cenk: Here's how I would sleep at nigh [makes snoring noises].

Video Clip of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: [Responding to the suggestion that Bill Maher's donation should be returned]. "We are not, and cannot be the arbitrator of every statement that everybody makes in the policy and political arena. As a general matter, obviously language that denigrates women is inappropriate. [End video clip].

Cenk: Alright, let's open it up to [our panel]. Let's start with Ana, logically. Obviously [both Rush's and Bill Maher's comments] were directed at women. You're a woman. This was really, really bad. What are your thoughts?

Ana Kasparian: The C word is really bad, but as with anything, context always matters. When you look at Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was not doing a comedy routine, he was being serious. He called [Sandra Fluke] a slut and a prostitute and he meant it. Whereas Bill Maher... look, that word is very, very harsh, but it was in the middle of a comedy routine. I give him a pass for it.

Cenk: OK, now, Jimmy, you're a comedian. Should comedians get a broader area to play in here? Is this fair game in that context?

Jimmy Dore: Here's the problem when they try to equate what Bill Maher did with what Rush Limbaugh did. When you are ridiculing someone in power - that's comedy. When you're ridiculing someone who is powerless that's called bullying. That's the difference. Sarah Palin had power, she was a governor, she ran to be the second most powerful person in the country... she's wide open to ridicule. Bill Maher doesn't have any power over her. Rush Limbaugh used his power to intimidate not only [Sandra Fluke] but all women who might speak up for women's reproductive health.

Cenk: I hear you, but I think the C word is out of bounds. I'm not sure if it is out of bounds in a comedy routine... he didn't say it on his TV show. If he had said it on his TV show - I'd say it's not right and he should apologize. Michael What do you think?

Michael Shure: I think it's OK for them [Conservatives] to say if Rush Limbaugh had to apologize, some of these people should have to apologize. But I do think there is a difference in the arena where you are, and context (in agreement with Ana). I think that does matter.

Cenk: Alright, Jesus, you're usually the voice of reason. Because it's a comedy routine, do you think that word can be used?

Jesus Godoy: I don't think it's OK. But Rush Limbaugh with his history...

Ana: Rush Limbaugh has been pushing this anti-women ideology for such long time... for decades now. That's why use of the word feminazi is very common among people who want to hate on women.

Cenk: I hear you, I think the word "feminazi" is worse then all of them. I hear you on that, but, at the same time, it's not like Bill Maher... and I love Bill Maher, and I agree with him 98 percent of the time, but if someone were to charge Bill Maher with misogyny, I wouldn't say that was out of bounds.

Jimmy Dore: The words he used were probably not a good choice (he also called Palin a "twat"). At the same time I don't believe it's equivalent [to what Rush said]. Rush's was a three-day attack on a woman who was not a public person. And when [Bill Maher used the C word] he wasn't shaming [Palin] for her sexuality, [but] Rush was shaming [Sandra Fluke] for her sexuality.

Cenk: I hear you. I also do not think they are equivalent. You guys are 100 percent right about the context. Now, having said that - when they say, President Obama look at these comments which are harmful to women... give the money back... is that a fair point? Should he give the money back Michael?

Michael Shure: No. I don't think he should give the money back - because Bill Maher gave money to a PAC. On the Republican side you've got much worse.

Jimmy Dore: The John Birch Society.

Michael Shure: The John Birch Society, exactly. That's a perfect example.

Cenk: If I was Obama I'd say, "Super PAC? I don't coordinate with my Super PAC at all". I hear you on the two not being equivalent and not giving the money back, but I think Maher should consider apologizing. What do you guys think about that? Quick ruling, Ana?

Ana: He should consider it.

Michael Shure: He should consider it, but it's fine if he doesn't because he's a comedian.

Jimmy Dore: I don't think he should because it gives the appearance that he agrees that it's equivalent.

Cenk: OK, I think he should consider it, but I'm not the boss of Bill Maher. He isn't going to listen to me or anybody else. Alright, thank you guys. [end of segment].

Cenk: (After returning from a commercial break) In the last segment we asked if Bill Maher's comments were as offensive as Rush Limbaugh's. We asked the same question on Current.com to find out what you [the viewers] thought, and the response was overwhelming. 87.27 percent of you said, no, not as offensive as Rush Limbaugh. Only 12.73 percent said yes. Well, if the Current viewers see it that way, it must be the case.

My Commentary: The comments are not equivalent. I said as much recently on another blog, and in response the proprietor (an individual who describes himself as a moderate) said, "Maher is every bit as much of a dirtbag as Limbaugh. They should BOTH be eviscerated/pilloried, in my opinion".

Furthermore, regarding Maher's use of the C word, I said "I think that word is demeaning to women and shouldn't be used, period. But, honestly, I am willing to [give Bill Maher a pass]. Why? Because I don't particularly care about Sarah Palin being demeaned. Also, "the National Organization for Women (NOW) condemned earlier Maher comments on Palin, [and] Palin responded by saying, 'I need NOW like a fish needs a bicycle'. She isn't willing to accept NOW's condemnation? OK, then I say to Bill Maher - use whatever words you want".

In response a blogger who calls himself "Rational Nation" said, "With your Palin comment you told us quite a lot about yourself. Your character anyway..."

I don't care what Rational Nation thinks about my character. I don't approve of Maher's use of that vile word, but I'm not going to condemn him either (or call him a "dirtbag"). Palin rejected NOW's condemnation of Maher's comments, so I assume she'd reject a Liberal blogger's defense of her as well (if I felt inclined to offer it). Yea, so no way... I'm going to remain a Bill Maher fan. As for Limbaugh, he's a dirtbag and his "apology" was insincere. If Maher apologized I'd believe him... although I know he won't, and don't think he should.

Note: The quote by Randy Schultz (no relation to Ed Schultz) at the top of the post really has nothing to do with the content of the post... although it does reflect how I feel about the Obama Administration's initial decision to require anyone who offers insurance (including religious institutions) to cover birth control.

As pointed out by Constitutional expert David Boies on the 2/8/2012 broadcast of "The Last Word" hosted by Lawrence O'Donnell, "There isn't a constitutional issue involved in this case... You don't exempt religious employers just because of their religion. You are not asking anybody in the Catholic church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal law that every employer has to comply with".

SWTD #108