The media is basically letting all opponents of health care say whatever the hell they want about health care reform with little pushback.

I don’t know why I continue to be surprised when this happens, but I do…

It’s always good news for Republicans. And you know what else is? The fact that in Great Britain they actually have an occasional press attempt for accountability that doesn’t end when something else shiny comes along (and also topless women, but that’s really Rupert’s fault).

Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.

And, of course, they didn’t plan alone.

But strangely, the cheerleaders for that war, like Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol, also get to trot out lie after lie about health care, and no one in our splendid press corps seems to wonder why anyone should listen to them, let alone uncritically. We cannot possibly hold people — well, Republicans, accountable for their past actions.

It did not disappoint – they all predicted Sarah Palin was the force to be reckoned with for the 2012 Republican nomination and that Barack Obama was in trouble.

The village elders are village idiots.

Instead how about both the cognoscenti and citizens of the fine United States of America ponder an ethos more along the lines contemplated by our friend Mary:

To go back to one of the lesser points – the GITMO pics – one of the reasons that everyone knows they are not being released is that they demonstrate several direct lies formerly made by the Executive to the American people. Lies about the extent of abuse, lies about prosecutions of abusers, lies about a few rogue soldiers v. a planned regime of torture, etc. Not only lies, but suppression of evidence of crime leading to obstruction of justice as a) torturers were not brought to justice for their crimes against innocent civilian populations, and b) Abu Ghraib soldiers were scapegoated and railroaded in a sideshow event specifically calculated to use them as a shield against further investigation. So Obama furthers the obstruction, picture frames his “no one is above the law” campaign promise as being an outright lie, and then uses the Executive office to attack the judiciary. Not content, he permeates the whole of the Democratic majority with his torture support by strongarming (in a rare leadership moment) Democratic legislation to subvert justice. That’s not pragmatism, it’s how you lose support and votes.

The truth is that Americans do respond to the truth when battered with it as frequently as with the opposition talking points. He’s never once utilized his position to do that – to got there – to be truthful about what has happened on torture, what is happening with innocent men being held at GITMO, what the *mission* is in the ME, etc. Let me put it this way – if I can make Indiana red necks blink and flinch with just a few facts, Obama giving a Presidential address, early on, to admit that bc of poor policies, intermingled with some very evil and bad men at GITMO, there are some innocent victims who should never have been sent there — yes, there would have been right wing furor (as always – I think that also happens when he goes out to dinner for that matter) but there would have been a big conscious shifting moment for the country and a seismic change in how the Muslim world sees us.

Instead, he opted to be Bush Jr. Not only is that not pragmatic, it’s a slow kill poisen. All the people who never wanted him still don’t want him; those who thought he would be something are now thoroughly jaded to not just Obama the candidate, but the Democratic “like Bush, but comes in blue” party.
…
Obama is continuing to push the “no one leaves innocent” Bush policy for GITMO. Surprise surprise at not being able to get support when it is abudnantly clear to about a billion or so, give or take, Muslims who have been paying attention that this is not the case and when nations around the world have to deal with not only their own Muslim populations but there interactions with Muslim nations. Until we abandon the “no one leaves innocent” policies and fess up that innocent people were kidnapped/sold/disappeared and abused as a part of the Executive policy of the US, it’s going to be hard to get other countries to step up to the bat to degrade their own justice systems by taking our victims and refusing to comply with their own CAT responsibilities once they have them, or monitoring the mental and physical states and family situations and issues of our victims.

And those countries have spoken on the “commissions v. civilian trials” issue. Obama’s opt in for commissions just makes finding a jointly sponsored and acceptable path worse. Plus, the continued coverups which are being chipped away at in proceedings in Italy, Spain, Germany, Lithuania, Romania etc. denigrates the US status as honest broker on any solution every day.

A lack of truth may have lots of benefits in response to a “does this make me look fat” question, but in context of this country’s very public Executive branch crimes, stepping into the successor-in-crime slot rather than assuming a leadership mantle as the policy maker for criminal law enforcement isn’t pragmatic and won’t further a resolution of any issues – it’s just giving gas and spinning tires in the mud.

There is a tremendous lot that Obama could get by with domestically (with the right PR approach) and internationally if he had: been willing to go after US torturers concurrently with trials of al-Qaeda and other terrorists; been willing to release the August 2002 “we’re holding lots of innocent people” CIA memo and proposed that in those instances where we were shipped innocent civilians to GITMO we undertake an independent commission to review and “make right”(including damages and resettlement) the situation [this obviously would not have dealt with the huge brunt of the “real” problems, as with the thousands in Iraq and the Bagram situation etc. but if you are looking for pragmatism it would be a mostly hide the ball but still come out smelling like a rose approach); and a few other items that involved some minimalist truth and transparency.

The fact is – the more he’s retreated to Bush positions, the more he’s lost his options going forward. He’s shown that he’s weak, that he has now solid game plans and plan B-s, that he can be shifted with the political winds, and that he’s willing to give up on his strongest arguments for a temporary appeasment, even when that means that he loses those arguments for good by taking those low roads.

There is a better path, and the village idiots are talking about the cookie factor from Alaska as the legitimate front runner for a Presidential election. Amazing.

Not like it’ll matter to Republicans who are attacking Eric Holder’s decision, but Sheldon Whitehouse slammed Republicans for beating up on federal prosecutors.

And then he got really steamed, accusing the Republicans of politicizing prosecutorial opinions.

From my perspective, popular opinion is a very dangerous bellweather to hold prosecutors to. … I think it gets worse when you move from popular opinion to legislative opinion. … And if there’s any way to make, it worse it’d be to allow it to be influenced by talk show opinion.

Continetti begins his Palin tongue bath review in an amusing way:

Like a lot of people, as soon as I got my copy of Sarah Palin’s “Going Rogue,” I immediately thought of the German literary critic Hans Robert Jauss.

He really wrote that. For reals.

Surprisingly, Continetti didn’t start off his latest paen to Palin with:

It must be very strange to be President Bush Sarah Palin. A (wo)man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, (s)he can’t get anyone to notice. (S)He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his her time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile. Also. Too.

Oh wait. That would have been Ben Domenech.

I get these juice box pundits mixed up all of the time.

goofball

on his Fox News radio show Brian and the Judge. He also said Palin

reinforced the notion that John McCain chose her for reasons having nothing to do with her compentency to replace him should he become president and unfortunately not be able to serve full term.

Well then, Judge, for what reasons do you think McCain chose her? Judge Napolitano said that while he agrees with her foreign policy, Palin

does not posses the mental capacity to be President of the United States.

Ouch.

Then, co-host Brian Kilmeade and Judge Napolitano go on to discuss Palin’s “rehabiliation” appearances on Oprah and Barbara Walters, remarking on her explanation of the grand Katie Couric fail, and calling the former governor

sexist

for thinking the CBS anchor would do a lighthearted piece about motherhood with a vice presidential candidate.

What is up, Fox? Is the glow off the neo-con Queen Esther? Has the conservative media gotten tired of her snubbing gatherings of Republican lawmakers? (Gosh, has Fox gone elitist?)

Or have they realized she’s nuts as bunny, crazy as two acres of snakes, insanely ambitious? Or just a royal pain in the ass?

[HT Media Matters ]

Real defenders of freedom stand up for these principles even–especially–when it is unpopular to do so. Before the Constitution even existed, John Adams recognized the importance of the principle that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a competent defense when he defended the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. That was a pretty dangerous position to take in Boston as the city stood on the brink of open revolution against the Crown, but Adams stood by his principles, and even succeeded in gaining acquittals for some of the accused.

I think it’s safe to say that Wolf Blitzer is no John Adams–perhaps Blitzer is auditioning to fill the yawning void left by Lou Dobbs’s departure from CNN. Blitzer played to the lowest common denominator when he proved how tough he can be by challenging the lawyer who will represent Major Hasan in the Fort Hood murder trial. Blitzer asked the lawyer to “explain to our viewers why you’re doing this.” The lawyer trotted out some tired idea about the importance of a fair trial, that this is one of the rights our troops fight and die to defend, but our valiant Wolf was not deterred from playing to the lynch mob, declaring that Hasan will surely get a much fairer hearing than the 13 people murdered at Fort Hood.

Good point, Wolf. Following his logic (and Bill Kristol’s), why have a trial at all for Hasan? Why not do it the way they used to do in the good old days–just call out a lynch mob and be done with these legal niceties? Sure, lynch mobs sometimes got it wrong, but you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Wolf Blitzer is a dangerous fool who either doesn’t understand why we have a Constitution or doesn’t care to inform his viewers. The rule of law doesn’t exist to protect the guilty person, it exists to protect the innocent person wrongly accused. In most cases, the justice system works well and criminals are indicted, convicted, and brought to justice. In any human system, however, there is error. The Death Penalty Information Center has a list of more than 100 people who were convicted, sentenced to death, and subsequently found to be innocent. Mistakes are made–intentionally or otherwise. The idea is that we want to protect people who are wrongly charged. The only way to do that is to make sure everyone is treated the same and afforded the right to a trial.

Our trial and appellate system, as enshrined in the 6th Amendment when it comes to criminal trials, is an attempt to correct error, to make sure that people who are wrongly charged have the chance to clear their name. Blitzer either doesn’t understand that, doesn’t believe in it, or perhaps thinks that exceptions should be made–when we really, really know someone is guilty, “formalities” need not be followed.

What happened at Fort Hood was terrifying, it was horrible, it is dislocating, and it is beyond disturbing. But it is not grounds for setting aside the Constitution. Unless everyone has constitutional rights, none of us is guaranteed that our own rights will be protected. When we say that Nazis have a right to free speech, that suspected terrorists have a right to be free from torture, that accused murderers have a right to a fair trial, it doesn’t mean we are endorsing Nazis, terrorists, or murderers (or murderers who are also terrorists). It means that we recognize what the Constitution requires–as it says on the Supreme Court building, “equal justice under law.”

Having a Constitution isn’t easy, but it’s something many of us think is worth the effort. As Congress said in 1963 “No persons should be more entitled to protection of their constitutional rights then the servicemen engaged in protecting the sovereignty of the United States.” It’s easy to repeat those words when we’re thinking of brave, wrongly accused soldiers caught up in a Kafkaesque misunderstanding. The test of whether the Constitution means what it says is whether we can apply the principle of equal justice to those who appear repellent. I’m glad to answer “yes”–the Constitution must apply to everyone, without exception. That’s the only way we can be sure that we, ourselves, will be protected.

Photo by aturkus

I never thought it would happen, but Ashleigh Banfield is coming back.

Ashleigh Banfield, who made a name for herself earlier in the decade as an anchor/war correspondent on MSNBC, will be joining ABC News, TVNewser has learned.

Banfield, who has been an anchor at CourtTV/truTV since 2005, is expected to join ABC News next year. Without confirming the move, an ABC News spokesperson tells TVNewser, “We like Ashleigh Banfield and admire her work.”

For those of you who may not remember, about a week before Mission Accomplished Ashleigh Banfield unexpectedly and magnificently went off on the media’s coverage of Iraq and the Middle East: the “embedded” reporting that turned war into a glamorous videogame, the willful ignorance of Islamic culture, the love of missing-white-woman stories over substance, and the nonstop cheerleading of Fox News.

And what was her reward for this courageous truth-telling?  She was banished to a closet:

“I was office-less for ten months,” she says. “No phone, no computer. For ten months I had to report to work every day and ask where I could sit. If somebody was away I could use their desk. Eventually, after ten months of this, I was given an office that was a tape closet. They cleared the tapes out and put a desk and a TV in there, and a computer and phone. It was pretty blatant. The message was crystal clear.

“Yet they wouldn’t let me leave. I begged for seventeen months to be let out of my contract. If they had no use for me, let’s just part ways amicably — no need for payouts, just a clean break. And [NBC News President] Neal [Shapiro] wouldn’t allow it…. I will never forgive him for his cruelty and the manner in which he decided to dispose of me.”

But now she’s back, after four years on CourtTV – and on the “Path To 9/11″ network, no less.  Between Banfield’s rehabilitation and Lou Dobbs’ fall from grace, and before that the pushback against the birthers and deathers, I could almost believe that the non-Fox media are slowly fumbling their way back to reality.  If they start describing the Stupak Amendment as a sneak attack on Roe v. Wade, maybe then I’ll let myself hope.

In a major restructuring, cable channel Current TV–co-founded by Al Gore and made hugely famous earlier this year when reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee were held then released by the North Korean government thanks to intervention by Bill Clinton and Steve Bing’s private jet–has laid off 80 employees, about 25% of its staff.

Most of the axed were based in the Los Angeles office, affecting in-house production and striking a yet another blow to the city’s already suffering entertainment industry. The original programs “Current Tonight,” “Current Takeover” and “Current Exposed” have been canceled and David Neumann, the head of programming was fired. About 300 employees total remain in San Francisco, New York, the now much smaller LA office, and the international offices in London and Milan.

The pioneering Emmy-Award winning channel was originally conceived by Gore and businessman Joe Hyatt as a peer-to-peer news and information network with one-third of the on-air broadcast featuring viewer created content (VC2) and geared to 18-34 years olds. During the 2004 campaign, Gore envisioned a news network with no political leanings

that would help change the tide of “consolidation and conglomeratization” of the media by leading the change to “democratization.”

Now that videophones and Flip cameras are in almost everyone’s pocket, most local news channels–as well as the cable news networks–allow viewers to email or upload raw footage and short reports. The tide of consolidation hasn’t turned, but with YouTube and Vimeo, democratization has happened. If it exists, if it happened, or if you think it’s a conspiracy, it’s been videotaped.

Current TV’s new CEO Mark Rosenthal, who replaced Hyatt, is now revamping Current to a more traditional model of 30-minute and hour-long programs, much of it to be acquired, reports Variety.

Current said it will now move money into creating departments focused on program development, licensing and acquisitions, talent management, research, marketing, affiliate relations and advertising sales. In other words, start operating like a more traditional network.

Short-form videos will continue to be a part of the network’s lineup, but now as part of regularly scheduled programs.

Rosenthal, the man behind the upheaval, is the former COO and president of MTV, which made the same sort of changes in the mid-1990s, shifting from music videos to longer-form programming. The logic is that original, longer form programming attracts more advertising dollars. Current TV is available in over 59 million homes in the US, UK, Ireland and Italy thanks to cable and satellite.

In January, 2009 Current TVs parent company Current Media announced plans to launch an IPO on NASDAQ, but in April citing

current market conditions

the company said it was not going forward with those plans, adding that no securities had been sold.

No word yet on the changes from Current Media chairman Al Gore, but Current.com, the channel’s internt portal reports that Current Media’s COO, Joanna Drake Earl said that this year is set to be Current’s most profitable year since its launch. No wonder: A year ago to the day, Current fired 60 employees as a cost cutting measure.

Lou Dobbs, the longtime CNN anchor whose anti-immigration views made him a TV lightning rod, plans to announce Wednesday that he is leaving the network, two network employees said.

A CNN executive confirmed that Mr. Dobbs will announce his plans on his 7 p.m. program.

This is quite incredible. Without Dobbs, CNN is well back in the ratings, behind even its own Headline News product. He was the bright spot in an otherwise dour ratings swamp for CNN. In the last quarter, “Red Eye,” a show on Fox News Channel which airs at 3 in the morning on the East Coast, was beating the entire primetime lineup at CNN in the 25-54 demo.

But Dobbs’ increasingly unhinged and arguably racist rhetoric had inspired civil rights groups and Hispanic groups to call for his firing. If Dobbs does leave, those groups would be right to claim victory.

Since Dobbs met with Roger Ailes last month, it would not be at all surprising if he moved on to Fox News Channel. However, sources have denied that repeatedly, as well as some of Fox’ own anchors.

We’ll see what happens at 7:00…

UPDATE: NYT has updated their report and says that the resignation is effective IMMEDIATELY. Tonight will be his last show on CNN, according to the story. Wow.

UPDATE II: Dobbs made no reference at all to him leaving CNN in his opening segment.

UPDATE III: Dobbs is making his statement. This is indeed his last broadcast; he was released from his deal with CNN by their leadership. He’s talking about the “winds of change” in America and how he can “pursue new opportunities,” though he didn’t specify what those opportunities would be. He sounded more like a political candidate than anything, honestly. He said that he was committed to specific issues, like the growth of middle class, jobs, health care, immigration, the environment, climate change, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of all, Dobbs said, he was concerned about the “strong resilience of our now weakened capitalist economy.” He said he would “continue to deal honestly and straightforwardly with those issues in the future.” Unfortunately, said Dobbs, he has to contend with rank partisanship – but he will be working to change that. “I will strive to be a leader in that national conversation.”

That’s it.

…it absolutely sounded like he would pursue a position in elected office.

Profile in Courage? (photo by J-No)

Anyone who thought David Brooks is more enlightened than Rush Limbaugh, Fox News or Karl Rove should reconsider after Brooks accused the media of offering politically correct “therapy” to excuse the actions of Major Hasan at Ft. Hood while surpressing the narrative that the killings justify America’s global war against Islam.

Brooks tries to avoid the right wing framing abyss, but in Rush to Therapy, he can’t help it:

There was a national rush to therapy. Hasan was a loner who had trouble finding a wife and socializing with his neighbors.

This response was understandable. It’s important to tamp down vengeful hatreds in moments of passion. But it was also patronizing. Public commentators assumed the air of kindergarten teachers who had to protect their children from thinking certain impermissible and intolerant thoughts. If public commentary wasn’t carefully policed, the assumption seemed to be, then the great mass of unwashed yahoos in Middle America would go off on a racist rampage.

Worse, it absolved Hasan — before the real evidence was in — of his responsibility.

What gibberish. There was no effort to “absolve” anyone; there was a justifiable search for motive and connections. But Brooks has already decided these issues:

Most people select stories that lead toward cooperation and goodness. But over the past few decades a malevolent narrative has emerged.

That narrative has emerged on the fringes of the Muslim world. It is a narrative that sees human history as a war between Islam on the one side and Christianity and Judaism on the other. This narrative causes its adherents to shrink their circle of concern. They don’t see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so.

This narrative is embraced by a small minority. But it has caused incredible amounts of suffering within the Muslim world, in Israel, in the U.S. and elsewhere. With their suicide bombings and terrorist acts, adherents to this narrative have made themselves central to global politics. They are the ones who go into crowded rooms, shout “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” and then start murdering.

Brooks implies there is only one malevolent narrative, and it’s caused exclusively by extreme Islamists who portray non-Islamists as subhuman. Thus, only “they” would invoke God as they murder the innocents.

Where has Brooks been as America’s Christians and Jews invoke analogous justifications for bombing civilians in multiple Islamic countries? Is he really not aware that religious extremists in the US repeatedly de-humunize Muslims — they’re just “collateral damage” — and push policies that result in their slaughter? Where is the narrative that acknowledges this reality and then places Major Hasan’s killings in that context?

But Brooks apparently can’t recognize the implications of what he concedes:

The conversation in the first few days after the massacre was well intentioned, but it suggested a willful flight from reality. It ignored the fact that the war narrative of the struggle against Islam is the central feature of American foreign policy. It ignored the fact that this narrative can be embraced by a self-radicalizing individual in the U.S. as much as by groups in Tehran, Gaza or Kandahar.

So after describing the war-against-Islam narrative as evil, Brooks is literally saying that the US is at war with Islam — not just against murdering extremists, but with Islam — and that war is the “central feature of American foreign policy.” And that’s exactly what Rush Limbaugh, the neocons, the religious right in America and Fox News want Americans to embrace.

I propose that Brooks lead the whole bunch of America’s religious zealots and let them have their religious war . . . only take it to Mars and leave the rest of us Earthlings out of their collective insanity.

Related:

Think Progress, Pat Robertson Says Islam is not a religion and Muslims should be treated as fascists

Think Progress, General Casey warns against anti-Muslim backlash

Media Matters, Fox News anchor: Muslims have to understand being profiled

Gawker, How the Ft. Hood shooter brings radical cleric, right wing nuts together

The Hill, Top GOP recruit says “enemy is infiltrating our military”

Spencer Ackerman, Don’t do al-Qaeda’s work for it

FDL/Jim White, Lieberman to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria