It's Time Now For The Iowa Caucuses To Go To The End Of The Primary Line

It is no surprise that the words "chaos"  and "caucus"  sound very similar.   This is given the latter is actually a form of semi-organized chaos in which voters go to their appointed venues and try to haggle and thrash out their choices with other voters. "I want Bernie, 'cause he stands for my priorities!"  "Hell no, he's too extreme I want Amy!"  "Hell with that, I want Joe Biden, no woman gonna beat Trump!" 

"Can we all just get along and pick someone?"

"NO!"

And so they go at it for hours hoping ultimately for some kind of resolution and consensus toward a majority pick. If there isn't, well then they all haggle and bark again over their "second choices".  In other words, it is the furthest thing from being a straight vote,  i.e. each person voting one candidate - say using a paper ballot- who has the most (oh, with no ensuing argument on reaching that destination.) As you can see the whole process is ripe for confusion and chaos and that's what happened last night and why there's no clear winner yet today. (Yes, a new app also played a role in the confusion, but to me it merely magnified the defects in an already hazy, fluky process.)

 W e learned last night that the results in the Iowa Democratic caucuses were delayed Monday evening, creating widespread confusion among the presidential campaigns. Party officials said the results had been delayed due to “inconsistencies” in the reporting of the results. The reporting problems are believed to have only delayed the results, not called them into question.

According to Mandy McClure - as reported in The NY Times:

“We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results. In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report. This is simply a reporting issue, the app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion. The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results.”

I have a hunch the problem is more fundamental:  We need to ditch the whole caucus routine and either bring Iowa into the 21st century (like Colorado has done)  or let them follow the blue states in  primary voting order.   First clue?   As we learn from the Times: "On a conference call with the presidential campaigns, Iowa Democratic Party officials said the delay was because of the new rules requiring caucus leaders to report three sets of numbers to party headquarters, rather than just the delegate totals."

And:

"Representatives from the campaigns became angry at the party officials, who hung up after being asked about when results might be known, according to two people who listened to the call."

What the hell happened? How did this fiasco get started?  From the Times' piece:

Since the caucuses began 50 years ago, Iowa Democrats reported only one number: the delegate count from each of the state’s precincts. But after the razor-close 2016 race in Iowa between Hillary Clinton and Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sanders’s allies pushed the Democratic National Committee to require caucus states to track and report the raw numbers of how many people backed each candidate.

For Iowa, the new reporting standards meant counting how many people backed each candidate on the first and second alignment. That change, requiring the reporting of three separate numbers from each of the state’s more than 1,600 precincts, has slowed the gathering of data to a crawl.

Additionally, many precinct chairs across the state abandoned the new app that was built to help tabulate and report results as they struggled to log in. They opted instead to use the telephone hotline to report."

To me it suggests that previously quoted prominent Democrats are spot on in their assessments of Iowa's importance in the primaries.  In fact, given the state's size, population etc. it is an exaggerated importance. Hence, we ought to question the role of the state in casting the first ballots in the primary season.  This is especially given the largely white, older  demographic of the state as unrepresentative of the diversity of the Dem party. (Oh there are more young people now, see the link at bottom, but the whole event is still rife with problems and hiccups, and again awards disproportionate weight to a minor state.)

 I agree with that take and have indicated in the past the antiquated nature of the caucus in the modern era. It's past time to get back to plain, regular voting modes - you pick candidate X, Y or Z on whatever ballot (preferably paper)  and deliver your choice, no bickering, arguing or haggling. 

If Iowans  - mostly Trump supporters now anyway - wish to keep their ancient primary process, fine. But put the other blue and Dem states (CA, NY etc.) voting first.  We don't need these hayseeds to dictate to us who to vote for or what the national priorities ought to be . Hell, in the CBS spot yesterday morning at some diner or other most didn't even believe impeachment of the orange imp was important.  (If he gets re-elected and cuts their Medicare - as he now plans to do  - they may wish to rethink that but by then it'll be too late.)

Others affirmed to the CBS point guy they were still voting for the Dotard, this is despite many of these (farmers) are still suffering from his tariff war with the Chinese.  That leads me to believe this state will still go to Trump given so many suffer from the mental disease of Trumpism

 Local political columnist Mike Littwin  believes the mental disease of Trumpism is with us to stay, e.g.

• 
  
• 

• Trumpism is a disease without a cure

  Fair&Unbalanced

  • By Mike Littwin, Courtesy of the Colorado Independent

https://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/trumpism-is-a-disease-without-a-cure/Content?oid=20188784


See also:

Blood Red Sun

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (1)

2020 Elections

View from Iowa Caucus Night

And:

Analysis: The Make-or-Break Night That Could Break Iowa

The state has often had to defend the uncommon power it wields over national politics. Its precarious standing appeared to take another hit.

Of Course Iowa's Farmers Will Remain Loyal To Trump - So Long As He Doles Out Welfare From OUR Taxes!

As top graph shows, soybeans are not being sold but rather stored as inventories accumulate, costing Iowa's farmers millions. Soybeans stored on Iowa farms have nearly doubled between June, 2018 and June, 2019.  Take Trump's welfare subsidies away and these farmers will be in a world of hurt.

"If history teaches us anything, it’s that there are no turning points with Trump. It’s possible he took a brief hit in the polls, but even if it happened, it won’t last for very long. As many as 40-some percent of Americans are true believers, and there seems to be no way to change that.

Trumpism is a disease, and a bad week, when there have been so many bad weeks, is hardly the cure. Trump said he just got another “beautiful” letter from the murderous Kim Jong-un, who has been busily tossing missiles into the sky and mud onto Trump’s face. And yet Trump brags about it, and Republicans say not a word."- Mike Littwin, 'Trumpism Is A Disease', Colorado Springs Independent
---------------
It wasn't really a huge surprise to read in The Wall Street Journal five days ago (p. A3) the headline:

'Iowa's Farmers Remain Loyal To Trump Despite Trade War's Toll'

Given we knew these hard core yokels were all in for the Dotard - as they are convinced he's their best ally and friend. Never mind that he's costing them the biggest markets for their  soybeans and pork that they may never get back.  For some reason these losers can't process that once markets - developed over decades  are lost, they seldom return.

The ongoing problem is that Trump's escalating tariffs on Chinese goods are destroying the livelihood and  financial stability of the nation's ordinary (non-corporate) farmers- especially in states like Iowa. See e.g.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/10/trump-is-ruining-our-markets-farmers-lose-a-huge-customer-to-trade-war----china.html

Key takeaways from the piece:

U.S. farmers lost their fourth largest customer this week after China officially cancelled all purchases of U.S. agricultural products, a retaliatory move following President Donald Trump’s pledge to slap 10% tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese imports.

• China’s exit piles on to a devastating year for farmers, who’ve struggled through record flooding and droughts that destroyed crop yields, and trade war escalations that have lowered prices and profits this year.

And yet they are prepared to stick it out with Trump. As we read m the cited WSJ piece:

"That (negative) message doesn't seem to be landing with farmers, even as industry associations ratchet up statements expressing concern about the trade dispute.  The Wall Street Journal interviewed more than a dozen farmers on the Iowa fairgrounds.

'He's doing the right thing', said Leo Balk a fifth generation farmer who raises corn, soybeans, oats, beef and dairy cows near New Hampton, Iowa.  Adding, 'It hurts but the concept is definitely right'"


Are you kidding me? Seriously?  The concept is "right"? What concept? That tariffs are a hit on China when they're instead a tax on U.S. business and consumers? That China is getting away with violating property-copyright laws but we'll clobber Americans to punish them?  This farmer like the others supporting Trump's nonsense give full throat evidence for a "reverse' Flynn Effect", i.e. that IQs are getting lower by the year.

The piece goes on, getting to the core of why these farmers feel like they do about Trump, i.e. OUR tax money is supporting them (ibid.):

:"One of the reasons farmers are showing so much patience with Mr. Trump, even as commodity prices have suffered, is because his administration has provided tariff-related aid."

In other words, welfare. Let's call a spade, a spade. We know damned well in other circumstance, say helping out students with excessive interest on their loans, that's the term they'd use.  As to how much farmer welfare we're talking about, well we read in the next sentence:

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture this month started signing up  farmers for a program that will disburse about $14.5 billion, following a roughly $10 billion program last year."

So lest anyone blink, that's real money we're talking about.  And it's not coming from Dotard's Deutsche Bank hidden accounts but out of U.S.  taxpayers' pockets. In other words WE are paying for these forlorn fools to maintain their loyalty to the pissant occupying the White House.

So, of course, they have the luxury right now to ride this slimy pig as far as they can, devil take the hindmost.

Further (ibid.)

"Dan Taylor - who farms about 900 acres of corn, soybeans and livestock near Bouton, Iowa, called the checks the 'Trump payment' and said last year's assistance came close to making up for losses incurred as a result of the trade war."

Of course, what farmer Taylor calls the "Trump payment" is in reality the gratis payment from U.S. taxpayers.  Trump had nada to do with it other than using misplaced executive authority to steal our tax money to buy off the votes and support of farmers and ...oh yeah...their continued loyalty. And we know what would happen if the welfare payments stopped - say if a recession hit,


One thing Mr. Taylor did nail was in comparing the farmers backing Trump (he doesn't - he just needs the handout money)  with the evangelical Christians who strongly support him, no matter how many pussies he grabs, women he assaults.   According to Mr. Taylor (out of the mouths of truthful farmers, ibid.):

"The Ag sector is the same way. They'll still give him their loyalty even though the trade war isn't doing agriculture any good."

Which may explain why Colorado Springs Independent columnist Mike Littwin now believes the mental disease of Trumpism is with us to stay, e.g.

• 
  
• 

• Trumpism is a disease without a cure

  Fair&Unbalanced

  • By Mike Littwin, Courtesy of the Colorado Independent

https://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/trumpism-is-a-disease-without-a-cure/Content?oid=20188784


See also:

Trade

Where’s the Beef in NAFTA 2.0?

by Jim Hightower | August 17, 2019 - 5:34am | permalink

— from OtherWords

And:

Elizabeth Preza

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Donald Trump | Religious Right

‘They Love the Meanest Parts of Him’: Conservative Writer Explains Why Evangelical Christians Stick with Trump

The "Chicken Shit" Theory Of Why Mueller Didn't Call Out Trump's Crimes Is The Best So Far.

"That the Wall Street titans who blew up the financial system suffered little more than slight reductions in their bonuses only reinforced the perception that the “system” is 'rigged'—with the consequences we know only too well. Many people simply want to live in a world that is fair. As Eisinger shows, this one isn’t."—James Kwak, The New York Times Book Review


"Any book that can definitively answer the question of why no executives have gone to jail for the Financial Crisis deserves our attention. And in this case a Pulitzer Prize. The Chickens--t Club is a fast moving, fly on the wall, disheartening look at the deterioration of the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, written sympathetically, thoroughly, but mostly - engagingly. It is a book of superheroes.

There are 94 US Attorney offices around the country. They operate on their own, independent of the Justice Department, their dotted line overseers. They fight over cases, work (and fight) with the FBI and the SEC, or work around them, and seem to take their cues from the news. From the 60s to the 90s, they developed into the good guys, fighting the good fight and taking great pride in their accomplishments. They turned up clues, did forensic accounting, and turned (“flipped”) lower level criminals to get the executives. They were saving the country from itself. But the days of young aggressive lawyers nailing an Ivan Boesky or a Michael Milken are gone."  Reviewer on Amazon


Bill Maher was nearly apoplectic on Real Time last night about how no crimes - including collusion and obstruction of justice -  were definitively identified by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.  Barely containing his rage,  he bellowed at the panel:

"You know I'm right. You know these are illegal things. 'We have dirt from Russia, I love it, let's meet'.  Eight Russians show up. Or: 'Hi, I've got polling data. You close to Putin? We give you the polling data' . What the fuck? Are you kidding me?"

Former SDNY  prosecutor Preet Bharara did correct him on the first, noting that the statute is for conspiracy, not collusion.   But Maher dug in, he wasn't budging that whatever the name for the deeds committed they ought to be named crimes, not flouting  norms.  Others also have puzzled as to why Mueller could consume 22 months using 500 search warrants, 19 lawyers  and generate over 400 pages in his report,  but basically come up with nothing definitive on Trump.

But blogger Larry Beinhart, for my money, remains the one with the best hypothesis to explain Mueller's punt.   He called it a theory - 'The Chickenshit theory'-   taken from the title of the book 'The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives,'  by Jesse Eisinger.  As Beinhart writes in a recent blog post on smirkingchimp.com:

"White collar cases are the toughest to make and there are multiple reasons for this. They tend to take place in linguistic fogs. Instead of money taken at the point of a gun, it's taken by promises and claims that can be made to appear as merely over-ambitious, misunderstandings of complex rules, just careless, or actually made by underlings."

As related by Eisinger,  it's all about manipulating the language so that - by the end of the judicial process- there is no clear proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" by which to rest a case.  In other words, like the agnotologists who muddied the waters on the causes of climate change - delaying action by sowing doubts for decades-  it's nearly impossible to prove a crime attributed to a white collar crook. Especially one with tons of cash to toss around, i.e. to buy the best lawyers, meaning the best at manipulating the language for their client's own ends.

Reading  a WSJ piece  from today (p. A3, Parents Talk Plea In College Case') it occurred to me the 33 white collar, elite  parents charged with "honest services fraud" will also get off any prison time thanks to high paid lawyers (like Brian Kelly ) who will make their defense by parsing the language of the allegations to such an extent the jury will be too bleary brained to know which way to turn. Hence, to find for a reduced transgression - or even a slap on the wrist.   As noted in the piece:

"Mr. William McGashlan's attorney Jack Pirozzolo said he 'wanted to make crystal clear that the defense contests 'the way the government characterized and explained the allegations.""

Of course he will, because that's how so many white collar criminals and executives have gotten off!  The language manipulation succeeds because it questions whether the prosecutors "really" had firm evidence of the "intentions" of the accused.  How could they know, after all, what was actually going on inside their craniums? Might they not merely have had the interests of their offspring and their future service to the nation at heart?

Colorado Springs Independent columnist Mike Littwin has dug even more deeply into the parsing of language for the elites, in order for them to be 'teflon-protected' against any and all accusations.  As he writes (COS Indy, March 25-29, p. 4):

"As for collusion it is fair to ask, as Washington Post anti-Trumper Max Boot does: If Mueller determined that Trump had not 'conspired' or 'coordinated' with the Russians isn't it obvious, from Trump's own statements, that he welcomed Russian interference?"

Just to remind readers, the most outrageous statement to that effect was (July 27, 2016):

"I will tell you this, Russia if you're listening, I hope that you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. You will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens."

But again, Trump's lawyers could parse that event and the words a hundred different ways, just like the lawyers for the bankers who got off in the wake of the 2008 derivatives fiasco that led to the credit crisis.  For example, they might have told Mueller: "That was just his typical braggadocio - nothing serious with malicious intent. He says stuff like that all the time. Look at his campaign rallies!"

Don't forget also, as Beinhart notes, Mueller already telegraphed  he'd capitulated to the chickenshit idiom before the report was released, e.g.:

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller sent out clear - though silent - signals before the release of the report that he had joined the chickensh** club. He didn't indict Donald Trump, Jr and Jared Kushner for possible offences they may have committed, like lying to Congress and failing to disclose foreign contacts, and then interview them, if they were to be charged. That would have set up an interview with the president himself."

Then what could  Mueller have done, if he couldn't get inside Trump's head, and never forced him to answer questions in real life, in real time, one on one?

How much would Mueller have needed to get to a crime? Littwin avers:

"Trump's Fifth Avenue shooting hypothesis still holds."

Meaning he'd virtually have to plug some one on one of New York's busiest streets to be found guilty. A true "smoking gun".   Anything less, as Littwin and Eisinger explain, can be dissolved with enough fuzzy lingo or semantics.

Littwin' conclusion - like that of Beinhart - is that "the impeach and replace movement was never going to happen."

That does not mean, of course, that the Dems just roll over for Barr and Trump.  No, they need to get the entire Mueller report released to see what was actually found, not what Barr claims was found in his brief (4 page) memo-summary.

That means keeping the April 2nd deadline ironclad, given the more time allowed for Barr to delay the more Trump's specious "vindication" road show can do damage. If need be, the Dems need to haul Barr (and Mueller) before open hearings, as well as subpoena any redacted versions of the report that emerge.  This is not a game, but the future of a constitutional democracy at stake. And you can be damned sure if the shoe was on the other foot, and an Obama (or Hillary-appointed) AG had just done the summary dump that Barr did, the Repukes would be like rabid rats demanding everything.  Oh, and holding hearings that would put their Benghazi side show to shame.

No way now or ever would they follow the advice they've given House Democrats, to "just move on."

See also:

Donald Trump | Media

Collusion in Plain Sight

by Laura Flanders | March 30, 2019 - 6:31am | permalink

And:

Sonali Kolhatkar

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Donald Trump | Robert Mueller

Moving Beyond the Mueller Investigation

House Democrats Need To Get Over Their Latent "Rebellion" And Back Nancy Pelosi!

Nancy Pelosi - The only rational choice to head the House when Dems assume majority rule next year.

Enough already about the hackneyed calls from the Right- and clueless "centrist" Democrats- to infuse "new blood" into the House leadership next year.   (Last week, 32 members of the House Democratic caucus  voted against Nancy Pelosi in a secret ballot vote. She can afford to lose no more than 17 member in the main vote in January.)

Make no mistake this revolt against Ms. Pelosi is counterproductive and will undermine Democratic House members' efforts to form a coherent plan going forward for  legislation,  as well as holding Dotard Donnie accountable for his sundry lawless actions, including treason.  What's more , the aimless babble about "new blood" is an idiotic meme that does no good, and sabotages Democratic unity when they need a strong and experienced leader to take the helm. And as journalist Mike Littwin put it: "This is no time for Dems to abandon a proven leader in Nancy Pelosi."

Littwin, in a recent piece in the COS Indy, made no bones about who he prefers and why, and I totally agree. As he noted ('Pelosi Attackers Miss The Big Picture',  Nov. 21-27, p. 7), if the midterms just held truly were the "most important in our lifetime" why in hell would you now consider dumping a person "who hardly any Democrats deny has been an effective speaker". As he adds:

"I'm puzzled, at minimum, about the timing of the rebellion."

Well, I am as well. I hate to invoke conspiracy memes, but it almost appears that the uprising against Pelosi has its roots in right wing elements who seek to provoke House Democrats into rejecting her at the final vote in January.  (See any number of recent WSJ editorials  attacking her, e.g.

The Pelosi Steamroller - WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-pelosi-steamroller-1543453343

And what, pray tell., might be the worst outcome should that transpire? Say Nancy getting fewer than the 218 votes minimum in January?  Well, House Reep Punk extremist Kevin McCarthy - who might get all the other votes - or become de facto leader by default.  This is what "rebellious" Dems need to bear in mind when considering who ought to assume duties as House majority leader.  Given this admittedly outside outcome, as Mike Littwin writes:

"It's hard for me to think of anything more politically misguided than for Democratic centrist rebels in the House to try to kick Pelosi out now."

Note he identified these Dem mutant mutts as "centrists" in other words, idolizers of the Neoliberal state. So why wouldn't they be opposed to a hard core San Francisco liberal like Pelosi?

One of the top rebels is from Colorado, named Ed Perlmutter.  In 2016 he nominated  rebel Tim Ryan to go up against Pelosi, and as Littwin admits "that might have been a good time to change leadership". But no longer! Not after we've seen first hand two years of the Trump fanatics destroying the fabric of our government and the Reepo House majority aiding and abetting at every step.  Littwin again:

"Now is a precarious time, an almost certainly counterproductive time, a time far too important to risk the chance of failure or to toss in someone who needs to learn/grow on the job."

In other words, my friends, given the total absence of checks and balances on the Trumpites, this is not the time for a new be to take control in the House and to be put on a learning curve. No, we don't need wet behind the ears neophytes but an experienced, wily and wise leader. That is Ms. Pelosi, like her or not.

As Littwin put it (ibid.):

"The rebellious House Dems have yet to identify anyone who could do a better job taking on Trump. "

And going on to note that given this,

"The absolute worst reason to dump Pelosi id that the Republicans don't like her. I mean, the idea that Pelosi is uniquely an albatross for Democratic candidates is absurd. Yes, her approval ratings are brutally low (29 percent in a recent Gallup poll) but better than Mitch McConnell's (24 percent)"

And the more cogent point:

"If it weren't Pelosi being demonized it would be someone else. Anyone else. Demonizing Democrats, particularly Democratic women, is what Republicans have long done and what Trump specializes in."

In other words, the Repuke shtick is demonization and it's done to try to tarnish or knee cap effective women leaders. They can no longer emulate their Fuhrer Dotard in pussy grabbing so they try to do it this way.  This is why I am confident the new infusion of House Dem women will prevail on the House rebels like Perlmutter and newly elected CO member Jason Crow, to grow up - put aside childish things - and back Nancy Pelosi.

As I said, having finally come to power after some 8 years in the political wilderness  (since the Tea Party revolt  took control in 2010) this is no time for House Dems to lose their minds, their spines or direction.

Why Serious Blogging Now Rules Over Newspapers

For some eight to ten months now I’ve noticed a serious decline in The Denver Post, to which I subscribe. By decline I mean that a once trustworthy paper that featured thought provoking and insightful viewpoints, had been overrun by disinformation, right wing PR and propaganda editorializing. In other words, it was becoming ever more like the local right wing rag. More nutso conservative columnists were taking up space, even as more right-slanted letters appeared, many off the wall. When columnists Mike Littwin and Penny Parker were fired, the warning lights really came on. Littwin for his part, was one of the sanest, most rational voices around, and always encouraged readers to think deeply – especially when covering political issues.

This profile carried over from when Littwin was a columnist for the Baltimore Sun. Among all Sun columnists, his word craft stood out for its clarity, honesty and depth. When he left the Sun to move to Colorado – to work for the Rocky Mountain News- a real gap was left on the Sun’s op ed pages. But when we moved to Colorado, in 2000, wifey and I found him again and were delighted. When the ‘Rocky’ folded this past year and Mike then went to work for the Denver Post, we felt we (and he) were lucky, but mostly we the readers.

Then the Post ditched him.

Or maybe it was the new “Citizen Kane” of Colorado, Dean Singleton, at least according to a new expose article in Harpers by David Sirota. Sirota makes particular reference to former Post columnist Susan Greene. When Susan resigned from the paper in 2010, she wrote a cathartic piece for the Huffington Post which opened the eyes for many of us, on why the Post was heading downward. In her words:

“In my own experience, staying true to the Denver Post brand required a certain type of Stockholm syndrome. It meant internalizing what you figure your boss and your boss's boss might deem inconvenient to print, say, before they hop on the train to Frontier Days with a posse of politicians and advertisers.

Their directives were loud and clear. No mas with the undocumented immigrants, one editor told me. Enough already about police brutality and mental illness, winced another. Ixnay the grit, they warned. And for God's sake, they said, give it a rest about the baby Jesus on the steps of City Hall."

According to “The Only Game In Town,” David Sirota recounted instances when Singleton:

- Ignored or killed stories critical of candidates he supported

- Concealed evidence that would hurt his friends and allies

- Strong-armed endorsements from his editorial boards

- Ran competitors out of business and then gutted staff.

As for Sirota, in his piece he notes this tragedy – of a hotshot rich guy buying out newspapers and pandering to politicos- isn’t peculiar to the Post. Nope, it’s a national infestation and plague.
As he writes:

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the share of cities with a competing newspaper went from 60 percent in 1910 to just 2 percent in 1971, and that 2 percent has since dwindled even more, leaving most media markets with a single newspaper. Not surprisingly, a Federal Communications Commission report noted last year that American journalism has experienced “a shift in the balance of power—away from citizens, toward powerful institutions,” with newspapers becoming “more reliant on news doled out by press release or official statement.”

This concentration of power in the print media was noted as far back as 1998 by Project Censored, which then forecast further consolidation. Indeed, in the article 'The News That Didn't Make the News and Why' (Project Censored Yearbook, 1998) author Robert McChesney detailed the awful arc of how our press had been compromised by wealthy or corporate interests. And that was 14 years ago! In the piece he noted that eleven media corporations had no less than 36 direct links to each other "creating a solid network of overlapping interests and affiliations" . Further, these 11 media conglomerates have "directorships interlocking with 144 of the 1,000 Fortune 500 companies"

Now, of course, as embodied by Dean Singleton, Rupert Murdoch and other "Citizen Kanes" - the media is essentially being gutted from the inside out. Once illuminating columnists are being tossed out onto the streets so dsinformation nabobs (liek Mike Rosen, in the Post, Michelle Malkin almost everyplace else) can have their dubious say. Meanwhile, editorials - like the Post's of August 16, asserting Obama was "more negative" than Romney and belonged to the 'Chicago school' of hard ball TV ads, skew public perceptions.

This spreading cancer means, of course, that most newspapers can no longer be trusted, never mind how many paid off, whore "gate keepers" they have. If their aim is mainly control of information- for the benefit of political slimeballs - as opposed to disseminating it for citizens' edification, then citizens are at a loss. Well, not quite! Serious blogs remain as a powerful alternative, especially blogs not dependent on money for their existence. Because in that case, the bloggers can’t be bought. They are then the most serious threats to faux journalism in the world, since the only currency that matters is the truth.

Of course, the tycoon-owned and controlled print media still looks down their collective noses at blogging as engaging in “digital graffiti”. Let them! Their days are numbered anyway, as more and more of the once grand print establishments collapse and either migrate exclusively to online sites, or disappear entirely.

The good thing is that intelligent people seeking real news and insights, uncompromised by money from puppeteer controllers and their canned PR bullshit, have other places to go. This blog is one of them. I make every effort to vet information, as well as provide sources where available, and also check out the reliability of those sources by going to confirmatory ones.

As for The Denver Post, once the current subscription expires I will likely not renew. Heck, it will provide more time to blog anyway. Or, increase time for my latest book project.

Another Powerful Liberal Voice Leaves the Scene

It appears that the half-life of a powerful liberal spokesperson decreases ever more as time goes on. Only ten days ago Mike Littwin, longtime liberal columnist for The Denver Post, was unceremoniously given the heave-ho, and has since been replaced by canned syndicated columns (which are much less expensive than having to pay a real time columnist staffer). Littwin, before the Post, was an outspoken liberal voice for The Baltimore Sun, and it was in Baltimore I first became aware of him and began reading his well-thought out columns.

Not long after Littwin arrived in Denver and became a part of the op-ed staff at The Rocky Mountain News (one of the few left voices on that paper) wifey and I arrived in Colorado after a move from Columbia, MD. This was in 2000. By 2009, the "Rocky" went under and all its columnists, staffers were out of jobs with the exception of Right winger Vince Carroll, and Littwin. Now Littwin is gone, and Carroll remains.....bloviating about the usual right wing codswallop like his syndicated mates (e.g. Walter Willliams, David Harsanyi, Thomas Sowell, George Will, Michelle Malkin, etc.)

Now, merely days ago...we learn the powerful voice of Keith Olbermann has been stilled, on Current-TV. 'Countdown' followers became suspicious and began to embrace assorted conspiracy explanations, after Keith's cartoon visage (see right side of graphic), wielding a large pitchfork, appeared on a cover of UTNE Reader some months ago. He had been lumped in with the likes of Gaddafi, Bill O'Reilly, Pope Rat and others as part of the magazine's 'New Extremists' article.

Countdown followers surmised this "extremist" portrayal perhaps convinced Al Gore, Current- TV's owner honcho, but some of us distrusted that Gore could be that lily-livered, never mind he didn't fight with all his might to get all the Florida votes counted back in 2000, when he faced off vs. Bush Jr. for the Presidency. (The Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount, handing the electorial college victory to Bush, though Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000. Later tabulations run by a consortium of newspapers showed Gore actually would have won had he demanded all votes counted in all counties as opposed to a select few.)

I didn't buy the take that Gore would just dump Olbermann because of speaking out too much and too often. My worry was that a small station like Current, reaching barely 50,000 viewers, was simply a poor match for a high-powered perfectionist accustomed to working at a major cable network equipped with the whole spectrum of up-to-date amenities. As it happened, this turned out to be much of what was the case, as Howard Kurtz has recently noted:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/01/keith-olbermann-s-angry-e-mail-trail-traces-breakup-with-current-tv.html

Among the production level problems documented by Kurtz:

- On February 10, the studio lighting failed while Keith was on the air

- This was actually the most recent of a number of other technical failures (the previous night Keith was cut off in mid-sentence)

- On other occasions, toner cartridges ran dry on machines used to make copies . For another show, incorrect settings were provided for DVR machines making it impossible for viewers to record it.

- Olbermann's manager Michael Price sent a list of no fewer than "40 deficiencies" at the network that needed correction

These together left the impression on Olbermann and Price that Current was more a "rinky dink" operation and more apropos to "cable access" TV than Cable. But any ordinary viewer could have told them that and they might have learned it simply by having followed Current-TV before signing on.

Of course, the 'two sides to every story' shtick remains in place and Kurtz in his report doesn't disappoint, so we also learn of ego clashes such an involving Keith's service car, the actual nights he was to have worked (and which nights he didn't have to) as well as Keith refusing to talk head to head to Current execs other than through a third party.

In the end, all of these recede into insignificance beside the reality that a powerful, much needed voice is once again gone from the airwaves. Maybe it was largely Keith's fault and his inability to adapt and adjust to a "Mickey Mouse" level station operation, or maybe it was Gore and Current -TV's for not doing more to accommodate this powerful (but prickly) personality.

In either case, the viewer and what's left of the liberal left are the real losers. We wish Keith well in any case, as we do Mike Littwin!