The PCTC Blog

UPDATED: Investigative Journalism, My Ass: Case Study: Jason Leopold

An unfortunate update appears at the end of this post.  And one last addendum has been added. 

I have said many times on this blog; I am not a journalist. I have neither the time nor the resources to do it right, and I have no intention of misleading anyone. That doesn’t mean I don’t strive to tell the truth. I believe in truth and the power of facts over ideology. I happen to believe that most people are decent and want to know the facts, regardless of their ideology, and that they can spot bullshit from a mile away.

I hold real journalism in very high esteem, which seems to be more than I can say about some "journalists". Journalism is not just a job. it's an honorable profession; an essential calling. Good reporting is as important as the vote to the functioning of democracy. The dissemination of good, truthful information is essential to the system.

This is why I have nothing but contempt for Fox News. There is little journalism on Fox; it’s all propaganda designed to keep right wingers glued to their televisions, to make money for their parent corporation. They have no regard for the truth, unless the truth is what their viewers want to hear, and right wingers don't care about truth.  If the name of their channel was “Right Wing Opinion Channel”, I would have more respect. But news requires facts, perspective and proper context.

Separation of Church/State IS Absolute, Santorum

It’s weird how many so-called “strict constitutionalists” don’t seem to have read the Constitution. If they have read it, they don’t understand what they read. While there are some on the left who don’t seem to understand it much, either (you can’t simply round up “banksters” and throw them in jail because something happened that caused the economy to collapse, for example; you need a specific broken law and enough evidence to convict in a court of law), the far right wing simply has no clue what any of it means, including the Second Amendment. 

It’s bad enough that the average Republican voter doesn’t seem to get the Constitution at all. But their candidates don’t understand it at all, and that is inexcusable. How can you take an oath to uphold something you don’t even understand in the first place.

Yesterday’s edition of "This Week" on ABC featured an exchange between George Stephanopoulos and Rick Santorum (Google it!), during which they discussed John F Kennedy’s September 1960 speech before Baptist ministers, in which he assured them he believed the separation between church and state was absolute. Here is that exchange. I placed a link to the transcript of the speech where it says “Begin Video Clip.”

Politics 101 for the Far Left: Better Government = Winning Elections

To understand politics, you have to understand one basic fact above all else; you can’t make or influence policy if you don’t win elections. All of those right wing judges, all of those progressive policies that have gone by the wayside over the last 40 years; that all didn't happen by accident. It's called democracy, and that's what we're stuck with.

It’s hard to believe I have to make that clear to so many people who call themselves “political junkies” and/or “progressive,” but I seem to have to do that on a daily basis.  

We progressives have been standing on the sidelines while the far right has run the show for about 32 years now, precisely because a significant proportion of “progressives” don’t seem to occupy the real world. If you want to know why the right wing has been able to dismantle most of the meager social justice apparatus that we built up before the Reagan “Revolution,” it’s because they understand that they can only get their way if they keep winning elections. Meanwhie, a too-large contingent of “progressives” seem to think “standing on principle” means sticking to lofty ideals that can't possibly happen in one shot, and abandoning anything that doesn't represent at least 100% of that lofty ideal. It's why it seems as if progressives have run straight off the political cliff. As President Obama has put it many times, these "principled" "progressives" are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. 

REPOST: Breitbart Whines, Says Buffalo Beast Walker "Punk" same as his Frauds on ACORN, Sherrod. Nope, Andy, It’s not.

Because Andy Breitbart took my last reposting so well, I decided to repost this one, too, which I wrote on Febrary 23, 2011.. It's also time to recall Scotty Walker, and get his ass out of the Governor's office in Wisconsin, so this will serve two purposes. 

=============================

Once again, the idiots on the right just don’t get it. They’re just not smart enough.

In case you haven’t heard, Wisconsin Governor Walker was punked recently by Ian Murphy, a reporter from the Buffalo Beast. Mr. Murphy called the governor and pretended to be David Koch, one of two brothers who head one of the richest and most dangerous players in right wing politics. The Kochs hate unions, and they do whatever they can to bust them.

Well, the far right, led by little Andy Breitbart, is apoplectic over this. How DARE anyone “prank call” a governor like this, right? But being Breitbart, he either hasn’t a clue, or he considers his lapdogs to be too stupid to have a clue (I think it’s the latter; he really can’t be as stupid as he acts.), and he likens this “prank,” with his O’Keefe videos and the video he’s currently being sued over, in which he implied that Shirley Sherrod was racist.

Obviously, it’s not the same at all, which I will explain after you listen to this phone call, in two parts:

 

 

I would call this funny, but it  really isn't. Here you have the governor of a state pretty much acquiescing to a plot to bring in outside agitators to interfere with the right of citizens of his state to peaceably assemble. It’s telling that he’s bragging about his making the Right Wing Fart Machine rounds, but bitching about Obama saying anything about this at all. I laughed out loud when he mentioned that Obama’s budget deficit was a lot larger. Funny thing; he had a surplus when he took office. What can you say about an asshole who plans to announce layoffs of state employees just to bring political pressure on the other party. And really; busting the PATCO union led to the fall of the Soviet Union? This guy’s a loon.

The Dead Don't Vote -- The Hysteria Over Voter Fraud

This piece started out as a diatribe against Politico, after they published an article with a misleading headline, and content intending to convey some sort of urgency for a "problem" that is not a problem.  But given the number of other “Media” outlets that did the same thing, it’s morphed into something else. Check out the Politico piece, with the striking headline “Report: 1.8 million dead registered to vote.” But realize this story was all over “the media” yesterday, including a number of liberal blogs and other outlets.

"The media" keeps on feeding the right wing’s meme; that us “lib’rulls” are trying to steal the government, so that we can install a Marxist regime, and take all the money from the rich and “redistribute” it to the poor. One way we’re supposedly trying to accomplish our overall “agenda” is by committing “voter fraud,” as exemplified by those reprobates at ACORN. Surely you remember ACORN; they’re the group that committed so much “voter fraud,” Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe and Hanna Giles were able to shut them down.

REPOST: Cutting the Breitbart on Andrew... What a Pig(ford Liar)

Reposting this article from February 15, 2011, because Andrew Breitbart apparently forgets that we caught him in lies many times.

You know, I don't hate anyone. I don't hate right wingers, for example; I just don't appreciate what they stand for, and I despise hypocrisy. 

But more than that, I despise professional liars. The average right winger is largely a prick because of the professional liars who tell them what they want to hear, whether it's true or not, in return for handsome compensation. If you're a right wing pundit, all you have to do is dictate some lies, have some schmuck type it up and put it into book form, and a couple of million ignorant souls will buy it up and call you their god. 

The only frustrating part of the situation is that the legitimate news media doesn't seem to want to call these idiots out and completely discredit them, so that they can't do it again. 

Case in point; Andrew Breitbart. 

For those of you who don’t know, Lil Andy Breitbart was served with a lawsuit last weekend, as he gave another hate-filled speech at the CPAC convention, in which he referred to liberals with whom he disagreed as "animals."  The suit was brought by former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod. As you’ll recall, Ms. Sherrod, whose civil rights pedigree actually goes back pretty far, was summarily fired when the Obama Administration’s Department of Agriculture, with an able assist from the NAACP, gave far too much credence to a video presented by the piece of shit  Breitbart, who was attempting to portray her as racist. Unfortunately for everyone concerned, the original video popped up, and demonstrated that the video he had presented as fact, was in fact heavily edited.

The REAL "Gay Agenda": Equal Rights for All!

These United States were founded on the concept that all (people) are created equal. Even many of the slave owners among the Founding Fathers envisioned a day in which all (people) really are treated equally. It's supposed to be a major goal as we work toward "a more perfect union." 

So, why does it always seem necessary for a significant number of Americans (neocons, mostly, but there are other self-righteous prigs out there, too) to designate a group of people to be denied the rights that everyone else is entitled to? More importantly, why do so many people try to rationalize or justify it? Denying anyone their basic civil rights is wrong, period. 

One of these days, this "land of the free" might just figure out that the proper line to draw when it comes to rights is no line at all, at least among law-abiding citizens. The only actions we should outlaw are those which negatively affect the rights of others and/or cause serious risk to public safety. For example, I don’t want to outlaw tobacco products. If you want to sit in your own home and chain smoke to your heart’s content, have at it. But I should also have a right to go into public buildings without having to endure your chosen habit. Also, the cost of each pack of smokes should reflect the amount the rest of us are going to have to pay when your silly ass ends up in the hospital because you were too dumb to heed the warnings that are available everywhere.

But I digress.

A Proposal for Common Sense Gun Control

Let’s talk about guns, shall we? I know this issue is politically risky. Apparently, those of us who discuss politics are supposed to be afraid to mention it, for fear that someone will attack my constitutional street cred or something. 

Frankly, I’m sick of people, including many liberals, who pretend there's no issue here.  Gun laws, as they currently exist are woefully inadequate, and it's past time that we stop pretending the issue is "freedom." How free are we, if we can't be at least reasonably sure the bad guys aren't armed to the teeth. A recent report by NBC News shows just how easy it is for one person to buy a gun legally, through licensed gun dealers, and then list the gun on a website like Craigslist, no questions required. Seriously; watch this report, and tell me there's no problem:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is a problem because we've been intimidated for far too long by extremist groups populated by paranoid people who think the rest of us want to take their guns. They're even crazier than those folks who think President Obama is a "disappointment" because he hasn't supplied us all with glitter-farting unicorns. The concept is absurd. Not only are there too many guns to think about confiscating them, but we do have the Second Amendment, which does protect the rights of people to keep and bear arms, SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. 

Perhaps It's Time to Start Taxing Churches

So, the Roman Catholic Chuch in the United States wants a special exemption in regulations governing health insurance, so that they don't have to "pay for" contraception. Of course, as I pointed out in my previous post, it's not their insurance, it's their employees', and they aren't paying for it. It's part of their compensation package. 

 I'm getting tired of phony religious nuts constantly trying to push their way into the political arena and make us accept their absurd superstitions. I'm not talking about truly religious individuals; those who truly believe what they claim tend to act in a way that makes you want to be like them. I'm talking about the fakes; the people who lack humility, and usually push political positions that actually go against their stated belief systems.

It's funny that the Catholic Church is suddenly finding fault in our health insurance system. Where were they before. In what New Testament does Jesus Christ favor support for a system whereby health insurance companies make obscene profits for NOT providing health care to the sick and injured? I've been combing the New Testament, and I simply cannot find the part where Jesus forbids a public health insurance option to make sure everyone gets health care. Yet, the Catholic Church only NOW has a problem with the health insurance system. 

Birth Control and the Catholic Church; This is About Your Religious Freedom, Not Theirs

The current flap over insurance coverage of birth control by insurers -- specifically those who work as employees of the Catholic Church -- has absolutely nothing to do with the religious freedom of Catholics. In fact, if anything, it is the Catholic Church that is attempting to violate the separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment, not the government. They are attempting to carve out an exception for themselves in YOUR private insurance policy,  and nothing more.

To explain what I mean, you have to understand the purpose of health insurance.

When you pay a health insurance premium, you’re not actually paying for your own health care. This is a concept that causes many right wingers’ heads to explode, but it is reality. Given the fact that many people pay insurance premiums for many years, and only use it to take the kids to the doctor for occasional check ups, many tend to view it as something of a savings account, to pay for what might happen in the future. Unfortunately, insurance companies tend not to view it that way. 

In actuality, you pay your premiums, and those premiums go into a large pool, from which the insurance company pays the medical bills of others who need the money to pay for health care. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare,” medical decisions are now left between you and your doctors. Hospitals and doctors issue an invoice for services rendered, and the insurance company writes a check, pulling money from the pool that includes your insurance premium.

Repulsive Greenwald Hypocrisy

I don’t have much use for polls about 90% of the time. They’re usually wildly inaccurate on their own. That’s why I like what Nate Silver does. Instead of looking at one poll and declaring it as the actual opinion of all of the American people, he evaluates a number of polls and creates a snapshot of what people might be thinking, and what might happen as a result. Basically, no one 

The only thing I hold in less regard than polls are analyses of those polls. In a large number of cases, what these “analysts” do is to create a conclusion, and only cite those numbers that make their pre-formed conclusion. There are several problems with this, of course, most of them painfully obvious. As you know, I try only to deal with facts. 

So, when someone sent me a link to Glenn Greenwald’s piece in yesterday’s Salon, entitled “Repulsive Progressive Hypocrisy,” the first thing I did was roll my eyes at the irony in the headline. Now, in all fairness, Greenwald might not have written the headline; often, editors throw a headline on a piece without consulting with the writer. But in this case the article reflects the headline pretty well. According to Greenwald, progressives are "hypocrites" because, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, we don’t agree with him on his pet issues. 

There's only one problem with this assessment. He has no evidence to support his main contention. 

Principled and Gullible are Two Separate Concepts

Progressives love to rationalize their political naïveté by claiming "principle" as their rationale for always losing. They don't seem to realize how many of us are actually shaking our heads and cringing at their silliness. It's really important to the progressive movement that more of us understand that almost nothing in the political arena is all black or all white. Every issue one can think of falls somewhere on the grayscale. I’m reminded of this as I look back at my weekend in New York City and some of the things I’ve heard progressives say since. 

Last Saturday morning, my son and I were walking up Broadway in Manhattan, not far from Times Square, when several NYPD officers cleared a path for some demonstrators, who were marching against “intervention” in Iran. (Note that the protesters were not being harrassed and/or beaten by the police. In fact, the officers were protecting them

There were many signs, and I agreed with most of them, although the Commander-in-Chief has said repeatedly that he’s working toward a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. How many times must Obama imply that he has no intention of attacking Iran before these people get it? He can’t take the possibility “off the table” because, well, he’s dealing with Iran, and taking such a thing “off the table” would act as a disincentive for them to act. But he’s said and shown that he has no intention of doing a “Bush” and attacking them for no reason.

Pro-Choice is the Essence of Liberty

I just heard someone whose opinions I generally admire say they thought both terms used in the abortion debate to describe the two distinct ideologies that make up the "debate," such as it is, "pro-life" and "pro-choice," tend to divide us. I agree wholeheartedly in regard to the term "pro-life," which is why I use the term "anti-choice." But I don't agree with "pro-choice." The essence of liberty is the ability to choose the course of your life. "Pro-choice" can apply to many things, not just reproduction. 

On the other hand, the term "pro-life" is offensive. The recent mess over the Susan G Komen Foundation pulling funding from Planned Parenthood because of pressure by the "pro-life" movement makes that perfectly clear. How can you claim to be "pro-life" and also be in favor of denying funds for up to 170,000 breast exams? The answer is, you can't. 

I wrote this a while ago, and I'm presenting it once again, because I think it's evn more appropos.