RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Sex and Bankers Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5223"><span class="small">Danny Schechter, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 19 May 2011 18:03

Intro: "My colleague Mike Whitney asks: 'So, what are the chances that Strauss-Kahn will get a fair trial now that he's been blasted as a serial sex offender in about 3,000 articles and in all the televised news reports? Do you remember any Wall Street bankers being dragged off in handcuffs when they blew up the financial system and bilked people out of trillions of dollars?' The answer to both questions is certainly 'Non,' in French, or 'No,' in English, but there's more to the connection between Sex and Wall Street."

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, is arraigned on charges he sexually assaulted a hotel maid, 05/16/11. (photo: Emmanuel Dunand/AP)
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, is arraigned on charges he sexually assaulted a hotel maid, 05/16/11. (photo: Emmanuel Dunand/AP)



Sex and Bankers

By Danny Schechter, Reader Supported News

19 May 11


Reader Supported News | Perspective

 

Strauss-Kahn and the secret culture of aggressive sexuality in the high-pressure world of bankers and banksters.

y colleague Mike Whitney asks: "So, what are the chances that Strauss-Kahn will get a fair trial now that he's been blasted as a serial sex offender in about 3,000 articles and in all the televised news reports?

Do you remember any Wall Street bankers being dragged off in handcuffs when they blew up the financial system and bilked people out of trillions of dollars?"

The answer to both questions is certainly "Non," in French, or "No," in English, but there's more to the connection between Sex and Wall Street. Without commenting on the evidence in this case - which has been asserted, not proven - there is a deeper context that is being ignored.

I call it the Testosterone Factor in "The Crime of Our Time," my book about how Wall Street criminally engineered the financial crisis.

Interesting, isn't it, that there have been so few references to the link between the pervasiveness of salacious sex and the highly-charged life of a class of "entitled" wealthy bankers who live off of others with few rules or restraints.

There is also often no news about that, or the practices of the IMF, which is often accused of raping poor and vulnerable countries with unfair structural adjustment programs. The IMF chief is now experiencing what many in France feel is an unfair "personal adjustment program" at the hands of the New York cops and courts.

Odd, isn't it, that there have been so few references in the coverage also to Eliot Spitzer, the one-time "Sheriff" of Wall Street who was denouncing criminal financial practices by the Bush administration when he was brought down in a sex scandal.

Strauss-Kahn had also been in the news lately as a possible Socialist presidential candidate to topple our pal Sarkosy in France, as well as a critic of US banking practices. He recently outraged official Washington by asserting that the Chinese economy was surpassing ours.

In both cases, powerful forces have motives to bring down such potential reformers, but, it is also true that in each case these men themselves were, on the surface anyway, sexually obsessed and prone to illegal behavior that put them - and others - at risk.

Both are Alpha Males known for pushing the envelope of personal responsibility. Both were known for personal arrogance and living in highly-secretive sexualized personal cultures. Writer Tristan Banon claimed she had to fight DSK off in an earlier incident, calling him a "strutting chimpanzee."

Bear in mind also that part of what intelligence agencies do these days in targeting people is to prepare sophisticated psychological profiles before they intervene. They know that the knowledge of the secret lives - and kinks - of public figures can easily discredit them. They specialize in foraging for dirt and can leak information or use it opportunistically.

Remember Richard Nixon's authorized break-in at the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist pursuing highly personal information?

Nothing is off-limits, as people like former weapons inspector Scott Ritter learned as well when he became embroiled in a mini sex-caper.

When people are highly stressed they are prone to making mistakes. The agencies shadowing them know that, and from time to time encourage it or just wait for the opportunity to help them bring themselves down.

What needs to be examined is how the crimes of the rich and powerful are treated. Bush's bombing and Geithner's tax maneuvers were ignored.

But when sex is involved, all bets are off.

Sex scandals have become a staple of media exploitation with personal morality plays trumping political morality confrontations every time.

They are both great distractions and effective tools of character assassination which are often more effective than more violent ways to neutralize people considered dangerous.

That's why the FBI was so hot to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with leaks of so-called wiretapped sex tapes. In his case, this tactic failed but the other worked.

In some cases both tactics are deployed, as in the physical assassination of Bin Laden and then the character-killing aimed at his supporters through the release of porn allegedly found in his "lair."

Intense sexual appetites are an extension of the "culture" of an avaricious financial world. Illegal sex and Wall Street (or in La Defense, France's financial district) has long been linked, writes Heidi Moore:

"This is all a reminder that the financial district hasn't always been gleaming skyscrapers and Starbucks."

Consider this passage from City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution, and the Commercialization of Sex, 1790-1920: "Adjacent to the Wall Street business district, prostitutes worked in saloons along Greenwich Street, taking men upstairs. In addition, immediately south of Wall Street was the Battery Tender-loin, on Whitehall Street. The Water Street area, however, remained the most significant and poorest waterfront zone of prostitution. Amid the rookeries, rat pits and dance halls, prostitutes exposed in each window to the public view plied their trade."

In the modern era, many of the Street's most macho traders are, according to David Russell who worked in the industry for two decades, known as "swinging dicks." It is well known that the big money in Wall Street has kept a vibrant, upscale sex industry alive and well.

There has been one scandal after another. Here are a few cases cited by Moore before Spitzer's demise:

  • BP Chief Executive John Browne left both his post at the oil company and his directorship at Goldman Sachs Group last year after it was revealed that Lord Browne had lied to a court about his young male lover, whom he had met through an escort-service Web site.


  • A group of six women sued Dresdner Kleinwort in 2006 for $1.4 billion on allegations that male executives entertained clients at strip clubs and even brought prostitutes back to the office. The case was settled out of court in 2007.


  • Canadian hedge fund manager Paul Eustace in 2007, by his own admission in a deposition filed in court lied to investors and cheated on his wife with a stripper.


  • In 1987, Peter Detwiler, vice chairman of E.F. Hutton & Co., was, according to court testimony, instructed by his client, Tesoro Petroleum Corp. Chairman Robert V. West, to hire a blonde prostitute for the finance minister of Trinidad & Tobago, which had been supporting a tax issue that would have hurt Tesoro's profits.


  • A woman claiming to have been Bernard Madoff's mistress published a book about their secret liaisons. Earlier his secretary said he had a fondness for massages in an article in Vanity Fair.

Wall Street's fall is said to have brought down the sex industry almost as if it had been a fully owned subsidiary, if not an extension, of the financial services business.

To find out more, I spoke to Jonathan Albert, a psychologist practicing in mid-Manhattan.

He told me, "I see a lot of clients in NYC who are impacted by the economic crisis. People deal with stress in many different ways. Some people exercise, some people over-eat, some use drugs and alcohol, some even sexualize those feelings."

"Sexualize?" I asked him, "How do they sexualize these feelings?"

His response, "I've seen a lot of Wall Streeters who sexualize feelings of anxiety and stress and depression. So for example they might rely on adult sexual services to deal with those feelings."

Loretta Napoleoni, an Italian author who worked on Wall Street for years, offers a provocative thesis for how the need for paid sex "on the wild side" became part of the culture of irresponsibility.

"I can tell you that this is absolutely true because being a woman, having worked in finance 20 years ago I could tell you that even at that time - when the market was not going up so much - these guys, all they talk is sex."

She complemented her personal experience by citing a study by researchers from Oxford University.

"The study discovered, that an excessive production of testosterone, in a period of fantastic financial exuberance, creates a sort of confusion. It is what people in sports call 'being in the zone,' which means you get in a certain situation where you feel that you will always win. That you are infallible."

I asked Dr. Albert if that finding may have indeed had relevance to Spitzer or be endemic in the industry? His reply, "I do see this a lot in the finance industry, yes, people in positions of power often feel as if they can perhaps get away with it. There is sometimes a sense of entitlement."

"They feel entitled to take part in risky behavior?" I pressed.

"High-risk behavior. It's similar to what they do on a daily basis. They invest millions and millions of dollars and there is a great risk involved with that. The same is true with using the services of a prostitute. Obviously there are great health risks; their relationship is in great danger if they are using the services of a prostitute.

"A lot of people skate on the excitement, on that euphoric rush.

"The culture of risk on Wall Street was intoxicating to many in the same way that gamblers become addicted or report a rush when they are winning.

"The euphoria of life in the fast lane often implodes when one's luck runs out leading to depression and family breakups. One remedy is going to self-help groups like 'The Wall Street Wives Club,' formed to empower and serve the needs of wives and girlfriends whose husbands or significant others work in the stressful and volatile brokerage community.

"Men are often uncomfortable expressing their feelings."

Some of Dr. Albert's clients coped with the pressures on them to perform in kinkier ways.

".... they just want to let loose, relax and take a very passive role in their sexual practice. So they may seek out the services of a dominatrix, where they are at the mercy of this sex worker. I've had clients who seek out services where they get whipped, cuffed, put on a leash like a dog."

Beating others can also be part of this culture. There is violence lurking to the surface that can easily erupt when desires are denied.

I am not being moralistic here, but a climate of narcissism and living secret lives often desensitizes its practitioners leaving them little time to think of how their actions may affect others. (Or how the policies they promote impact on their customers or the poor!)

None of this context excuses anything that Strauss-Kahn may or may not have done, but what it does do is shine some light on a culture of aggressive power-driven hyper-sexuality that our media is often too hypocritical to investigate.


News Dissector Danny Schechter elaborates on this issue in his book, "The Crime of Our Time," and in a DVD extra to his film "Plunder - The Crime of Our Time" (PlunderTheCrimeOfOurTime.com). You may contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Andrew Breitbart's 'Electronic Brownshirts' Print
Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:01

Amy Goodman writes: "Rightwing media personality Andrew Breitbart is the forceful advocate of the slew of deceptively edited videos that target and smear progressive individuals and institutions. He promoted the videos that purported to catch employees of the community organisation Acorn assisting a couple in setting up a prostitution ring. He showcased the edited video of Shirley Sherrod, an African American employee of the US department of agriculture, which completely convoluted her speech, making her appear to admit to discriminating against a white farmer."

Andrew Breitbart holds a news conference at the National Press Club, 05/17/11. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Andrew Breitbart holds a news conference at the National Press Club, 05/17/11. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)



Andrew Breitbart's 'Electronic Brownshirts'

By Amy Goodman, Guardian UK

19 May 11

 

The latest Breitbart-inspired 'gotcha' has backfired, but the targets of rightwing attack videos should not cave to dirty tactics.

udy Ancel, a Kansas City, Missouri, professor, and her St Louis colleague were teaching a labour history class together this spring semester. Little did they know, video recordings of the class were making their way into the thriving sub rosa world of rightwing attack video editing, twisting their words in a way that resulted in the loss of one of the professors' jobs amid a wave of intimidation and death threats. Fortunately, reason and solid facts prevailed, and the videos ultimately were exposed for what they are: fraudulent, deceptive, sloppily edited hit pieces.

Rightwing media personality Andrew Breitbart is the forceful advocate of the slew of deceptively edited videos that target and smear progressive individuals and institutions. He promoted the videos that purported to catch employees of the community organisation Acorn assisting a couple in setting up a prostitution ring. He showcased the edited video of Shirley Sherrod, an African-American employee of the US department of agriculture, which completely convoluted her speech, making her appear to admit to discriminating against a white farmer. She was fired as a result of the cooked-up controversy. Similar video attacks have been waged against Planned Parenthood.

Judy Ancel has been the director of the University of Missouri-Kansas City's institute for labour studies since 1988. Using a live video link, she co-teaches a course on the history of the labour movement with Professor Don Giljum, who teaches at University of Missouri-St Louis. The course comprises seven day-long, interactive sessions throughout the semester. They are video-recorded and made available through a password-protected system to students registered in the class.

One of those students, Philip Christofanelli, copied the videos and, he admits on one of Breitbart's sites, that he did "give them out in their entirety to a number of my friends." At some point, a series of highly and very deceptively edited renditions of the classes appeared on Breitbart's website. It was then that Ancel's and Giljum's lives were disrupted, and the death threats started. A post on Breitbart's BigGovernment.com summarised the video:

"The professors not only advocate the occasional need for violence and industrial sabotage, they outline specific tactics that can be used."

Ancel told me, "I was just appalled, because I knew it was me speaking, but it wasn't saying what I had said in class." She related the attack against her and Giljum to the broader attack on progressive institutions currently:

"These kinds of attacks are the equivalent of electronic brownshirts. They create so much fear, and they are so directed against anything that is progressive - the right to an education, the rights of unions, the rights of working people - I see, are all part of an overall attack to silence the majority of people and create the kind of climate of fear that allows for us to move very, very sharply to the right. And it's very frightening."

Ancel's contact information was included in the attack video, as was Giljum's. She received a flurry of threatening emails. Giljum received at least two death threats over the phone. The University of Missouri conducted an investigation into the charges prompted by the videos, during which time they posted uniformed and plainclothes police in the classrooms. Giljum is an adjunct professor, with a full-time job working as the business manager for Operating Engineers Local 148, a union in St Louis. Meanwhile, the union acceded to pressure from the Missouri AFL-CIO, and asked Giljum to resign, just days before his 1 May retirement, after working there for 27 years.

Gail Hackett, provost of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, released a statement after the investigation, clearing the two professors of any wrongdoing:

"It is clear that edited videos posted on the internet depict statements from the instructors in an inaccurate and distorted manner by taking their statements out of context and reordering the sequence in which those statements were actually made so as to change their meaning."

The University of Missouri-St Louis also weighed in with similar findings, and stated that Giljum was still eligible to teach there.

On 18 April, Andrew Breitbart appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, declaring, "We are going to take on education next, go after the teachers and the union organizers." It looks as if Ancel and Giljum were the first targets of that attack.

In this case, the attack failed. While Acorn was ultimately exonerated by a congressional investigation, the attack took its toll, and the organisation lost its funding and collapsed. President Barack Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apologised to Shirley Sherrod, and Vilsack begged her to return to work. Sherrod has a book coming out and a lawsuit pending against Breitbart.

Let's hope this is a sign that deception, intimidation and the influence of the rightwing echo chamber are on the decline.


Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Need for Greed Print
Tuesday, 17 May 2011 17:37

Timothy Egan writes: "The bet was audacious from the beginning, and given the miserable, low-down tenor of contemporary politics, not unfathomable: Could you divide the country between greedy geezers and everyone else as a way to radically alter the social contract?"

Seventeen people were arrested at a sit-in at Aetna in midtown Manhattan, 09/29/09. (photo: mobilizeforhealthcare.org)
Seventeen people were arrested at a sit-in at Aetna in midtown Manhattan, 09/29/09. (photo: mobilizeforhealthcare.org)



The Need for Greed

By Timothy Egan, The New York Times

17 May 11

 

he bet was audacious from the beginning, and given the miserable, low-down tenor of contemporary politics, not unfathomable: Could you divide the country between greedy geezers and everyone else as a way to radically alter the social contract?

But in order for the Republican plan to turn Medicare, one of most popular government programs in history, into a much-diminished voucher system, the greed card had to work.

The plan's architect, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, drew a line in the actuarial sand: Anyone born before 1957 would not be affected. They could enjoy the single-payer, socialized medical care program that has allowed millions of people to live extended lives of dignity and decent health care.

And their kids and grandkids? Sorry, they would have to take their little voucher and pay some private insurer nearly twice as much as a senior pays for basic government coverage today. In essence, Republicans would break up the population between an I've Got Mine segment and The Left Behinds.

Again, not a bad political calculation. Altruism is a squishy notion, hard to sustain in an election. Ryan himself has made a naked play for greed in defending the plan. "Seniors, as soon as they realize this doesn't affect them, they are not so opposed," he has said.

Well, the early verdict is in, and it looks as though the better angels have prevailed: seniors are opposed. Republicans: Meet the Fockers. Already, there is considerable anxiety - and some guilt - among older folks about leaving their children worse off financially than they are. To burden them with a much costlier, privatized elderly health insurance program is a lead weight for the golden years.

This plan is toast. Newt Gingrich is in deep trouble with the Republican base for stating the obvious on Sunday, when he called the signature Medicare proposal of his party "right-wing social engineering." But that's exactly what it is: a blueprint for downward mobility.

Look at the special Congressional election of next Tuesday. What was supposed to be a shoo-in for Republicans in a very safe district of upstate New York is now a tossup. For that, you can blame the Medicare radicals now running the House.

And a raft of recent polls show that seniors, who voted overwhelmingly Republican in the 2010 elections, are retreating in droves. Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the Ryan plan is a "watershed event," putting older voters in play for next year's presidential election.

Beyond the political calculations, all of this is encouraging news because it shows that people are starting to think much harder about what kind of country they want to live in. Give the Republicans credit for honesty and showing their true colors. And their plan is at least a starting point compared with those Tea Party political illiterates who waved signs urging government to keep its hands off their government health care.

When the House of Representatives voted to end Medicare as we know it last month, it was sold as a way to save the program. Medicare now covers 47.5 million Americans, but it won't have sufficient funds to pay full benefits by 2024, according to the most recent trustee report. Something has to be done.

Many Republicans want to kill it. They hate Medicare because it represents everything they are philosophically opposed to: a government-run program that works and is popular across the political board. It's tough to shout about the dangers of universal health care when the two greatest protectors (if not creators) of the elderly middle class are those pillars of 20th-century progressive change, Social Security and Medicare.

For next year's election, all but a handful of Republicans in the House are stuck with the Scarlet Letter of the Ryan Plan on their record. Soon, there will be a similar vote in the Senate. It will not pass, but it will show which side of the argument politicians are on.

There is a very simple way to make Medicare whole through the end of this century, far less complicated, and more of a bargain in the long run than the bizarre Ryan plan. Raise taxes. It hasn't sunk in yet, but most American pay less taxes now than anytime in the last 50 years, according to a number of measurements. And a majority of the public now seems willing to pay a little extra (or force somebody else to pay a little extra) to keep a good thing going. Both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush raised taxes, by the way.

Given a choice between self-interest and the greater good, voters will usually watch out for themselves - unless that greater good is their own family. For Republicans intent on killing Medicare, it was a monumental miscalculation to miss that logical leap.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Catholic Scholars vs. John Boehner Print
Monday, 16 May 2011 19:16

Intro: "The House speaker, who will deliver Saturday's commencement address at the Catholic University of America, has supported a budget that violates the church's social teachings, Roman Catholic scholars charge."

John Boehner, with Mitch McConnell in the background, listens to a question during a news conference, 11/03/10. (photo: Reuters)
John Boehner, with Mitch McConnell in the background, listens to a question during a news conference, 11/03/10. (photo: Reuters)



Catholic Scholars vs. John Boehner

By Tim Rutten, Los Angeles Times

16 May 11

 

The House speaker, who will deliver Saturday's commencement address at the Catholic University of America, has supported a budget that violates the church's social teachings, Roman Catholic scholars charge.

t the nation's Roman Catholic universities, controversy over the choice of commencement speakers has become almost as regular an annual ritual as graduation itself.

Two years ago, conservative Catholics made a major issue of President Obama's speech to Notre Dame's graduating class. Their argument was that no Catholic institution ought to honor anyone who favors abortion rights. This spring's contretemps is a bit of a mirror image of that one: More than 70 leading Catholic scholars have sent a pointedly critical letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who will deliver Saturday's commencement address at the Catholic University of America. The signers charge that the budget the Republican leader recently pushed through the House ignores the church's social teachings.

"Your voting record," they write, "is at variance from one of the church's most ancient moral teachings. From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policymakers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it."

The letter goes on to describe the GOP budget's proposed abolition of Medicare and Medicaid, while at the same time cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy, as "anti-life."

Boehner happens to be Catholic, and the fact that both he and his Democratic predecessor, Nancy Pelosi, have been attacked by their co-religionists as insufficiently Catholic reflects the American church's ongoing civil war between those (mainly Republicans) who want to elevate abortion and same-sex marriage above all other social and political questions and those (mainly Democrats) who subscribe to the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's view that the church's teachings on life and society are a "seamless garment."

The scholars' letter is a subtle riposte not only to Catholic conservatives but to the growing number of bishops who suggest that Catholicism and membership in the Democratic Party are incompatible.

To understand why, you need to start by recalling that Catholic University was founded in 1887, with the approval of Pope Leo XIII, whose great encyclical Rerum Novarum is the foundation of the modern church's social teachings. The school is the church's only American institution of higher learning founded by the bishops, and many leading prelates serve as trustees and, therefore, approved the invitation to Boehner. In other words, to chide the speaker is to chide them. The signers of this letter, unlike the bishops in the Obama controversy, also have been at pains to say they welcome Boehner to Catholic U, though they disagree with him.

Even so, what this controversy brings into fresh focus is just how distasteful it is in the American context to turn politics into a kind of inquisition into any officeholders' religious conscience - or, for that matter, to allow religious conviction to blindly dictate political decisions.

Not long ago, scholar and commentator Michael Sean Winters, writing in the Jesuit magazine America, summed up the dangers inherent in this manner of weighing political judgment and religious conviction. He wrote: "The disagreement that is most necessary is not between Catholic conservatives and Catholic liberals.... The social doctrine of the church, and specifically its humanism, its emphasis on an integral appreciation for human dignity, is the necessary tonic for the excesses of both left and right in American political life.... Precisely because the church concerns herself first with the human person and derivatively with politics, her teachings transcend the debates of the day in compelling ways."

The seductive aspect of reductionism, whether in politics or religion, is the false promise of clarity. But just as meaningful politics can't really be reduced to a series of nonnegotiable demands or single-issue litmus tests, neither can genuine religion be reduced to mere ethics or a series of legislative votes. Church and state are separate in America not simply through constitutional tradition but because the tradition recognizes that politics and religion are distinct aspects of human experience. They often inform and, sometimes, challenge each other, but when they merge, the result is harsh and unlovely. There's a reason we deem "theocracy" a term of opprobrium.

Few rhetorical exercises are as forgettable as the average commencement address, but the controversy surrounding this one ought to be an occasion for sober reflection.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
In Defense of Michael Moore Print
Friday, 13 May 2011 09:58

Keith Olbermann writes: "Michael Moore is damned good at questioning official stories and should be encouraged to do so, even at the risk of offending some liberals of uncertain provenance. Because I'd rather have one question too many than one too few and because while the Official Story is always 'official' it is not always more than just 'a story.'"

Keith Olbermann. (image: FOK News Channel)
Keith Olbermann. (image: FOK News Channel)



In Defense of Michael Moore

By Keith Olbermann, FOK News Channel

13 May 11

 

 

he quickest way for a nation to ruin itself is to sanctify falsehood. And the quickest way to sanctify falsehood, is to attack anyone who even asks if it's falsehood.

I do not have a problem with this country dispatching a shoot-to-kill team to get Osama Bin Laden. The impracticality of a trial - the prospect of hostage-taking, or other attempts to free a living and captured Bin Laden - are compelling reasons to do what was done. Even on the philosophical and legal levels, there are reasons to believe that Bin Laden was not a mere state-less terrorist, but the self-proclaimed leader of an entity of some kind, a virtual, if not mapped, nation which had declared war on the United States. I do not think you can imprison the equivalent of soldiers of that conflict, indefinitely, without trial. But the leader of that entity? I think there is much evidence that you can shoot him, the way we shot him.

What I object to, is those who want to silence those who disagree with me.

My friend Michael Moore told CNN, quote, "We've lost something of our soul here in this country. Maybe I'm just an old-school American who believes in our judicial system. We're better than them, we don't just operate in an uncivilized way the way they did on 9/11."

Michael's points are right-on. More over, only someone who had deliberately forgotten the last decade would think that our shooting Bin Laden won't be used as an excuse by somebody somewhere for shooting an American - and soon.

I believe, with great regret, that the pragmatic circumstances of keeping Bin Laden alive outweighed, very narrowly, what Michael is addressing. But for him to then be accused of "intellectual liberal hand-wringing" by a supposedly liberal commentator on a supposedly liberal television network, is outrageous.

Further, to suggest that those hoping to keep to the ideals of this nation - even if it was impractical to apply them here, even if Michael Moore was wrong - to suggest that those hoping to keep to the ideals of this nation preferred a route that would have gotten President Obama impeached, is farcical, and beyond the pale, and calls into doubt not Moore's point-of-view, but the willingness of his critics to permit the questioning of the proverbial official story.

Some of us - not enough - questioned the official story in 2002 and 2003. But few of us who did so, had as much to lose as did Michael Moore. We were accused of "intellectual liberal hand-wringing" - even by supposedly liberal commentators on supposedly liberal television networks. We were dismissed, and demonized.

And to this day, even though Michael Moore was right, and George Bush was wrong, and even though Michael Moore was right, and Newt Gingrich was wrong, and even though Michael Moore was right, and John Boehner was wrong - to this day it is Moore who is demonized by the Republican Cult in ways that Bush and Gingrich and Boehner are not demonized by the American Left.

Instead, Moore, himself, now gets demonized in part, by the American left.

I want Michael Moore to question everything. I want him even to repeat the ten tweets he had in the aftermath of the killing of Bin Laden, in which he picked up on his theme from three years ago, when he told Larry King that the story that Bin Laden was living in caves, moving from one to the other, was palpable nonsense, that the only millionaire who willingly lived in a cave was Batman, and he only went there to change costumes.

I want Michael Moore, and every other Michael Moore, to remind us that, indeed, "Pakistan just couldn't be seen as participating with us" and that, indeed, "the story has changed four times now in four days" and that, indeed, "As long as he wasn't conducting terror, Osama Bin Laden alive served a purpose. Someone should just fess up: the war industry needs fear to make (money)."

There doesn't have to be a conspiracy for those details to be true. You don't have to agree with Michael Moore, to thank him for reminding us of them.

Yet or what he said on one television network, Moore was upbraided on another, accused of doubting that the Navy Seals were trained enough to know whether or not they were in danger, and of, quote, "dissing" them.

On May 8th, 2003, I became the first person on cable news to even refer to a report in the newspaper The Toronto Star which had revealed that a U-S Commando raid in Iraq was not only not what Central Command had claimed it had been, but that it was not necessary at all. It was the quote "rescue" unquote of the injured and captured Private Jessica Lynch - an event now considered a symbol of the lies, exaggerations, and propaganda of The Bush Administration.

I was accused of "liberal hand-wringing." I was accused of doubting that the Commandos had been trained enough to know whether or not they were in danger. Demands were made that I apologize to the servicemen. And I did so. Because, since I had not insulted them any more than Michael Moore had insulted the Seals who went in for Bin Laden, I saw, in underscoring this point, a wonderful opportunity to tell of the falsehood of the Lynch story again.

Do we want to go back to the way the media was in this country eight years and four days ago? That to question the honesty of those in power is to find oneself painted as unpatriotically questioning the troops?

Because that is where Michael Moore's critics would lead us. I want hand-wringing over exactly who a President gets to kill. I want Liberals to question other Liberals. If the official story deviates at all from the facts, I want the official story questioned.

Michael Moore is damned good at questioning official stories and should be encouraged to do so, even at the risk of offending some liberals of uncertain provenance. Because I'd rather have one question too many than one too few and because while the Official Story is always "official" it is not always more than just "a story."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3411 3412 3413 3414 3415 3416 3417 3418 3419 3420 Next > End >>

Page 3416 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN