You forgot Conan getting kicked off The Tonight Show.

Bloody Sandra Day O'Connor!!

I had to force myself out of bed yesterday morning. That Supreme Court decision knocked the wind out of me.

Geesh! I walk away from the blog for a few days to handle matters on my winding down law practice only to return to find my amigo overwhelmed by the admittedly awful news.

Before dismay sets in and turns to depression, I thought I'd leave a few positive notes.

Over at MSM's "paper of record," Bob Herbert posted a refreshing Jan. 22, 2010 editorial, They Still Don’t Get It, which reflects that at least one member of the MSM finally does.

And then there are the words from Howard Zinn's A Power Governments Cannot Suppress:

It is easy to be overwhelmed...by the realization that the war makers have tremendous power. But some historical perspective can be useful, because it tells us that at certain points in history governments find that all their power is futile against the power of an aroused citizenry.

There is a basic weakness in governments, however massive their armies, however vast their wealth, however they control images and information, because their power depends on the obedience of citizens, of soldiers, of civil servants, of journalists and writers and teachers and artists. When the citizens begin to suspect they have been deceived and withdraw their support, government loses its legitimacy and its power.

You of all people, Brad, as one of this nation's foremost advocates for election integrity, understand how much has been accomplished in the face of tremendous opposition by you and a small band of election integrity advocates. You've brought the spread of the paperless DRE to a halt.

Your posts on op-scans and MA reveal that the task is far from complete.

It has been a difficult road, but the struggle to pierce the corporate media veil, to expose the deceptions and to speak truth to power is what defines you, Brad.

So persevere, my friend. Tomorrow will be better.

Ernest @4

Great comment Ernest...
Things indeed seem bleak now, the tendency is to chuck it all, pull the covers over our heads and give up.

These are the times that try our souls...If we are truly committed to Truth, Peace and Justice (TPJ) then we'll take our time to mourn what's happened this week...and then continue to stand for TPJ. I have faith in the Universe of Truth....the lying, thieving warmongers won't win...unless we allow them to.

It's not over until Truth wins....

Brad, I applaud your efforts. However, by now you should realize that the system has been rigged from the start.

There is no left/right. There is only those in power and those not in power. Left/Right is only a way to divide and conquer the population - to pit person against person and leave them in confusion.

Rather than focusing on left/right, or country vs country, think of the world as being aligned along different lines. Leaders of virtually all countries are all aligned with each other. Think of the bigger picture. It is a CLASS war.

Once again, though, good job with what you are doing. It is much appreciated.

As much as the Supreme Court decision troubles me, I have to remind myself that we DO have a Constitution and we DO have a First Amendment and, like it or not in certain situations, we DO need to operate within those boundaries. It's always troubled my, the dichotomy between special interest influence and freedom of speech rights in regard to campaign contributions. The court did the right thing. Hopefully, Congress can find a better way to make the process clean.

The Bush/Obama/CIA/Neocon reign of terror continues! let's pop some popcorn and sit back and enjoy what they have in store for us next:

>> Swine flu re-emergence
>> War with Venezuela
>> Another false flag terrorist event or two
>> More capitulation from the Dems and blaming it all on the big, bad right

And much more. I'm popping some popcorn!

Jack Nauti - Please share with me where our Constitution ensures that Corporations, fictional entities which have no right to vote, which can't go to jail, which can never die, have a Constitutional "right" to anything --- Much less free speech.

It seems it should go without saying that if you don't actually have a mouth, are an entirely fictional entity, you have no "right" to anything, much less freedom of speech, at least as spelled out in our Constitution.

Of course, feel free to share any quotation from it which demonstrates that I am wrong and you are right. I'm sure you cannot, because it simply doesn't exist, except in the minds of those --- (apparently like yourself?) --- who have duped into believing otherwise.

""If we do nothing then I think you can kiss your country goodbye," Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) told RAW STORY hours after the court's decision was announced. "You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos like Nascar drivers.""

LOL What about "term limits" ,if the CEO of the elected "Presidential Corporation " changes can "term limits" apply or do they reset ?

Here is a interesting video that will comfirm the ""Worst. Week. Ever."" minus the "week".

Know Your Enemy

So, what do Glenn Greenwald, Ron Paul, and the Young Americans for "Liberty" have to say about this:

“One day the Constitution of Colorado is the highest law of the state,” said Robert F. Williams, a law professor at Rutgers University. “The next day it’s wastepaper.”

NYTimes: 24 States’ Laws Open to Attack After Campaign Finance Ruling

http://www.nytimes.com/2...s/politics/23states.html

Ramifications of SCOTUS decision: FOREIGN multi-national companies can effect AMERICAN elections!!!

The Supreme Court "might support allowing foreign companies to spend freely in elections in the United States."

http://rawstory.com/2010...zation-electoral-system/

Glenn Greenwald was for the SCOTUS decision, the Young Americans for "liberty" were for it, and the YAL are Ron Paul supporters so I assume Ron "free market" Paul was for it, too.

Global multi-national companies can spend freely in American elections...hmmmm...can you say New World Order and bye bye American sovereignty? I don't believe in coincidences, and it seems like all bad decisions result in steps closer to globalization and new world order.

Re Jack Nauti #7. In addition to the point Brad makes, keep in mind that when you allow corporate wealth to dominate the public airwaves (in actuality it already did before we got this abominable decision) you are shutting off the right of ordinary citizens to be heard.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, the media landscape consisted of numerous partisan newspapers, pamphlets etc., and very little else. While there was a gap between what those with access to publications and those who could do little more than face-to-face encounters, or, at best, speaking to a small crowd, today 95% of what we see, hear and read comes from a handful of giant media conglomerates.

Yes, the Court said everyone, including corporations, has an equal right to free speech --- but in reality, these five radical-right jurists who themselves have never had to face election have ignored that some have a right that is far more equal than others.

By permitting corporate wealth unrestricted access to the public airwaves for the purpose of political speech, the Court's decision has drowned out the free speech rights of the common citizen.

China. Chilling. BTW Dan, was agreeing with you on the other thread...

I was reading the prophet Isaiah today. In the fifth chapter, he said "... and nomads shall eat among the ruins of the rich."

The rapacious oligarchical planet-destroyers will make a ruin of everything, eventually (what they have been doing, not just this week, but for a long, long time, must eventually meet its telos of self-annihilation).

What we need is to be flexible (mentally, physically, economically, socially, spiritually), to be full-spectrum nomads.

Carry on, Brad.

When people on this thread and other threads talk about wanting to pack up and leave now that this country's political system no longer even has the illusion of liberty and freedom for all, I ask where are you going to go? The US intelligence, military and economic systems have total global reach. Unless you hide in a remote valley and stay totally off the grid they can mess with you any time and any place you go. We can't run so we must stand and fight. I'm not sure how, but it's obvious that there's no place to go.

(Without yet reading any of the comments above...)

Brad, I SO agree. Please know how important your work is, and that you are one of those voices we require. There's been you, and 'Ring of Fire Radio', Greg Palast, 'Democracy Now', Bill Moyers (first of this latest era in 'Now with Bill Moyers', then reborn in 'Bill Moyers Journal' like Sherlock from his Moriarty-like tumble with Tomlinson), David Brancaccio, and Keith Olbermann (who I discovered online during that same December 2004 when I found the Curtis affidavit on your website, both questioning the election results), and finally Rachel Maddow. And Stewart/Colbert to laugh.

And on January 14th I learned that Bill Moyers is retiring and Now with David Brancaccio is going off the air.

Just when we need them so badly.

I WAS so relieved to know that Mike and Bobby are going to carry on, that they've been picked up for syndication. And they are two of our very best, very fiercest, and very heartfelt voices.

Link arms and carry on. I can see, too, that I need to re-prioritize my attention back into learning and sharing.

Hang in there. I heard Elizabeth Warren, watching the TARP, was strongly encouraged by Obama's announcements about holding the banks more responsible on Thursday. It's a flicker.

Ah, now that I've read above, kudos to Ernest A. Canning. Well said.

Barbara:

That's good news about "Ring of Fire" continuing. Hope I can find the podcast!

Great to hear Brad and Peter B. together again as we all fade into the sunset.

Barbara Bellows-TerraNova - and let's not sell short MSNBC with Olbermann/Maddow/Schultz. I think there's propaganda out there trying to get us to believe they're the "FOX 'news' of the left". Absolutely FALSE! They're the only corporate-owned shows making people smart, covering things that need to be covered and aren't being covered (by anything corporate owned), and doing actual investigative journalism.

That's another thing that's pissing me off: people on the LEFT dismissing them, actually like Glenn Greenwald and Jon Stewart. Maddow and Olbermann fight back against them, too, when they lampoon them.

There's a big difference: they're not LYING like FOX "news", they're just covering liberal things that aren't being covered anywhere else. I think they can be likened to Bill Moyers, actually.

They bash the Democrats severely and more accurately than the right does. They call them on what they are ACTUALLY doing bad...not things like Obama doesn't have a birth certificate.

Olbermann/Maddow/Schultz are the only ones accurately holding all sides accountable on anything corporate-owned.

Just watch all of them and tell everyone what you think. See if it's FOX "news" on the left. That's totally false.

Larry (and everyone else:

Here's the Ring of Fire website. Watch for updates.

Big Dan:

You're correct. I can't stand it when MSNBC is referred to as Left. It's, more than often, just fact-checking and fact-exposing. These days, the opposite of Right isn't Left. It's Truth.

FOX "news" doctors footage, LIES, and is a GOP operation.

Olbermann/Maddow/Schultz point out their lies, accurately report on things that both the GOP and Democrats are doing to screw us...and you have people on the left calling them the "FOX 'news' of the left".

More misguided assessments from otherwise intelligent people. I really think the people on the left who say that, do NOT watch their entire shows on a regular bases. In fact, I can guarantee you that.

Watch Olbermann/Maddow/Schultz for a while, their ENTIRE shows (not once, but more than once), and YOU decide. But don't make an opinion because someone else is saying it, or because you like Glenn Greenwald and Jon Stewart and they're saying it.

Maybe if Olbermann/Maddow/Schultz get too big and popular, they'll have another 9/11 and label them "unPatriotic" and take them off the air...like they did to Phil Donahue, the #1 rated show on MSNBC at the time. But he spoke out against going into Iraq.

Big Dan ~ I love you. But I hate Keith Olbermann.
What an ego-blow. And Chris Matthews is a colossal wiener. While MSNBC doesn't LIE, they're baffoon-y, over-the-top, opinion-tainment. It's like watching cartoon news. (Tho, I still watch Rachel and think she's quite good for a news "opiner".)

All they do anymore is megaphone and repeat FOX NEWS talking points in attempt to refute, only resulting in their entire news agenda determined by Limbaugh, et al. They're just helping to promote the bad material...

Don't let comparisons between FOX and MSNCBC stick in your craw, BD. I'm pretty sure you'd agree that ALL CABLE NEWS is sub-par, and in some cases - dangerously bad.

Again I say, Let's hear it for the Internets

Folks like Brad can say what they want, for all to read!

......Oooooops. Read....heh. And write, and calculate, and THINK.......

We've got a problem....

Ernest,

Because no one else here seems inclined to challenge your statements, I feel an obligation to do so, even though I suspect we probably desire the same outcomes.

I point this out because I find it practically physically painful to listen to the echo-chamber of people agreeing with arguments that, to my ears, are such Potemkin villages.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, the media landscape consisted of numerous partisan newspapers, pamphlets etc., and very little else. While there was a gap between what those with access to publications and those who could do little more than face-to-face encounters, or, at best, speaking to a small crowd, today 95% of what we see, hear and read comes from a handful of giant media conglomerates.

Today more than ever before, there are a wide variety of ways of publishing what you would LIKE for people to read. It is true that most people go to only a few sources, and it is true that those sources are corporate-controlled. That's because those sources have found ways of accumulating audiences. You are not entitled to an audience, you are entitled to the right to say what you wish. You have that right.

these five radical-right jurists who themselves have never had to face election

What does this mean, Ernest? The framers established a three-branch government, with the Supreme Court intentionally unelected. That's why the Supreme Court, in previous years, has been able to accomplish things that you and I believe in, but that the radical right found hateful.

I'm ready to join you if you wish to point out that the current court has been illegitimate since 2000, but this sort of bashing of the branch for being "unelected" sounds as foolish to me coming from one side as it does from the other.

By permitting corporate wealth unrestricted access to the public airwaves for the purpose of political speech, the Court's decision has drowned out the free speech rights of the common citizen.

How does more speech "drown out" free speech rights. Who is forcing people to watch Fox rather than read Brad Blog. Does the presence of Fox somehow interfere with Brad Blog's ability to find its audience?

Jeannie Dean:

Go easy on Olbermann, he is a very important voice because he is also a football commentator. I have never liked the goofy part of his show, but notice he cleverly puts the most important stories at the start and works backwards. If he can manage to bring the beer commercial crowd to their senses, we are much better off. Maddow is the next baby step along the way until Comcast buys the station and destroys them both. It's hilarious how scared the right is that a couple of shows on television tell the truth.

Now that Air America is finally dead, Hannity, O'reilly and Beck are actually mentioning Mike Malloy; something they've been reluctant to touch because of - you know - the truth. In fact the entire Christian community is terrified of Mike. The truth, when heard, is more powerful then they are, even with all their money.

The only thing I don't like Olbermann is his dearth of election fraud material, but of course, it's the issue that's TOO BIG to mention.

These days, the opposite of Right isn't Left. It's Truth.

Right on Big Dan and Barbara!

It seem to me this is the moment people should stop the squabbling and clinging to identity labels other than a human being in this country, and focus on the fact that corporations are not people and do not have the inherent rights of persons. That simple truth could be the desperately needed spark to unite us as a nation of people again. Here’s a good summary of how it ever even came to pass:

http://www.opednews.com/...Hartmann-090718-980.html

Cut through the false divisions that keep us from working together to ammend the Constitution.

When I look at this whole mess from outside the US (I'm in Canada) I think that you should stop talking about the Right. They are not conservatives, which Right implies... they are reactionary anarchists.

When I see a video of a gathering of tea-baggers I often wonder if you could go through the crowd and find any 10 people who agree with any other 10 people... on ANYTHING! Other than that they are angry and don't know what to be angry about.

just my 2¢ worth

" 18 U.S.C. § 201 : US Code - Section 201: Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(b) Whoever -
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or
entity, with intent -
(A) to influence any official act; ...

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."

if only this applied to the SCOTUS ruling.

Mitch, I thank you for your very thoughtful comments both as it pertains to my thoughts on media and on the current Supreme Court. I could write a book on both topics and still not fully cover all the supporting evidence for both statements.

I will probably, when I find the time, write a couple of separate pieces for this blog on both topics --- covering, for example, the fact that four of the five jurists who gave us this abomination are all connected to the Robert Bork founded, Richard Mellon Scaife funded Federalist Society, whose doctrines, especially in the field of the so-called "Unitary Executive," are not merely radical-right but subversive to the rule of law.

On the topic of media, there is, of course, a broad range of discourse available on the internet, but the numbers who read blogs like these pale in comparison to the millions who tune into the propaganda networks (TV, radio, print) which are controlled by a handful of giant media conglomerates.

To provide just one example of the disparate impact between the control over what we see, hear and read, turn the clock back to January 15, 2008 when MSNBC, following an adverse ruling by a Nevada superior court judge, successfully petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to prevent Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) from participating in a presidential debate.

MSNBC aruged that Mr. Kucinich’s effort to be included amounted to an “illegitimate” effort “to impose an equal access requirement that entirely undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed by news organizations under the First Amendment.”

Like this latest U.S. Supreme Court decision, the NV Supremes perverted the First Amendment, by enhancing the ability of this giant media conglomerate, whose parent company, GE, is the world's second largest weapons manufacturer, to narrow the range of information voters in the Democratic Presidential primaries would receive during the course of these "debates."

The MSNBC broadcast was heard by millions. Kucinich's anti-military-industrial complex message was heard by the select few who tuned into the Jan. 16, 2008 Democracy Now broadcast in which Amy Goodman afforded then candidate Kucinich the opportunity to respond.

If you fail to recognize the disparity in free speech rights of Ruppert Murdoch vs. you or I, you are missing the forest for the trees.

As an addendum to my last post, on the subject of corporate media acting as "propaganda networks," Mitch, aside from referring you to Profs. E. Herman & N. Chomsky's seminal work, Understanding Media: The Political Economy of Mass Media, I would direct you to a Democracy Now segment, "Freedom Next Time: Filmmaker & Journalist John Pilger on Propaganda, the Press, Censorship and Resisting the American Empire."

In dictatorships we are more fortunate than you in the West in one respect. We believe nothing of what we read in the newspapers and nothing of what we watch on television, because we know its propaganda and lies. Unlike you in the West, we’ve learned to look behind the propaganda and to read between the lines, and unlike you, we know that the real truth is always subversive.” --Dissident novelist Zdener Urbanek Interviewed by John Pilger in Stalinist Czechoslovakia, 1970s

Oh, and here's the link for the Pilger segment.

A quote quote that demonstrates how the corporate media's ability to prevent you from hearing any message other than that which the they want you to hear, undermines the very purpose of the First Amendment:

I came to see that news is what people want to keep hidden, and everything else is publicity.” – Bill Moyers, 05/15/2005, at the National Conference on Media Reform

And there is this from Amy Goodman's Exception to the Rulers:

“In a media landscape where there are more channels than ever, the lack of diversity of opinion is breathtaking.”

Is downfall of democracy and capitalism such a bad thing?

Ernest (#14) wrote:

Yes, the Court said everyone, including corporations, has an equal right to free speech --- but in reality, these five radical-right jurists who themselves have never had to face election have ignored that some have a right that is far more equal than others.

By permitting corporate wealth unrestricted access to the public airwaves for the purpose of political speech, the Court's decision has drowned out the free speech rights of the common citizen.

Mitch (#29) responded:

How does more speech "drown out" free speech rights. Who is forcing people to watch Fox rather than read Brad Blog. Does the presence of Fox somehow interfere with Brad Blog's ability to find its audience?

While I agree with Mitch, I also agree with Ernest. Some speech is "freer" than others. While technically there is no barrier to reading the Brad Blog, there are social, cultural, and educational barriers that are very real.

We have young people arriving at college unable to understand anything more complex than newspaper headlines. They are unable to analyze an argument and reach a conclusion about it beyond what they are told to think. They have no true literacy. Many of them don't read beyond what is required of them. Many of them cannot understand their textbooks. They have no number sense. Without their calculators they do not know that "fifty cents each" is the same as "2 for a dollar." Some of them do not even know that you have to divide one hundred cents by 2 items to get the price per item.

Folks, these are college students. I teach and tutor at a branch campus of a major university. I see this every day of my working life. How, then, will they have any hope of reading, let alone understanding, the information presented here? And what about the majority who do not go to college or graduate from college? Especially now, since with the economic disaster college is even less affordable for so many. For these people, "Fox Spews" is not a choice, it's all there is.

Our neglect of the education of our children is probably the worst domestic crisis we have. We are dooming a large part of this generation of young adults to shallow pseudoknowledge and beliefs that fall right where the global corporate ruling class wants them to be.

Free speech would be a lot freer if our citizens had the intellectiual skills to actually access the information presented to them.

Ernest:

Thanks for the Zdener Urbanek quote. I always wondered where that great observation came from. That is one embarrassing nail that got hit directly on the head!

Ernest,

There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that, as Pilger says, our MSM is a source of propaganda. I stopped believing The New York Times decades ago, once I saw how the "objective news" was adjusted with each change of administration.

It's very easy to agree that there's a problem. But.

By what magic do you propose convincing people to listen to Ms. Goodman (a true hero) instead? Seriously. Should Fox be required to broadcast her show? Would you jam Fox's signal? If not, then what would increase Amy's audience? Should she put on makeup and do a strip-tease? Should she shout a lot? To her enormous credit, she has slowly built up an array of alternative access methods to the information she offers.

Lora,

I've tried teaching remedial math to some of those students, and I'm aware of their problems. (I don't disagree with your characterization.) I don't know what can be done about it, but I don't see how the left is going to win them over from Fox News by complaining that media conglomerates control their news.

If you become a mentor to some of them, you can probably convince them to expand their media horizons. It's slow, but it actually accomplishes something; what is being accomplished by Ernest as he preaches to his hallelujah chorus? Or by Pilger as he preaches to his.

All,

Nothing discourages me more than listening to the smug laughter of the crowds leftist lectures attract. There's quite a bit of it at the Pilger link Ernest offered.

The laughing young people don't know that, in all likelihood, they themselves will sell out within a decade. With increasingly rare exceptions, they have not been provided access to critical thinking and/or a non-religious moral education --- they've been fed a technical training program to enable them to fit into the machine.

In too many political science classes, they've learned that the path to a good grade is to brown-nose the professor.

I believe every candidate for public office should be entitled to substantial free air time on every broadcast station. The provision of such air time should be a condition for any station to be granted a license to use the public airwaves.

Unfortunately, the rise of cable TV makes that less significant than it would have been, even if by a miracle some good legislation were to be passed, or an agency were to rule against the corporations that hold it captive.

One area where I agree with Ernest is on the squelching of alternative voices in the broadcast debates. That struck me, and strikes me still, as inexcusable and illegal. But it was agreed to by both major parties and the MSM, and the public complained not a bit.

What do you propose, Ernest, a vanguard class? That hasn't worked out too well, either.

[ed note: I don't know how this got dropped into the moderation queue, don't see any prompts, but sometimes the software just does that to people with no good reason for it. ??? Sorry. —99]

Mitch asked:

By what magic do you propose convincing people to listen to Ms. Goodman (a true hero) instead? Seriously. Should Fox be required to broadcast her show? Would you jam Fox's signal?

Well, for a start, restoring the fairness doctrine, and applying to any political broadcast on the public airwaves OR on media outlets which enjoy government tax subsidies (as cable companies do) would be a swell idea.

Also, applying consumer laws to broadcasts --- disallowing false advertisement, eg. calling Fox "News" when it is not news, but rather Republican propaganda --- would also be a nice start.

There is plenty that COULD be done, if anyone, such as Democrats had the will or courage to do so. Given that they'd have to wage that war while the very media they are hoping to regulate gets the bully pulpit to oppose them, it's a difficult damned fight.

Feel free to blame Bill Clinton and the Democrats for allowing the Communications Act of 1996 to go through, paving the way for the complete rightwing takeover of those airwaves and cable companies.

Fred S said #38

Is downfall of democracy and capitalism such a bad thing?
_____________________

Fred, what form of alchemy leads you to conflate capitalism with democracy?

Capitalism, especially corporate capitalism, is the antithesis of democracy. As Jim Hightower observed in Thieves in High Places:

"No corporation is a model for how government should operate. Corporations are rigid, top-down, autocratic hierarchies in which executive actions are delivered as fiats to be implemented unquestioningly….Corporations are towers of secrecy, in which all information is considered a proprietary asset to be doled out only in approved snippets vetted through the PR department, keeping as much as possible from employees, investors, customers, auditors, regulators, lawmakers…"

As noted by Noam Chomsky in Failed States, the political counterpart to a corporation is a totalitarian state.

Mitch, I would go much further than Brad's call for a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.

The basic problem relates to the fact that we have entrusted the most vital democracy-sustaining function --- a free press --- to the most undemocratic and publicly irresponsible of institutions --- the corporation.

A constitutional guarantee of a free press is not the same as a guarantee that what is passed on as “news” is the unvarnished truth.

In a capitalist society where a symbiotic relationship exists between those holding office and their corporate donors, corporate ownership of the press is a far cry from a separation of governmental and corporate interests such that the corporate-owned media will serve as an independent “Fourth Estate” --- an agency ready to call the government to account for its misdeeds.

This is not the source of "smug laughter of the crowds leftist lectures attract," as you so ineptly put it, Mitch, but the basics of what I was taught when I attended law school in the mid 70s as the vital purpose of the First Amendment.

The purpose of the First Amendment is embodied in the following quote from the Supreme Court's champion of the First Amendment, Justice Hugo Black, who wrote in his concurring opinion in New York Times vs. United States (1971) (The Pentagon Papers case):

“In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to have served the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die….”

Compare that to the dismal performance of the corporate media in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

You asked what it will take, Mitch. In my opinion, nothing short of a complete divestment of all corporate control of the media; the replacement of the corporate media with a more democratic form of PBS --- one in which its boards, both national and local, are subject to direct election; one in which all candidates from all parties (that means Greens, Socialists, Communists as well as Democrats and Republicans) are given equal access. That is the true meaning of a "free market" of ideas --- not the perversion supplied by Justice Roberts.

The democracy-sustaining function of the media is far too important to entrust to the most anti-democratic of institutions --- the corporation.

Sound radical? You bet. But then so was the American Revolution.

You asked what it will take, Mitch. In my opinion, nothing short of a complete divestment of all corporate control of the media; the replacement of the corporate media with a more democratic form of PBS...

Well, good luck with that, Ernest. You'd better hope that, once you've replaced GE etc... with a nice democratic PBS, Reagan 2 or Bush 3 don't get in and replace the board with appointees that have pledged complete loyalty to the GOP. Because once you've eliminated corporate media, you'll only get what that nice democratic PBS puts on. But I know you'll have a new plan for us if that happens.

I think I understand what you're doing on BradBlog, though: making Brad look good. A restoration of the fairness doctrine seems like a shoo-in compared to your plan.

the thing is, I think the stealth corporate support for candidates and issues and national MSM is doing pretty much all they need to already to corrupt national politics. Does Exxon really want to run a direct add for a climate change denier or against a carbon credit candidate. They will do what they do now, run faux populist ads and campaigns vis front orgs.

Its local politics that I see getting crushed by this as money will so overwhelm and big businesses can so easily pull the rug our a little town, country or average size city.

Mitch - lots of hostililty towards Ernest...not sure I understand why. Aren't we all on the same "side" - or are there more than 2 sides to this? If there are, then we are in big trouble. Kind of like we have been discussing over which side the teabaggers are on.

I am reminded of the scene in Life of Brian, in the sewers, when the People's Front of Judea and the Campaign for a Free Galilee are battling in the sewers. Brian says, "We mustn't fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!"

"The Judean People's Front?"

"No, no - the Romans!"

Mark's still upset, Soul Rebel, because I dared to question the validity of Zionism. He ran out of ammunition on that thread, so he thought he'd come in and take some pot shots at me in this one.

No problem, he's certainly not the first contrarian I've encountered. No doubt, won't be the last.

Soul Rebel,

You're probably right that I should just leave him alone.

Ernest,

First, it's Mitch, not Mark. But, more importantly, good luck with your efforts. Let me know when you've wiped out that corporate influence in the media, because I'll be happy to congratulate you.

Jeanie: We'll probably lose Countdown and Rachel Maddow's shows in a few months due to "budget cuts". but really because both shows actually tell the truth except for the election fraud issues.

Keith Olbermann actually had the courage to say
Supreme Court Ruling Makes Every Politician ‘A Prostitute’ in his special comment Thursday night:
[link removed]
and he ridiculed newly elected Senate candidate Brown not in one special comment on one night, but repeated it and then elaborated upon it for several nights. That's alot of hootzpah to deal with a bad deck of cards that the MA special senate election was.

Yes, it is very true they won't touch election fraud. I've called and emailed over the years. I am sick and tired of hearing constitutional professor Turley speak because Turley is another one of the academics who won't address election fraud issues at all--he deals with election fraud, voting maching glitches like stepping over dog doo on the sidewalk.

I've asked the countdown and rachel maddow shows to please have Brad Friedman on their shows, pretty please. but i'll keep trying anyway.

we're lucky they still are on the air. that says it all! we're getting pretty close to where all news will be a variation of Faux news.

oops I screwed up Brad, the correct countdown webpage for Keith's latest comment on the SCOTUS is:

Olbermann: Freedom of speech has been destroyed
Jan. 21: In a Special Comment, Countdown’s Keith Olbermann envisions a future United States in which today's Supreme Court ruling permitting unbridled corporate campaign spending purchase all the power greed can afford.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...540/vp/34985508#34985508

please remove the cannonfire because joseph HATES olbermann.

[ed note: Done, and I thought Joseph hated everyone...? —99]

Ernest said: By permitting corporate wealth unrestricted access to the public airwaves for the purpose of political speech, the Court's decision has drowned out the free speech rights of the common citizen.

Then Mitch said: How does more speech "drown out" free speech rights. Who is forcing people to watch Fox rather than read Brad Blog. Does the presence of Fox somehow interfere with Brad Blog's ability to find its audience?

BD: SCOTUS said limiting $$$ corporations could give politicians is limiting their "freedom of speech", right? So, SCOTUS said "MONEY" = "FREEDOM OF SPEECH", right?

So, therefore, the more money you have, the more "freedom of speech" you have...according to SCOTUS. That is what they said.

If money did NOT equal freedom of speech, then limiting money would NOT limit freedom of speech.

When the government taxes me, I have less freedom of speech because I have less money to give to politicians...according to SCOTUS.

I think the decision puts in the light of day that our democracy goes to the highest bidder.

Saying that this isn't drow[n]ing out the people with less money (Mitch said that) is saying ADVERTISING DOES NOT WORK and commercials waste TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS because advertising doesn't work..

I misspelled "drowning", please correct that.

Advertizing doesn't "force" (as Mitch says) anyone to buy anything, right Mitch?

But, does advertizing WORK??? Yes!

The question isn't "force", the bottom line is does it work?

The proper word I'm looking for is INFLUENCE. That word never crops up in those against restrictions. They use FORCE a lot to back their arguments. INFLUENCE is the closest thing to FORCE, without being FORCE. And the more money you have, the more INFLUENCE you have.

Let's say all the TV stations broadcast Rush Limbaugh and no one else. The people doing this, as their argument, will say "No one is FORCING you to watch Rush Limbaugh". Yes, but what other CHOICE do you have? And it's ludicrous to say that won't INFLUENCE people.

Like I said, that's like saying ADVERTISING doesn't work. Their game is to take over everything with all the money they have and INFLUENCE everything, and then say "No one's FORCING you to do anything".

Yes, BD! Profound distinction! I have been writing, re-writing, re-stressing that very point to Greenwald (et al) who, for whatever reason, are not making that connection.

The short-sited, surprisingly naive rhetoric coming from them is that that they don't see how this ruling makes anything worse. What an uncharacteristically novel lack of pessimistic imagination from them. (No vision for a decade of bad trending, I see.)

Their ambivalence towards this utterly gross upheaval of a century of campaign finance laws seems rooted in a firm denial about the kind of 100% effective brainwashing FOX is capable of, though I don't for a second believe that concept has escaped our SCOTUS majority.

This is intentional subversion.
2000 2.0.

(And the Tea-tards aren't remotely concerned about it, either, for the record. I wonder why. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to let them, the BRAINWASHED MINORITY, continue to drive the national debate...right?)

I think the argument "Whose FORCING you to watch FOX NEWS instead of READING BRADBLOG" is a truly ludicrous position, because:

1. FOX NEWS, a multimillion dollar, national broadcasting corp. is the DEFAULT CHANNEL in every bar, gym, fast food place, strip-mall, bank, and dentist office all across the U.S.
Can anyone, HAS anyone, measured or studied the kind of mis-information / propaganda retention that is possible in short, practically subliminal spurts, numerous times through out the day / week?

C'mon now: what are the odds I'll see BRADBLOG splashed up on my BANK OF AMERICA TV MONITOR as I'm waiting to cash my paycheck? Slim to none until I earn my millions from selling a screenplay and make it so. (A work in progress.)

2. POPULAR PROGRAMMING - The Simpsons, American Idol, NFL / Superbowl...Murdoch gets the BEST lead-in's to keep his propaganda juicy, knowing full well we're too damn lazy to change the channel, even with a goddamned remote.

C'mon, now: Brad's lead in is Ernest A. Canning - Who writes brilliant, but lengthy, thought-provoking articles that no one who watches FOX news will ever be able to grok, because they're living in completely different reality with different facts and FOX's revisionist history. (And they get distracted by bright, shiny talking points /lose focus easily.)

...Brad's OTHER lead in, Frank Shaeffer, (by Brad's own hand) is alienating Brad's long-time readers and limiting potential new ones with his nonsense crap offensive insensitive articles that he refuses to redress. For me, until there is some captilulation or recognition for that GOD AWFUL article written the morning after the MA election, I will not read Frank here again...ever. A real shame, really, when you consider his expertise on other issues of critical import. (What a jackass, and what a disservice to my favorite blog.)

To equate Brad's resources with FOX's, to say that it's a matter of "viewer choice" when the deck is so obviously stacked by $$$, to posit that all the SCOTUS has done here is rip the band-aid off the corruption real quick instead of peeling it back real slow, to insinuate the playing field is now "level" for the Bradblogs and the FoxNewsNetworks of the World...

...stupidly ignores the mountains of malfeasance we have all spent countless hours here documenting.

The only excuse I can come up with for Greenwald's (and the TeaParty's) noted, quoted, SCOTUS ambivalence, is they don't understand the severity of this ruling because they don't understand how ELECTION FRAUD and MEDIA CONTROL dovetail nicely to make us appear like a Democratic Republic. They don't get how the corporate influence / big money will continue to ensure that a minority of pin-heads can control us all, and how we are perceived by each other and the world.

...and that's because the don't read the BRADBLOG.

Maybe we can pass the hat, raise enough money to have Brad call them all up individually and explain it to them.

@ Katie / Larry ~ I know. I feel you. And it gives me no great pleasure to say it - but I think our pal Keith has jumped the shark.
(Distinguishing between Keith and Rachel, here - which I think MSNBC viewers should do because Keith is really losing his mind and Rachel has a very, very bright future...somewhere else.)

Just because it's the best we have (right now), doesn't mean it should be defended. Keith O's self-importance has been overshadowing his broadcasts now for quite some time. He has become such a gross caricature of himself that he makes Ben Afflek's overly-exaggerated impersonation seem understated by comparison.

I was overlooking that for a while, too, but what I can't turn away from anymore is how much of his broadcast is devoted to parroting the FOXTARDS, but in a "silly voice". Notice how he reads Limbaugh's / Beck's / Worst Person's complete statement...and SLOWLY...in a ear-scratching, failed attempt to lampoon them. I think he's doing the opposite of what he intends - stupidly giving them more play. And he's too much of a blow-hard to see that and self-correct.

Sadly, I believe Keith Olbermann is now doing more harm than good; more to discredit the Left (and to besmirch Rachel's intra-networked reptutation) than he is to defend it / give it voice.

I'm seriously rethinking and re-tooling my news diet. Cutting out ALL NEWS SOURCES on TV except The Daily Show / Colbert. Was going to do that months ago, but thought it probably wasn't prudent to put all my news eggs in a comedy basket...I was wrong. Those comedy writers are much more consistent with the truth in their mock reporting than my mock reporters are in their real newscasts.

I expect I will be a better informed, and I dare say a much happier news consumer for it.

Soul Rebel @ 47: Exactly. My favorite movie of all time.

Jeannie:

I've been observing that in any other time, Keith Olbermann's vitriolic style would be unacceptable, but this is not any other time. For decades now, the Republicans have been making vitriol work for them in defining democratic motives wrongly and seemingly turning elections since Carter.

However, yelling and screaming tend to destroy a conversation and make people say things they regret; I am anything but a stranger to this and have to agree with agent 99 and those who say we should reach out and try to explain our understanding of the truth to the curious and incurious - NEVER liars!

It is our right to try to explain our understanding of truth to those we must live around. I wish I could say I'm sorry to all the people who I thought were too lazy to seek the truth and caused me to lash out and say things even I didn't believe out of rage. To those who lie and subvert our lives, I wish I had screamed loud enough to deafen Dick Armey from any point on earth.

Olbermann is very funny and intelligent enough to apologize when he crosses that line. Scroll down and watch the video to the hilarious end.

After stewing about the Supreme Court atrocity for a couple of days, I came up with this:

The Republicans always say that giant corporations are not that important; it's the enterprising and innovative small businesses that drive our economy!

Am I right?

Well, what do those small businesses have to say about the behemoths with freer speech then they? Eh?

Jeannie Dean wrote:

knowing full well we're too damn lazy to change the channel, even with a goddamned remote

You've identified a good part of the problem, Jeannie Dean. Notice that it does not involve anyone being forced to do anything.

Another part of the problem is that people LOVE Fox News. Ask them. They know it's on their side, because the millionaire commentators all talk just like their audience, and they tell it all it needs to know about pointy-headed liberals.

If you believe in Democratic change, Jeannie Dean, you're going to have to convince people that you are more on their side than Fox.

Or, I suppose you could daydream about eliminating Fox with a government news channel, and hope that the government news channel is better than you feel our government is.

The latter approach will get you a lot of college students cheering you on.

The former is hard work with no guarantee of success, and I suspect it's best done with neither shouting nor sneering.

Jeanie,

Yes I know and agree that Olbermann sometimes takes himself too seriously, but you know, he's got a great voice, and I just like Keith, he's funny and well handsome in a rugged sportscaster sort of way. but that doesn't make up for the waste of time he devotes a portion of his show to redressing the daily vitriole and garbage spewed by Rush/Hannity/Beck/O'Reilly. But I suppose he's got to remind those viewers who might actually be tempted to watch Faux news why it's a mistake.

But in defending Keith, he was the ONLY mainstream media talkshow host to cover this story in his "worst persons of the day":

Keith Olberman on his Countdown show covered this story under "worst persons" and gave top honors to San Diego Sheriff Deputy Abbott. You can watch the video here, the San Diego pepperspray incident runs about 50 seconds from 2:05 to 2:55 here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#31672438

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT HANDLING OF CARDIFF HOUSE PARTY FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE FRANCINE BUSBY
Statement of Kevin Keenan, Executive Director, ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties

http://www.aclusandiego....em.php?article_id=000838

It is really terrible that this Abott Sheriff's deputy will probably get promoted as a result of this incident and the SD Sheriff's Dept finally dropped charges against the lesbian homeowner only after she agreed to not file any lawsuit. This shocking invasion of a quiet gathering at a private home complete with police dogs, helicopters, 7 police cars,was conveniently hushed up. Only Countdown covered this story.

Plus keith also helped raise alot of money for the healthcare days by National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC) http://www.freeclinics.us/ by putting up money himself and so countdown viewers actually contributed close to a million dollars and this helped fund at least 3 healthcare clinic weekends around the country last week.

There is still no excuse for not covering election fraud but that's where the sticky wicket of mainstream media rears its ugly head even on the most liberal talkshows and there is nothing I can do about it except to gently remind them, ok, sending emails to the producers to beg them to cover these stories.

You are absolutely RIGHT about Fox Channel being the "default" channel everywhere you turn, at the gas stations, banks, etc. It's sickening and deadening. A friend of mine who moved from San Francisco to Fort Lauderdale told me he couldn't watch Rachel Maddow because she was so "smug" and I asked him how he could watch so much disinformation and what Fox News has done is make their news shows very entertaining, sugar coating the faux news, giving the viewers a false sense of comfort and superiority to the left who is seen as the fringe, inferior by using the extremely nerdy, unattractive, dorky Colmes as the token liberal on the show. Fox news makes it easy for their viewers to live in their own lala land of unreality and once viewers get hooked on Fox news/TV, then they can't stomach the hard cutting reality of a keith olbermann or rachel maddow's fact based news shows. they can't handle the truth which is backed up fact instead of false innuendo and smears which sums up Fox's news strategy. They want goodlooking blondes showing lots of cleavage who sugarcoat the bad news and reinforce the status quo--it's a sort of don't rock my boat, we're living in a white, everything's OK except for those damned evil liberals and minorities.

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
... Jeannie Dean said on 1/25/2010 @ 10:44 am PT...

Yes, BD! Profound distinction! I have been writing, re-writing, re-stressing that very point to Greenwald (et al) who, for whatever reason, are not making that connection.

See? I told you I'm better than Greenwald! Ahem...cough...cough...sorry, got something stuck in my throad...

#41

I saw Amy Goodman on an interview with Brian Lamb say that MTP and Democracy Now were tied for most watched news show.Was very surprised to hear her say that.She was joking around saying that she was surprised that MTP had done so well.

This is a poem that I wrote about the Massachusetts election:

The Count

One million for you,
One million for them,
One hundred thousand for you,
One hundred thousand for them.*

In the blink of an eye,
In a moment’s breath,
It can happen here,
It can happen absolutely anywhere.
A miscount,
A recount,
A single glitch
Purposely placed there
In order to fix…
The election.

One million for you,
One million for them,
One hundred thousand for you,
One hundred thousand for them.

And in our hearts
With all of our trust
We say this could not happen
This must be a must
Of course, the count was accurate
Everyone was there
People could see but not always have to hear,**
As they tallied every ballot from precincts far and near.

Feed all the ballots through,
It’s neither be wrong nor mean,
Why all they are,
Is a very expensive ballot counting machine.

One million for you,
One million for them,
One hundred thousand for you,
Eek, eek, squeak squeak, 500,000 for them.
It must not be working,
It has to be bad.

It does not match the hand count,
This is why some precincts have said,
“We only use paper,
We don’t trust the machines
They don’t always count the voter’s votes
But instead use other means.”

In the hand counted precincts Coakley won by 51.12 percent,
While Brown got 47.77%*** in voter’s descent.
But that has to be wrong,
The people counting were green,
Diebold now Premier had counted a win with their no fail machine.

Miscount the elections
Then total them quickly
Bring out the announcement
A loss for Coakley.
Then she can concede
Before the public has a chance
To think about hand count
Verses machine counts at a single glance.

One million for us,
Blink blink…squeak, squeak… two million for them
One hundred thousand for us,
Ahhh oooops 700,000 for them.

In the blink of an eye,
In a moment’s breath,
It can happen here,
It can happen absolutely anywhere.

Our democracy can soon be a thing of the past
For when the machines miscount our votes,
The voice of the people will be considered……………dead last.

Written by Amy Marschak
humantheatre.org/poemoftheweek.htm

*There was only a total of 2,249,026 people who voted in this Massachusetts election according to CBS News.
“One million for you, one million for them, one hundred thousand for you, one hundred thousand for them.” is poetic license.

ES&S voting machines showed 53.64% for Brown and 45.31% for Coakley and Diebold voting machines totaled 51.42% for Brown
and 47.611% for Coakley. From blackboxvoting.org.