It should be transparent to anyone who has been paying attention….but I'll say it anyway…. the United States is descending further into an authoritarian militarized country which features separate and distinct forms of justice for the haves…and the have-nots.

The haves….have unfettered and unquestioned rights. Their money is, in actuality, free speech. Their corporations pay cost-of-doing-business fines but are never held accountable and never admit to doing anything wrong….ever. Even though what the haves pay elected officials to do for them does not reflect the will of the American people, compromised elected officials do their utmost, anyway, to fulfill the wishes of the haves. The haves coax the politicians that work for them to pass more legislation which will further enrich them.

The have-nots, increasingly, are marginalized and denied their rights. Right before our eyes, the haves have convinced elected officials that a terrible economic crisis period is the right time for politicians on both sides to take stuff from the have-nots in order for the haves to benefit from even lower tax rates.

In all of this….corporate media have advanced the cause of the haves over the have-nots. This is understandable because corporate media is run by the haves, paid by other haves, for the sake of all of America's haves. In the soon-to-come, waste-of-time argument coming up over unemployment and payroll tax cut extensions….pay attention to how our 4th estate frames the "debate." No doubt, the haves will be pleased.

What media workers don't quite grasp in their urgency to please their haves-masters….is that the haves will turn on them just as they have turned on the 99% have-nots.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently helped to illustrates my premise when he ordered storm troopers to roll up the Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zucotti Park.

During the more than six hours we spent at the raid last night, The Observer was unable to get closer than two blocks away from the protest. We assumed this was due to our lack of an official NYPD press badge, however, we also saw credentialed reporters from CNBC, CBS, the Wall Street Journal, NBC, The New York Times, Reuters and a Japanese TV station get blocked at the barricades.

It really would not be surprising in the future to see Have-Mayors, like Bloomberg, establish a new "embed" policy for the press….similar to the "embed" charade during the Iraq invasion and occupation. One of the ways that the haves control our democratic process, or what's left of it, is to control the information to which the have-nots have access.

And so it was that Bloomberg ordered the press away from any eyewitnessing of the Zucotti camp roll up by the Mayor's storm troopers.

Bloomberg went on to give his justification for denying the press access to his para-military invasion of the protester camp….

“The Police Department routinely keeps members of the press off to the side when they are in the middle of a police action. It’s to prevent a situation from getting worse and to protect the members of the press,” Mayor Bloomberg said, adding, “We have to provide protection and we’ve done exactly that.”

Just "routine." Denying access to the press, the Authoritarian Have Mayor of New York explains, is simply standard operating procedure. Sure, the press has rights…..but the Have Mayor gets to decide when and how those rights can be exercised…and for how long.

The kicker to me is Bloomberg's explanation that in refusing press access to the storm trooper roll up, he was only acting for the purpose of "protect(ing) the members of the press." Bloomberg, apparently, acting as the Have-Daddy of New York City, must unilaterally deny the press access rights to keep the press safe.

Whatever rights you thought you enjoyed in America are now subject to our Have-Leaders determination of whether we are "safe" or not. You see, rights are fine and all….but when a situation is just "unsafe", then, Billionaire Leaders must insist on limiting or denying those rights for the greater good of "safety."

Allow me to expand. Americans electronic communications have always been guaranteed 4th amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure by the government. But no longer. Why? Because it is no longer "safe".

The right to due process? Another right granted by the Constitution which our Leaders have determined we can no longer safely respect. Sure, the Constitution says that every American citizen has the right to a trial by jury when charged with a crime…..but the President can no longer guarantee "safety" if he doesn't have the right to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without….umm….due process.

Treaties against the use of torture? Virtuous, perhaps, but no longer meaningful to Authoritarian Leaders who must deny rights to keep us all "safe."

As the great "shining city on the hill" sinks into the authoritarian sunset, it will be because safety (fear) wins out over bedrock constitutional rights. After all, if it is the job of our Authoritarian Leaders to keep us "safe"…..what pesky constitutional guarantees can be allowed to get in the way?

Should America's richest citizens be able to purchase the faculty hiring rights at state universities?

In other words, in a democratic society, should one rich person decide who teaches at a state university and what the curriculum of that state university will be?

A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise."

Florida State is a state university, funded with public money. What about academic freedom?

The power of university faculty and officials to choose professors without outside interference is considered a hallmark of academic freedom.

Under the agreement with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, however, faculty only retain the illusion of control. The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it's not happy with the faculty's choice or if the hires don't meet "objectives" set by Koch during annual evaluations.

Is buying the rights to choose a university's faculty members, you know, standard operating procedure?

Most universities, including the University of Florida, have policies that strictly limit donors' influence over the use of their gifts. Yale University once returned $20 million when the donor demanded veto power over appointments, saying such control was "unheard of."

Jennifer Washburn, who has reviewed dozens of contracts between universities and donors, called the Koch agreement with FSU "truly shocking."

Said Washburn, author of University Inc., a book on industry's ties to academia: "This is an egregious example of a public university being willing to sell itself for next to nothing."

Read the entire linked article….it's really hard to believe….but it's true.

Buying the rights to propagandize students in a state university's economics department in order to…

advance their belief,….. that government taxes and regulations impinge on prosperity.

Maybe Operation Rescue, the radical forced pregnancy lobby, should be permitted to purchase faculty hiring rights and determine the curriculum for a state university's pre-med department.

Think of the many possibilities.

Exxon-Mobil could own our university's geology, energy and scientific research departments……paying for the right to screen faculty and determine what is and what is not taught. Goldman Sachs could buy the rights to all the universities finance and business departments…..choose the instructors and streamline the courses to fit their preferred biases.

Is this simply more evidence that if a citizenry wants to maintain their democracy…..they must control the wealthy few who would take it away from us?

Or is this evidence of the way forward for a modern republic? A republic where he who has the gold makes the rules….just as the divine "market" intends.

I am interested in hearing what readers have to say about this.

Ed Markey (D-MA)…..yesterday on MSNBC….

We're in Libya because of oil. And I think both Japan and nuclear technology and Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil have once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward…

As I said the other day…..if Libya was not the world's 9th largest oil producing nation, we would not be involving ourselves militarily there. It's the 'thing we do not speak of'…..because….well….it's just kind of embarassing. Truth often is like that. Embarassing. So we avoid speaking it, or hearing it.

During the runup to attacking Iraq….it was, again, too rude, too imprudent, to talk about Iraq's huge oil reserves. Those who dared to be rude, were accused of being maniacal conspiracy theorists in need of counseling. Instead of oil in Iraq….we attacked that sovereign nation to free the people, or to destroy non-existent WMD, or to keep Saddam from giving weapons he did not have to people he did not have anything to do with….or whatever the reason-du-jour turned out to be. But for sure…..we didn't go to Iraq because of the oil. Anyone who said so was a fool or a Frenchman.

In 1977,…..34 years ago now….President Jimmy Carter spoke the truth about our growing energy problem….

"It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century. "We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

"We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us." Carter bluntly pointed out that: "The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation." He called the new energy policy he was proposing, "[T]he 'moral equivalent of war' — except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy."

"…Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained…"

"Now we have a choice," Carter said. "But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs."

It was the speech that established the strategic petroleum reserve, birthed the modern solar power industry, led to the insulation of millions of American homes, and established America's first national energy policy.

That was 34 years ago. All we're permitted to remember about Jimmy Carter is that he was a one-term Democratic president…..who just had a lot of, you know, funny ideas.

America, obviously, cannot be taught and cannot learn. Of course, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent over the past 34 years to prevent us from learning the truth of which Carter spoke. Reagan moved the oil barons into the White House, solar panels were removed from the White House roof…..tax subsidies flowed to oil corporations…..and then there's the wars and the foreign policy which followed.

I am convinced that America's stubborn unwillingness to confront the 800 pound barrel of oil in the room…will eventually lead to our demise.

A new, and even more reactionary and extreme conservative movement, will never consider any government spending on alternative energy policy initiatives. We're broke, they say. Not broke enough to prevent us from dropping $1 million freedom bombs on another oil-rich nation…..but just broke enough to prevent government from acting as a problem solver in any significant way.

Initiatives which Carter spoke about 34 years ago, initiatives which would carry with them the added bonus of producing jobs……can never be implemented in today's Tea Party environment. It's up to the divine and invisible moving hand of the free market to solve our decades-old problem. The market will decide, just like Ronnie said it would.

And so, instead, our tax dollars go to pay for more freedom bombs, more military intervention in the middle east, more misery and more bloodshed. What Carter warned about 34 years ago…..has now become the U.S. status quo.

It's been 34 years…..the problem with America's continued dependence on foreign sources of energy has only worsened.

America cannot learn and cannot be taught. Because of that, what we have witnessed in Iraq, what we are witnessing now in Libya….and what we'll witness in every oil-rich region of the world in the future will be wars and rumors of wars primarily instigated by U.S. officials.

Wars of "humanitarianism", wars to "prevent genocide", wars to stop dangerous WMD from getting into the hands of bad, bad people……but never the truth that they are wars for energy resources.

In December of last year I wrote about the torturing of U.S. Army private Bradley Manning. Held at that point for 7 months without a trial for allegedly stealing and leaking classified information, Manning had fallen victim to the "everything has changed since 9-11" American paradigm.

Today, Manning is still being tortured just as he has been for almost one full year……yet still no trial, no due process.

Who's responsible for this barbaric, unAmerican behavior?

Barack Obama.

Just recently, State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley responded to a question regarding Manning's treatment.

…one young man said he wanted to address "the elephant in the room". What did Crowley think, he asked, about Wikileaks? About the United States, in his words, "torturing a prisoner in a military brig"? Crowley didn’t stop to think. What’s being done to Bradley Manning by my colleagues at the Department of Defense "is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid" .

During the Q&A, Mr. Crowley stated that he felt Bradley Manning, who has been in military custody since May 2010 for his connection to WikiLeaks, is being "mistreated" while in custody.

When Mr. Crowley said that, people in the room applauded. He was later asked by a BBC reporter in the room if everything he said today was "on the record," to which he said yes

And for his candor and honesty, P.J Crowley was promptly fired forced to resign by President Obama.

CNN reports, Crowley has "abruptly resigned" under "pressure from White House officials because of controversial comments he made last week about the Bradley Manning case."

Telling the truth equals "controversial comments."

In his resignation letter, and to his credit, Crowley was blunt and reasonable….

"My recent comments regarding the conditions of the pre-trial detention of Private First Class Bradley Manning were intended to highlight the broader, even strategic impact of discreet actions undertaken by national security agencies every day and their impact on our global standing and leadership.

"The exercise of power in today's challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values,"

Straight talk…..and yet in today's post 9-11 America….forbidden talk. America is now a place, similar to the old Soviet Union, where truth spoken openly never goes unpunished.

What did our Grand Inquisitor President have to say about all this? On Friday, President George W. Obama was asked about Manning's treatment and Crowley's evaluation of that treatment….

Obama revealed that he had asked Pentagon officials "whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of (Manning's) confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards."

In a comment that drew howls of protest from liberals, Obama added that Pentagon officials "assure me that they are. I can't go into details about some of their concerns, but some of this has to do with Private Manning's safety as well."

As a side note here….it's interesting to see CNN's characterization…"a comment that drew howls of protest from liberals." Were there no protests, or howling from conservative Americans? Why is that?

Obama, like Bush before him, simply regurgitated what Army leaders told him about Manning. Even though military psychologists had determined that Manning was not a suicide threat….Obama repeated the lie that Manning's mistreatment was for his own "safety."

It's a sad state of affairs, especially so after Rumsfeld, Cheney and Tenet had "assured" President Bush there were WMD in Iraq.

The objective of our Emperor here is not the torturing of Bradley Manning….that is simply a means to an end. That end is getting Julian Assange of WikiLeaks…..getting him by hook or by crook. Assange has embarassed U.S. leaders through his release of state department cables and military video. Military authorities believe…but cannot prove….that Manning conspired with Assange to blow the whistle on egregious behavior by branches of Obama's Empire.

Obama's purpose in having Bradley Manning tortured is to coerce a confession…..truthful or not….which implicates Assange with Manning's theft and distribution of previously secret information. Once that confession was extracted….it was Obama's goal to extradite Assange to the U.S. where he most likely would never be seen or heard from again.

All of this is symptomatic of presidential lawlessness. Lawlessness which was rampant following 9-11 has now settled in as our new status quo. The American president can now order torture, eavesdropping, assassination, or the indefinite detention without trial of any one…..U.S. citizen or not….without fear of any legal consequences.

As Commander in Chief, Barack Obama is a miserable failure. A man who campaigned often and loudly about the unConstitutional actions of his predecessors has, by his continuation and expansion of them, institutionalized those same unConstitutional actions.

No change…..and no hope.

There's a battle going on inside Ohio. The crux of the dispute is over the same union-busting proposals being fought over in Wisconsin under the leadership of Neo-Confederacy Governor-General, Scott Walker.

In Ohio, Republican Sen. Shannon Jones (Springboro) has authored the anti-union bill tagged SB-5.

From a unionized worker's point of view, here are the most egregious provisions….

End all collective bargaining rights for state employees, including at universities and colleges;

Local police and firefighters would have weakened rights to binding arbitration by instead required deadlocked parties to extend their contract for a year first;

Local government could no longer include terms of health insurance coverage or costs in collective bargaining agreements. Management will pick insurance policies, and employees must cover at least 20 percent of the cost;

Allow local governments to hire permanent replacement workers during a strike (i.e. “scabs.”)

Prohibits public employers from picking up extra employee pension contributions;

Eliminates from state law automatic pay increases for experience and education (no automatic raise when you get your Masters Degree, teachers!);

Eliminates from state law leave policies and automatic 15 sick days for teachers;

Prohibits school districts from bargaining away certain management powers, such as the ability to deploy teachers to certain buildings;

No longer makes longevity a deciding factor when management is deciding to make layoffs;

Requires a public employer to publish on its website any changes in the union contract that impacts compensation of workers, including wages, length of service payments, and insurance coverage.;

Requires the employer and the State Employment Relations Board to publish the parties’ offers on their websites before and after fact-finding is complete; and

Allows schools or local governments in fiscal emergency to terminate or modify a collective bargaining agreement.

I don't think it would be stretching it too much to say that if this bill passes in Ohio, state employees' unions will soon be a relic from the state's past.

However, not everyone is on board LittleJohn Kasich's union-wrecking train. Like these state senators for example…..

"While there is much in the bill I think is good, there are some things I think are decidedly a bridge too far," said Sen. Bill Seitz,…..He said the bill gives management too much power.

Another Ohio state senator….

"I think that reforming collective bargaining doesn't mean getting rid of it. I believe in the right of people to gather as a group and advocate on their behalf."

"If binding arbitration is taken away, what are they left with? My fear is it becomes a situation where litigation is used, and I don't think that's the best way to solve our problems."

Yet another Ohio state senator….

"I've been a strong supporter of collective bargaining my entire career."

Do you know what the kicker here is? Those three state senators are Republicans. Those statements are from Republican state senators, Bill Seitz (Cincinnati), Franl LaRose, (Fairlawn), and Scott Oelslager (Canton).

That's how radical…how extreme….SB5 and LittleJohn Kasich….are.

And that's why many thousands of protesters will congregate in Columbus tomorrow to voice their disapproval.

By now, as many of the harder-cored conservative base have made plain, most folks watching what's happening in Wisconsin and what's being proposed for Ohio realize that all of this is simply one big concerted effort by Tea Party-fueled Republican governors and legislatures to crush what little remains of the backbone of Democratic politics…..labor unions.

When conservative radicalism rules……it's just not enough to be awarded the never-ending upper hand in all political campaigns by the activist-judicial ruling of Citizens United. Oh, no.

Being handed all the hundreds of millions the RNC will ever need to outgun their Democratic counterparts….for eternity…….is just not a big enough pound of flesh for LittleJohn's Crusaders. Alongside of the floodwaters of anonymous and unlimited cash that John Roberts' 4 Horsemen set free to flow into conservative political campaigns……the Democrats must also be starved out of the process. In other words….there must be blood.

What we're seeing in Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey….and soon to come, many other states….is a political conspiracy to deal a fatal blow to the campaign-raising and organizing ability of the few remaining labor unions who still provide support for the Democratic Party.

In other words…..using political power, elected office, as Karl Rove has instructed, not to govern on behalf of the people…I mean, let's be serious…..but instead, to crush your political opponents.

First they came for ACORN, then they came for Planned Parenthood…..and now they are coming with their torches and pitchforks for the unions.

We deserve better.

In the early 90's some 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in acts of violence. The violence was classified as genocidal acts in that the minority Tutsis were targeted for elimination by the Hutus.

Maybe you've seen the movie Hotel Rwanda, starring the capable actor, Don Cheadle. It's worth the viewing.

Here is a very detailed and fair account of that tragic time.

Rwandan broadcast media played a role in the violence.

Rwanda Radio…..

Radio Rwanda is a radio station of the Rwandan Office of Information (ORINFOR), a government information agency that also owns Rwandan Television (TVR).

It played a large part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. It encouraged Hutus to 'kill the Tutsi cockroaches' and told people that the Tutsis were the enemy.

Radio Rwanda officials held responsible….

The trial against "hate media" began on 23 October 2000. It is charged with the prosecution of the media which encouraged the genocide of 1994.

On 19 August 2003, at the tribunal in Arusha, life sentences were requested for Ferdinand Nahimana, and Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, persons in charge for the Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, as well as Hassan Ngeze, director and editor of the Kangur newspaper. They were charged with genocide, incitement to genocide, and crimes against humanity, before and during the period of the genocides of 1994. On 3 December 2003, the court found all three defendants guilty and sentenced Nahimana and Ngeze to life imprisonment and Barayagwiza to imprisonment for 35 years.

In light of this week's national "discussion" over whether media messengers using words, phrases, graphics, and video presentations can ever be held responsible for violence perpetrated by others…..I have a few questions about these Rwandan "hate media" trials and convictions.

Isn't it true that those who listened to Rwanda Radio were free-will agents who could either choose to listen, or not? No one, as far as I can tell, was forced to listen to what was being said on the radio during those ugly days. Granted, early 90's Rwanda had minimal media sources…..but free-will was not outlawed, Rwandans could still choose to turn off the radio.

The Rwanda Radio officials, themselves, again, as far as my reading informs me, did not actively participate in the slaughter. Yes, they encouraged listeners with their words like "kill the cockroaches" and "the Tutsis are the enemies"…..but as I mentioned, listeners could either listen to those words, or not….and then act on those words, or not. Isn't that correct?

In their defense, couldn't Rwanda Radio officials have pled something like, 'Hey, cockroaches are simply cockroaches'….and 'enemies' is simply standard-issue political rhetoric? Wouldn't they have been correct in saying that words don't kill people, people kill people?

Furthermore, I don't see any evidence that Radio Rwanda agents targeted those who did not participate in the killings after having heard the broadcasts. It wasn't as if listeners were under threat if they didn't act on the encouragement of radio talkers.

Isn't it also possible that some Rwandans who did participate in the violence never heard Rwanda Radio? Isn't it possible that some Rwandans simply acted on their own, without hearing any words of encouragement, whatsoever, from anyone? Isn't it possible that at least a few participants in the Rwandan genocide were simply mentally ill, deranged? Who in their right minds could swing machetes with the intent of cutting other peoples heads off?

If I understand what American conservatives have been voicing this week, how is it just, then, to prosecute the Rwanda Radio officials as complicit in the genocide? Could it not be said that those Rwandan Radio broadcasters were simply exercising their right to free speech and that the responsibility for the mass murdering was entirely on those who actually pulled the trigger, or wielded the machete?

After all, Rwanda Radio did air music and other forms of entertainment along with their "kill the cockroaches" political speech….so why single out broadcasters speaking into microphones when those broadcasters pulled no gun triggers, swung no machetes?

For my more skeptical readers, I'm not attempting a game of gotcha here, nor am I being a smartass. I'll save that for another day.

I would like to have a discussion on those questions because I think they are extremely relevant right now. I am not suggesting that Rwanda of the 90's has any relationship to the U.S. of today….I'm not.

However, aren't some of the principles we have been actively engaged in talking about this week, also the principles that were at work in the Rwanda saga? Free speech. Hate speech. Media. Political divisions. Indirect and direct responsibility for crimes of violence. The influence (or not) of words.

With that in mind….how could Rwandan media broadcasters be rightly held at least partially responsible for violent crimes that they did not carry out?

Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik commenting last night on the senseless mass murder event yesterday in Tucson which killed 6, including a federal judge and a 9 year old, and wounded 12, including Gabrielle Giffords, U.S. Democratic Representative….

'When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,' Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told a news conference.

'The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.

'And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.'

He added: 'That may be free speech. But it's not without consequence.'

Many that read here know that I've been warning about something like this for years. Whether it's Glenn Beck pouring liquid out of a gasoline can on the head of one of his associates to make a point about the coming revolution Obama is causing…..or whether it's the totally irresponsible, feisty bitch from Wasilla uploading national maps with crosshair targets over Democratic districts, calling the map her "target list" with instructions to "don't react, reload"….or whether it's Tea Party guntoters carrying signs of hate and violence…….the conservative practice over the last three years of using violent, suggestive language has finally resulted in the near-fatal point blank shooting of U.S. House member, Democrat Gabrielle Giffords.

The 22 year old, who used a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol with a 31 shot, extended clip to do the shooting, may be unstable….may have psychological issues, may be a loner, may be a lot of things. But the one thing for sure that Jared Loughner is…..is anti-government. Loughner…..no matter how this story is spun in the next few days….went to that Safeway Saturday to murder Gabrielle Giffords, a Democratic House member who had narrowly defeated her Tea Party opponent in November. Loughner shot Ms. Giffords in the head first, then sprayed bullets everywhere.

From the shooter's YouTube material….

"My favorite activity is conscience dreaming; the greatest inspiration for my political business information."

"..the current government officials are in power for their currency (propaganda)…"

"The majority of people, who reside in District-8 (Giffords district) are illiterate…"

"I know who's listening: Government Officials, and the People."

December 15th YouTube posting entitled…"My Final Thoughts"….

"If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon….

If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem. You call me a terrorist. Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominen."

"The majority of citizens in the U.S. of America have never read the U.S. of America's Constitution."

"You don't have to accept the federalist laws. Nonetheless, read the U.S. of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws."

"In conclusion, reading the second U.S. Constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications…..

…no! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver."

What is important here is the trend. What the shooter says in his YouTube stuff is the same stuff we've heard from libertarian/Tea Party types for the last few years. Ron Paul and his gold standard line…..an obsession with the Constitution while simultaneously challenging amendments to the Constitution. Declarations of disobedience to federal laws. Loughner's district is "illiterate" because they didn't vote for the Tea Party candidate in November.

To keep this short…..nothing will change after this event. What I mean is that the vitriol and the hate speech from, almost exclusively, right wingers, will continue just as Tea Party folks said yesterday. Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and the rest of the inciters will, most likely, kick their hate-speech up a notch….that's just how they roll. Conservatives everywhere will screech "free speech rights" and "1st amendment" to blunt any criticism of the right-wing hate speech campaign.

No, nothing from the hate-mongers and inciters will change…..BUT…..what will change,…..and Eric Cantor announced it yesterday when suspending this week's House business……is the U.S. police state. Congressional figures will have to be kept safe. That will mean keeping those figures away from constituents by using armies of security guards and a new wave of Secret Service hires.

No one wins here……and democracy loses.

Sad, Senseless, and yet, given the past few years….Inevitable.

If you didn't get a chance to see this eleven minute back and forth between CNN's Jessica Yellin, ex-Bushie Fran Townsend and Salon's Glenn Greewald discussing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks……I recommend it.

For discussion purposes, I transcribed a segment of the hapless Fran Townsend's response to the always razor-sharp Greenwald.

Fran Townsend: "Is he (Assange) profiting from the commission of a crime? The answer is yes. Nobody cared who Julian Assange was until he came out with these tens of thousands of documents, classified documents. So, what he seeks to do now, is to profit from that. The notion of equating him with public servants and elected officials who publish autobiographies after their government service, and profit from that, is purely outrageous. This is a guy who committed a crime. He did not do what your standard journalists do. Oh, by the way, when your other guest refers to the New York Times…..even the NY Times, when they have very sensitive classified information, would come to the government and redact it. David Sanger went on NPR after this and talked about instances when the NY Times redacted classified information from their reports because to not do so would be irresponsible."

Greenwald calls Townsend out on her two immediate lies….Assange has only released segments of 1200-some cables out of a quarter million he has in his possession….and Assange has not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. But then, that's what we would expect from a government propagandist like Townsend.

Again, if you can believe it…..the Townsend lies (which virtually all U.S. main media have circulated and continue to circulate)…..aren't the worst of what she said in the CNN interview.

The worse part is the establishment understanding of the role of the media.

Just imagine Daniel Ellsberg consulting with the Nixon White House, allowing the Nixon criminals to supervise the redaction of the Pentagon Papers. It's goddamn ridiculous to even suggest it…..yet Fran Townsend claims that it's the job of the constitutional free press to first receive approval from the GOVERNMENT before printing their stories.

Earlier I blogged about the NY Times boss, Bill Keller, and how his understanding of the press is the same as Fran Townsend's….i.e., in a democratic free society in which the press has been given freedom to express itself….for the purpose of keeping the American people informed about what their government is doing in their name…..one of the jobs of that press, before printing a controversial story, is to first earn a seal of approval from the very government the press should be informing us about.

That isn't reporting, that isn't journalism, that is not honoring the Constitution…..that is collusion with the government, that is corruption, and…..that is what led the United States government to murder over 100,000 Iraqis and 4500 U.S. soldiers.

Glenn Greenwald is abso-freaking-lutely spot on…..the most disturbing part of the WikiLeaks story is how our mighty media protectors can not be distinguished any longer from our government lackeys.

Or put another way…..an overwhelming percentage of today's main media understands their role vis-a-vis government, as one of reporting on what the government hand-feeds them to report on and challenging any and all who would present evidence contrary to the government's point of view.

At the beginning of 2004, the New York Times confronted the Bush White House with what they had found out about Bush and Cheney's secret program of vacuuming up all Americans' electronic communications….and doing so without judicial warrants. This was a clear and massive violation of not only the 4th amendment but also the strict FISA guidelines passed in 1978 in the wake of similar Nixon-era governmental abuses. The abuses continue today.

2004 was a critical re-election year for The Decider and his Dick, and so the Bush administration told the NY Times that they wanted the Times to hold off for awhile on printing the story…..no doubt based on their "national security" concerns. It's always national security concerns.

So, the NY Times held the Bush illegal-spying-on-all-Americans blockbuster story for ONE FULL YEAR. Bush/Cheney were re-elected in November 2004 by voters who were purposely kept in the dark about a massive criminal conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of all Americans…..a conspiracy plotted and implemented by the very executive branch that the NY Times obeyed by not telling American voters.

The point of raising that 2004 story is to illustrate the assbackwardness of our Village media. American journalism is supposed to inform the American people about what the government is doing in our name…..and yet, the first thing the NY Times did back in 2004 with a blockbuster story of governmental abuse and illegalities was run to the government to find out what the government leaders wanted the NY Times to do with that blockbuster story. The second thing the NY Times did was obey what those governmental leaders told them to do……the Times held the story from circulation on the orders of the government. The same government who was committing the illegalities.

Now, the Village media……as witnessed in Bobo's bullsh*t reprinted in the AB Journal today…..are rushing to defend the government again over the newest WikiLeaks….leaks. The one common thread that runs through almost all of corporate media commentary on the WikiLeaks story is that the government, at all times, must be protected from unauthorized leaks that might embarass that same government.

In short…..the same media whose job it is to serve the people by reporting everything that the government does in our name, now understands their job as being one of cooperating with government to keep Americans FROM knowing what the government does in our name.

The first 3 minutes of the following BBC video with NY Times executive editor, Bill Keller, is actually breathtaking. Bill Keller admits that with the WikiLeaks material, just as he did in 2004, he takes his potential story material to the government for their approval and recommendations…..and then obeys what the government tells him. Remember while you're listening to Keller…..this is the NY Times we're talking about. You know, the most liberal of all liberal publications….

Carne Ross, the former UK advisor to the UN,….the other guy in the BBC video….says this…

"It's extraordinary that the New York Times is clearing what it says with the U.S. government, but that says a lot about the politics here where left and right have lined up to attack WikiLeaks. Some have called it a terrorist organization."

One would think that "it's extraordinary" for U.S. news giants to be first "clearing" what they report to U.S. citizens with their governmental masters…..but it's not extraordinary anymore and hasn't been for quite awhile.

Anyone who reads George Will, Michael Gerson, Bobo Brooks or watches Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, or John King….realizes that today's most popular corporate "news reporters" do what they do, …protect the powerful in government from the people's right to know,…. in order to guarantee ongoing access to the very governmental officials who they are protecting.

In 2002-03, that incestuous dynamic resulted in the fraudulently trumped up attack of the non-threatening, sovereign nation of Iraq….an illegal attack that resulted in the killing of some 100,000 Iraqis and 4500 U.S. soldiers.

MSNBC has a history of firing their liberal stars. Phil Donohue told Sean Hannity what happened to him in February, 2003….and why it happened….

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): What happened at MSNBC?

DONAHUE: Well, we were the only antiwar voice that had a show, and that, I think, made them very nervous. I mean, from the top down, they were just terrified. We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals.

….

HANNITY: You were the highest-rated show on the network.

DONAHUE: Yes. And we were told to leave.

Just in case there are doubters about why the anti-Iraq war Phil Donohue was fired by MSNBC just before George W. Bush launched his criminal attack of Iraq…..read this….

Soon after the show's cancellation AllYourTV.com reported it had received a copy of an internal NBC memo that stated Donahue should be fired because he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war".

MSNBC fired the host of it's most highly rated program in February 25, 2003 (some two weeks before Bush's Iraq crime began) because Donohue spoke out against Bush's war of choice, something which the network brass considered to be "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war."

GE, parent company to NBC and MSNBC, is America's number one recipient of defense contracting money.

Make no mistake….GE, or NBC, or MSNBC has every right to fire who-the-hell-ever they want to when-the-hell-ever they want to fire them.

At the same time, there is no wiggle room in the fact that MSNBC fired Phil Donohue just before the U.S. attacked Iraq, because Donohue spoke out against Bush's neo-con war. And MSNBC fired Donohue despite the fact that he was MSNBC's top draw.

Why am I bringing this up now?

MSNBC today (yesterday) suspended without pay Keith Olbermann, one of the network's most popular personalities, following the revelation by Politico that he donated to three Democratic congressional candidates and interviewed one of the three without disclosing the donation.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement:

"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Now, MSNBC doesn't give a good goddamn whether Keith donated to congressional candidates because several other MSNBC employees, like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, have done exactly what Olbermann did, and they were never suspended or fired for doing so.

So, that MSNBC excuse must be dismissed out of hand as so much bullsh*t.

Why fire another highest rated MSNBC program host, then?

MSNBC's president, Phil Griffin, is in some pissing contest with Rupert Murdoch's bastard child, Fox News.

…Fox, (through) parent company, News Corporation, gave $1 million each to the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Governors Association.

Griffin had seized on Fox's donations earlier this year, telling the Times, "Show me an example of us fund-raising." So presented with evidence of Olbermann's donations to Democratic candidates — even if they are qualitatively and quantitatively different from Fox's corporate donations — Griffin found himself in an awkward spot.

It's the same dynamic seen in the ACORN injustice, the Shirley Sherrod WTF moment, and the New Black Panthers silliness.

Fox, America's highest rated news channel, bullies other networks into covering the non-stories they cover. Those stories are all meant to advance the Republican Party in some way…..and most Americans now know that advancing the causes of the Republican Party is what Fox does. Fox is not a legitimate news network, but rather the communication arm of the GOP. This, of course, is not breaking news.

Fox taunts their competitors on a regular basis. Those competitors are referred to by Fox talkers as the "liberal lamestream media"….the same "lamestream media" which has been so mean to Sarah Palin and other unqualified GOP politicians. All media, with the exception of Fox and Fox's Wall Street Journal, are part of this fictitious liberal media. The same liberal media who Sister Sarah called "bastards" the other day.

The point is that the other networks don't like being criticized this way by Fox and it's Fiends and so, in MSNBC's case at least, their executives pro-actively attempt to mollify the Fiends….I guess…thinking that Fox will back off their intense bullying.

In summary…..what MSNBC is doing by suspending and possibly firing Keith Olbermann is the same thing centrist Democrats do when bullied and taunted by authoritarian Republicans….rather than fight back in defense of their popular policies, they "move to the center" in the hopes that their authoritarian critics will back off.

Those critics will never back off, and attempts to mollify and appease their sorry, bullying asses will only increase the intensity of the bullying, the taunts and the criticism.

Bullies are to be ignored, not coddled. When ignoring them doesn't quite cut it and the bullying becomes impossible to ignore anymore……then asses must be kicked in self-defense.

It's way past high time for the Fox Network to have it's ass kicked with the facts.